Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

January 03, 2010

More Libertarian Philosophical Quibbles

For those interested in the purist/pragmatist (or moralist/consequentialist) debate that eternally rages in libertarian circles, check out my essay in the December issue of Liberty. It is now available online.

The Other McCain says it's worth reading.

Meanwhile, Stephan Kinsella, Inquisitor of the Rothbard Cult, brilliantly refutes my arguments with a combination of sneer quotes, name-calling, stereotyping, and citation of higher authority.

Posted by CarlMilsted at 10:07 AM | Comments (2)

May 25, 2009

More on Simplistic Libertarians

Not long ago I stirred up the pot by openly admitting I like to rile up simplistic libertarians. Perhaps I went too far. One of the commenters thought I was calling all libertarians simplistic. I did not mean this, but it is easy to draw this conclusion, so now I clarify.

All movements have their simplistic thinkers. We have simplistic liberals, simplistic conservatives, simplistic environmentalists, simplistic Christians, etc. I go after simplistic libertarians because I love liberty, and don’t like liberty being tightly associated with low-quality thinking. Moreover, the most simplistic libertarians are also the most vocal in declaring themselves to be “real libertarians,” so active criticism and disassociation is in order.

Many simplistic libertarians derive all policies from simple axioms and ignore all data that contradicts their assumptions. Dare to invoke facts to a certain prominent school of “real libertarians” and they’ll react like a medieval witch smeller and shriek, “Scientism!!!!” This school, along with another prominent school, invoke crude models of human nature, declaring them to be Truth, and then derive all policies and moral prescriptions from these crude models tenaciously rationalizing away any absurd conclusions. In general, the libertarian movement supports a culture of making bald-faced generalizations that are laughably wrong to outsiders; c.f. “Government doesn’t work.” The cause of liberty is ill served by such declarations.

On the other hand, the movement also has writers, publications and organizations which do their homework, responsibly answering objections raised by defenders of big government. They should be encouraged and celebrated. Here is a partial list:

The Need for Self Policing

Every movement needs to do self policing. Leave all the criticism up to the opposition and eventually it all sticks, even the invalid criticism. Stick up for the simplistic demagogues, and eventually the entire movement is brought down. Look what happened to the Republicans. They stuck by George W. Bush as he made one blunder after another by letting ideological fantasies get in the way of observed reality. As a result, the Republicans have lost the presidency and both houses of Congress by a wide margin.

The big government left has its share of simplistic thinkers and its outright whack jobs. But of late they have managed to separate their leadership from such. While they do have their naked aging hippies marching down the streets of Berkeley spouting nonsense, their leader is an articulate, moderate-sounding male model. They even assign different names to their fringes: communists, socialists, progressives.

Meanwhile, simplistic libertarians are given free reign to vilify all subtle defenders of liberty who refuse to drink the Kool Aid. When they get to be the voice of liberty, the idea of liberty becomes easily trashed.

(H/t to Max Borders for finding this video.)

Posted by CarlMilsted at 10:07 AM | Comments (29)

May 21, 2009

World's Wealthiest Gather to Discuss Life at the Point of a Gun

The New York Times has an article about a recent meeting of Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg, among others. While an interesting story generally, this line in particular caught my attention:

Based on February estimates by Forbes, the room had a net worth of about $120 billion, or nearly as much as New York State’s annual budget.

I assume the NYT reporter meant to give the reader a sense of how much concentrated wealth was held by the participants in the meeting. It is an interesting comparison to draw. The statement seems to want to ask the question, "why do these people have so much?" All the citizens of New York State paid all they could -- their fair share -- to the public treasury, yet this handful of folks hold that money outright? It seems like these people have too much relative power. To whom are they accountable? Now we see them having a private meeting, to discuss private matters? Of course conspiracy theories about the machinations of private power get their roots here.

On the other side of this comparison, the meetings of the state legislature are perceived as commonplace, even recorded and made public. In the cultural consciousness, the words "democracy" and "representative government" give a connotation of legitimacy and even nobility to the decisions and power entrusted to this group. The public worries that even this body will become beholden to the privately powerful, so a system of "checks and balances" is constructed, with limitations on financial support to thwart the power of the wealthy.

Yet, we forget constantly that the politicians who declaim corruption are the very ones who vote for the rules that govern the structure of their power. The gang of thugs legislature must coerce its way to having the kind of spending money that Oprah and Bill Gates privately hold. While cloaked in the public interest, all rules of government are at least in some part rooted in a lust for power and self-enrichment. This imbalance in monetary wealth is constantly on the minds of the legislature; they know they have the power to coerce, but must tread carefully so as not to become outright enemies of the privately powerful.

The wealthy also perceive the power of government. The super wealthy stand out from the crowd and know they are being sized up. The rich know what a delicious feast "defenders of public interest" would enjoy at their expense, if the public processes were allowed to coordinate fully with the envy of the looters.

So, while much will be made about the evil plots that Gates et al are possibly concocting, we should remember that they do this at the point of a gun, which is constantly threatened by the socialist left.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 01:05 PM | Comments (3)

May 06, 2009

A Case for Bigger and Better Government

I’m baaaaack! Back to stir up the ire of simplistic libertarians. Back to challenge dogma and impose unwanted out-of the-box-thinking.

Why did I take a break from such a delightful pastime? You might ask. Answer: family responsibilities and low home prices pressured me to move, and move I did into a stately older home – which means more floor space, more lawn, and more things to fix: ductwork, wiring, paint, garage door, lawnmowers and more. Then throw in childproofing – cabinet latches, bookcase anchors, baby gates, plexiglass over glass doors – and I’ve been a busy househusband for the past few months. But at least I had my phone to keep me distracted and annoyed.

My phone: once a benevolent device of high utility, it had morphed into a low-level agonizer, ringing every few hours, with the promise of contact with friends, family or business associates, only to unleash disappointment and furor as the call was in fact some evil robot trying to sell me debt relief or satellite TV. I lived in a state of siege.

I had a new phone number, and it was not yet on the Federal Do Not Call Registry. Without this bit of new government regulation, I was ready to make life nasty brutal and short for the hoards of telemarketers who disturbed my peace.

Fortunately for all, my new phone number is duly registered, and evil databases are updating, now knowing I demand out. Peace at last! And I didn’t have to hire my own goons.

And with that peace of mind I can write, write about why I did not join the Boston Tea Party , even though its platform was saner and more incremental than that of the Libertarian Party at the time. The Boston Tea Party platform “opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.” The Do Not Call Registry is fairly new; not long ago it was an increase, to bigger, better government.

Though government at all levels is too big overall, there are some areas where I would make it bigger, while shrinking much of the rest.

Telemarketing was one such area. Yes, we could have figured out a no government solution: a few firebombings and lynchings might have done the trick. But such “libertarian” solutions would have been uneven, disproportionate justice. True, telemarketers steal time, the equivalent of multiple murders. But the time stolen is widely dispersed in small chunks. Government regulations do a better job of punishing such offenses than the corresponding private solutions.

It’s about justice! Not less government per se. Where government improves justice, I am for it. When government creates injustice, I am against it. In practice this yardstick usually results in a call for less government, but not always.

Posted by CarlMilsted at 09:20 AM | Comments (18)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED

Advertisement