Libertarians

[Teflon]

I could equally note that 99% of Canadians voted for parties which actively seek state involvement in society.

Just wondering which election in Canada had a 99% voter turn out?

 

[QORvanweert]

Just wondering which election in Canada had a 99% voter turn out?

I believe he meant that of all Canadians who voted, 99% voted for major federal parties.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>You've called me vague, universal and nebulous.

I wrote, "Your criticism is both vacuous and universal.", and "...your nebulous claims".  I don't think there is any ambiguity in the sentence structure which should lead you to believe I was addressing those remarks to you rather than your statements.

You wrote "Libertarianism is as violent as many other ideologies. Those who have property need violence, or the threat of violence, to maintain their control over land and resources."  My point is straightforward enough: libertarianism is not "as violent" as "many other ideologies".  As a matter of historical record, actual violence tends to increase as one slides leftward on the spectrum of statism vs individualism.

Libertarians do not generally advocate dividing up ownership of absolutely everything into private hands, and the assumption that all land - or water, or air - in a libertarian society must necessarily be privatized is a false one.  What is actually a principle is that ownership be respected.  An associated belief, which is borne out in practice, is that there is an advantage to assigning property rights: the holder is more likely to manage the asset sustainably (both with respect to financing it, and retaining it for indefinite future use).  People can also be neglected in a lavishly funded welfare state.  I "believe", for example, that the plight of status Indians in Canada would be much lessened if people held more clear private title to land and homes and businesses, and had more responsibility to support themselves on their own earned income, than is currently the case - it works for nearly every other member of every culture on the planet.

Nor is it true that charity must be disallowed, including state-run charity.  What is likely is that the boundaries of state-financed charity will be much more constrained to the truly needy in a libertarian society.

I do not see any need for right/wrong to be governed by feelings, sensation, or emotion.  Only one of the following can be true:
1. There is an absolute moral basis which permits one person to use another as means to an end.
2. There is no absolute moral basis which permits one person to use another as means to an end.
3. It is unknown whether there is an absolute moral basis which permits one person to use another as means to an end.

I am unaware of a proof of (1) or (2).  I am equally unaware of a fourth possibility.  If (3) is assumed in the alternative, is it more right to act as if (1) is true, or as if (2) is true - which is the course of least harm?  The basic point of libertarianism is to try to abide by (2).

The fallacy of popularity is "most people believe X; therefore X".  What I wrote is that something which is relatively common is not, by definition, extreme.  Or as you put it: "You claim that most people have some libertarian views, therefore libertarianism is not extreme."  Exactly.

Anarchism, whether in Spain or elsewhere, does not rule out social cooperation.  Anarchism simply means the absence (or near absence) of organized government.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I could equally note that 99% of Canadians voted for parties which actively seek state involvement in society.

To what point?  How many of those people are voting for what they consider to be the least of evils?  None of us knows.  When all cars on offer are painted black, it doesn't mean that everyone who owns a car wanted a black one.

 

[a_majoor]

Insisting that Libertarians are violent is not supported by evidence. Indeed , libertarian philosophy is based on reducing or eliminating coercion in public and private life, and making ddecisions based on the idea of mutual benefit.

Similarly, your example of the person starving at the edge of your wheat feild is not relevant to the study of libertarian philosophy. There is nothing to compell you to feed and house the poor and unfortunate, but then again there is nothing to stop you from doing so either.  The story of the Good Samaritan is not just for Christians. On the other hand, compelling other people to provide resources to feed and house the poor is not charity nor is it charitable; by definition charity is giving of oneself.

Claiming "good intentions" to compel behaviour is a very dangerous path to take, if you wish to avoid a European example consider that people like Margot Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Tommy Douglas were both proponents of Eugenics; particularly the sterilization of people who were mentially deficient or with medical conditions. Clearing the gene pool of these people is for the "greater good" (and thousands of years of animal husbandry prove this is true for other species); but who sets and imposes the standard? Who decides that human beings are the functional equivalent of cattle in the field or strains of wheat to be cross bred to create something new and "better"? Who decides what is "better"?

 

[toyotatundra]

I wrote, "Your criticism is both vacuous and universal.", and "...your nebulous claims".  I don't think there is any ambiguity in the sentence structure which should lead you to believe I was addressing those remarks to you rather than your statements.

You may be right. Again, let's both stick to debating politics, and stay clear of the personal issues.

the plight of status Indians in Canada would be much lessened if people held more clear private title to land and homes and businesses, and had more responsibility to support themselves on their own earned income, than is currently the case

That could well be. Remember I am not arguing for socialism, but a mixed economy. More property rights on reserves might be consistent with that.

My point is straightforward enough: libertarianism is not "as violent" as "many other ideologies".

I gave the examples of the major political parties. I do not consider these Canadian ideologies to be historically violent. Maoism, however, would be another matter.

What is actually a principle is that ownership be respected.  An associated belief, which is borne out in practice, is that there is an advantage to assigning property rights: the holder is more likely to manage the asset sustainably (both with respect to financing it, and retaining it for indefinite future use).

That is certainly a talking point I read continuously in articles from various libertarian think tanks. However, actual corporations are often driven by their immediate profit margin, not the sustainability of their land 50 years down the line. Under pressure to show constant profits, companies often show no hesitation in rapidly despoiling a forest or lake. And unfortunately, many of the libertarian articles defending environmental property rights come from institutes funded by the same corporations doing the polluting.

I do not see any need for right/wrong to be governed by feelings, sensation, or emotion.

Oh I disagree with you there. Hitting a child. Raping a stranger. Stealing from a blind person.

We sense these actions are wrong, because we feel they are wrong.

The fallacy of popularity is "most people believe X; therefore X".  What I wrote is that something which is relatively common is not, by definition, extreme.  Or as you put it: "You claim that most people have some libertarian views, therefore libertarianism is not extreme."  Exactly.

There are many causes in history and the present day which we can assess to be extreme, even though they are or were popular. According to polls, Osama Bin Laden was supported by tens if not hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Nevertheless, a good case can be made that Bin Laden was extreme. Segregation was enormously popular among millions of white Southerners just 50 years ago. Yet I think a case can be made that segregation is extreme.

 

[Redeye]

Claiming "good intentions" to compel behaviour is a very dangerous path to take, if you wish to avoid a European example consider that people like Margot Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and Tommy Douglas were both proponents of Eugenics; particularly the sterilization of people who were mentially deficient or with medical conditions. Clearing the gene pool of these people is for the "greater good" (and thousands of years of animal husbandry prove this is true for other species); but who sets and imposes the standard? Who decides that human beings are the functional equivalent of cattle in the field or strains of wheat to be cross bred to create something new and "better"? Who decides what is "better"?

Nice non sequitur.  Lots of people in that time frame were proponents of eugenics in some form or other.  Just like many people thought segregationa and "separate but equal" was a decent idea.  Both Sanger and Douglas, however, contributed far more to society (to the world in the case of Sanger and Planned Parenthood, to Canada more specifically in the case of Tommy Douglas) than this rather silly smear would suggest.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It takes a lot more than Sanger or Douglas ever achieved to wash away the stain of eugenics.

 

[a_majoor]

A blogger's take on non ideological (i.e. social movement) libertarianism:

http://walkersunknownthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-am-libertarian-and-that-means.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FwVPTZ+%28The+Blog+of+Walker%29

I am a libertarian, and that means absolutely nothing

I've found myself caring less and less these days about my political affiliation. This is partly because I'm tired and lazy, and simply don't have the energy to maintain an iron-clad political philosophy. I like to think that for the most part I'm just too busy caring about things like the War on Drugs, free speech, and other forms of personal and political liberty to really pay much attention to the philosophical underpinnings of what I'm writing.

Quite frankly, I don't think it matters. I'm more of a libertarian than anything else, but I'm sympathetic to conservatism in some things, and I even occasionally harbor some sympathy for more "socialist" ideas like socialized medicine and public education. Does this really matter? I'm beginning to think less and less that it does.

As usual, Erik Kain is far more articulate than I am:

If anything, I have become more and more of a libertarian the further I’ve moved to the “left”. I say “left” because I think terms right and left have become more than a little useless. I’m probably more of a right-wing liberal than a left-wing liberal, but I’m a liberal in the first place because I care about freedom and dignity and poverty and all that jazz. So I lean to the right on a lot of economic issues, but I’m hardly ideological. I think a lot of welfare-state policies are basically remedial efforts to make up for all the poverty created by cronyism between government and corporate rent-seekers. So I don’t have too many bones to pick with food stamps or healthcare vouchers.

As Erik, Matt Welch, and many others, including Jonathan Chait, Democracy in America, Brad DeLong, Jason Kuznicki, Aaron Ross Powell, David Boaz, Conor Friedersdorf, Reihan Salam, writer Stephen Metcalf has sparked some outrage amongst the libertarian-folk for this critique of libertarian giant Robert Nozick penned for Slate. Read the links above - and throw in Christopher Beam on a related note - and you just might get an idea of the rich, diverse philosophical culture that libertarianism - and its criticism - entails.

Not that any of it matters. I'm partial to Conor Friedersdorf's take: while some libertarians are self-interested assholes, a lot of other libertarians believe in and fight for good causes. That ought to be enough.

 

[a_majoor]

Furthering the idea of social libertarianism is an article by uber libertarian Glen Reynolds (Instapundit). References to the TEA Party movement have no analogies in Canada (or maybe just not yet), but an alert reader can see counterparts in Canada to most of the suggestions made here (for example, joining political parties and becoming an activist at the riding level, or calling Bell to carry Sun TV as a matter of consumer choice.)

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/07/sunday-reflection-three-things-you-can-do-liberty

Sunday Reflection: Three things you can do for liberty
By: Glenn Harlan Reynolds | 07/02/11 8:05 PM

Though many call it the "Fourth Of July," July 4 is properly known as Independence Day. It celebrates the independence of the United States from Great Britain -- or, more accurately, the declaration of that independence, which required considerable further effort before it was actually accomplished.

Today, Independence Day is generally observed by shooting firecrackers, eating hotdogs and hamburgers, and drinking beer. These are all worthwhile activities -- in these Bloomberg-prudish times, they even serve to annoy the nannyists, which is always worthwhile.

But if you're looking for ways to make Independence Day a bit more about, well, independence, then allow me to offer a few suggestions. If you like, you can put them off until July 5 so as not to interfere with the fireworks, hotdogs and beer, though if you want to email a photo of yourself eating a hotdog to Mayor Bloomberg on July 4, be my guest.

While Independence Day is about independence from Great Britain, today it's also associated with more general notions of freedom -- individual independence, not just political independence.

Unfortunately, America's political class doesn't want you independent. It wants you as dependent as possible. As the Rainmakers sang back in the 1980s, "They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please."

So what can you do? Everybody focuses on the 2012 elections, and those are important. But why wait? Here are three things you can do now.

* Attack the funding. Many of the most anti-liberty activities of state and local governments are driven by federal funding -- either direct funding, or grants.

There are a lot of these out there, and pro-liberty activists should identify a few and then urge members of Congress to eliminate the funding.

In the soon-to-emerge financial climate, there will be pressure to cut programs all over the place. Politics being what they are, every single program will have its coterie of defenders.

But programs where there is a constituency in favor of cuts will be less common, and are likely to make more appealing targets.

It's probably best if the arguments are made in favor of money wasted rather than liberty threatened, because, alas, most seasoned politicians aren't especially sensitive to liberty issues. They haven't been very sensitive to money-saving, either, but I think that, at least, is about to change.

And don't be afraid to ask tough questions: If your state university is 60 percent female -- and many are -- why does it still have a Women's Center that was originally set up to ease the transition when it went coed decades ago?

Why are public schools offering DARE programs (shown not to work) but cutting gifted programs? You'd be surprised how much influence you can have by showing up at a city council meeting or a congressman's town hall session and asking questions -- especially if it's on community-access cable.

* Stop supporting the enemies of freedom and start supporting your friends. Cancel your subscriptions to cable TV channels, magazines or newspapers that support big government over individual liberty.

Give your money to people, companies and publications that support your ideals rather than undermine them. The so-called "mainstream media" isn't really "mainstream" at all in terms of its ideas and beliefs.

It's only mainstream because it's the biggest media sector. But it's been shrinking for years. Help speed its path to irrelevance. Likewise for other businesses: If they support government policies that reduce freedom, do business with someone else.

This may not change their mind: If media companies cared solely about the bottom line, the New York Times would have changed its tune years ago, instead of becoming steadily more PC. But it will reduce their importance.

* Join Together. It may seem contradictory to assert your independence by banding together. But our Founding Fathers didn't set America free by acting alone.

In fact, voluntary association, as de Toqueville observed, is part of the particular genius of the American republic. So get involved.

You might join a political party -- many small-government activists are trying to take over the Republican (and some even the Democratic) Party at the grassroots level and work from the bottom up, from the precinct to the state level.

It's surprisingly easy to get involved in politics locally, and you can acquire responsibility and influence quite rapidly if you're good with people and willing to put in the work.

Alternatively, you might join a Tea Party group. Those are still springing up all over, and are already having a dramatic influence on both national and local politics.

Every group is different, as the Tea Party is a movement, not a party, and has no main office. Find one that suits you, or start one if you can't.

If there's one issue you care about a lot, get involved there. Gun rights activism crosses party lines, but has had a major influence in expanding liberty -- over the past decade, the growth of Second Amendment rights has been one of the major Bill of Rights success stories. There are lots of other causes, ranging from fathers' rights to tax fairness. Pick one.

And if you're not a joiner at all, well, you can always start a blog. For some people, that works out pretty well!

Just remember: It's nice to celebrate Independence Day, but as we were reminded at the founding, keeping a republic going takes continuous effort. Start making a difference for liberty today.

And shoot off a few fireworks for me.

Examiner Sunday Reflection contributor Glenn Harlan Reynolds is founder and editor of Instapundit.com and a law professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/07/sunday-reflection-three-things-you-can-do-liberty#ixzz1R9ElJJEQ

 

 

[Redeye]

It takes a lot more than Sanger or Douglas ever achieved to wash away the stain of eugenics.

And those stains - and particularly the most extreme example notably had absolutely nothing to do with anything either of them did.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Maybe in a different time and place.  Here and now, the standard is that the slightest association tars a person.  Let me know when the leftward half of the political spectrum sees reason; meanwhile, I am happy to remind them how deep in their own sh!t they are according to their own standards of judgement.

 

[toyotatundra]

I am happy to remind them how deep in their own sh!t they are according to their own standards of judgement.

Brad, please watch the language.

 

[muskrat89]

Brad, please watch the language.

Are you serious? Leave the Moderating to the Moderators and worry about yourself.

Army.ca Staff

 

[toyotatundra]

Are you serious? Leave the Moderating to the Moderators and worry about yourself.

Army.ca Staff

Will do.

 

[Redeye]

Maybe in a different time and place.  Here and now, the standard is that the slightest association tars a person.  Let me know when the leftward half of the political spectrum sees reason; meanwhile, I am happy to remind them how deep in their own sh!t they are according to their own standards of judgement.

You realize, of course, that the "leftward half" sees the "rightward half" in more or less the same way, surely?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sure, but the leftward half has for decades tried to stake a claim to a moral ascendancy that it does not have, and never did.  All the bullsh!t about being more rational, more "reality-based", more compassionate, more fiscally prudent, more worldly and sophisticated, more nuanced, etc, etc.  Witness in the US the promises of how noble and ethical and wise they would be once the Bush administration was swept aside, but since 2006 they have nothing to show but serial fu*k-ups and a manifest disregard for the most pressing problems of their nation.

They have never been able to fit the shoes they tried to claim for themselves.  I don't call them out for being as fault-prone as everyone else; I call them out for being as fault-prone as everyone else while claiming that the sun shines out of their collective behind.

 

[a_majoor]

The beauty of Libertarian thought is it simply makes no claims to moral ascendency, indeed the idea we should limit the power and ability of people, institutions or governments to initiate the use of force is because force is often invoked on the basis of moral claims.

These claims can be based on religion or ideology (or whatever else strikes the fancy of a person, institution or State to justify using force). C.S, Lewis summed it up very well:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. "

 

[toyotatundra]

The beauty of Libertarian thought is it simply makes no claims to moral ascendency

Libertarians absolutely make a claim to moral ascendancy. Namely, the ascendancy of individual preference over the needs or values of the community as a whole.

In a time of invasion, the libertarian would allow individuals to opt out of the military; their individual morals ascendant over the needs of their community. In contrast, a non-libertarian would expect all citizens to do their duty, and risk their lives. I do not consider this non-libertarian approach to be less moral. In fact, the very opposite. Under such outside threat, it would be immoral to condone laziness and cowardice.

Libertarianism embraces the noble ideals of autonomy and individual conscience. Libertarianism is admirable, but imbalanced. In the nitty gritty of the real world, libertarianism morphs into self-indulgence. Instead, we need a balance between the "me" and the "we".

 

[Edward Campbell]

Libertarians absolutely make a claim to moral ascendancy. Namely, the ascendancy of individual preference over the needs or values of the community as a whole.

In a time of invasion, the libertarian would allow individuals to opt out of the military; their individual morals ascendant over the needs of their community. In contrast, a non-libertarian would expect all citizens to do their duty, and risk their lives. I do not consider this non-libertarian approach to be less moral. In fact, the very opposite. Under such outside threat, it would be immoral to condone laziness and cowardice.

Libertarianism embraces the noble ideals of autonomy and individual conscience. Libertarianism is admirable, but imbalanced. In the nitty gritty of the real world, libertarianism morphs into self-indulgence. Instead, we need a balance between the "me" and the "we".

Actually, all liberals, real liberals, celebrate the sovereignty of the individual and recognize that the state is nothing but a collection of individuals who cooperate for the common good when and where it makes sense to do so. Real liberals also understand that the primary duty of the state is to protect the rights and freedoms of all those individuals.

I do  not pretend to understand libertarianism nor, of course, can or do I advocate it. But it seems to me that popular conservatives (collectivists and statists ~ illiberals, in other words) attack it so relentlessly because they recognize that even libertarianism is superior to illiberal collectivism.

We have balances between "we" and "me" - Locke and Mill, for example, provide more than sufficient evidence that illiberal collectivism is intellectually, morally and politically bankrupt.