Today is the last day for the 2013 KTKC drive. The results so far are good, but could be a lot better. There's a great many people working at this, who have gone around all month wearing kilts. Go, donate to your favorite cheerleader and help make a difference. Who knows, you might even win some of the awesome swag different people have put up.
I personally donated through the Evyl Robot himself. No offense to any of the other gentlemen who have participated of course.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
Extortion
You know, often when I get into political stuff here, I bring it back to the Constitution. While I think it a very valid way to do things (else I wouldn't do it) I think for this I'll just leave it alone.
Instead, let's go through a bit of a thought exercise. The Federal government accomplishes many of its machinations through grant-in-aid and similar means, where they will give the states a sum of money, with a series of caveats on how it is to be spent. The states then institute the various programs and regulations that the federal government wants them to.
First, let's assume that these programs have the will of the people, the state, and the federal government all in accord. Yes, I know that this is bordering on high fantasy, but bear with me for the sake of argument. The people consent to be taxed by the federal government, and then the federal government turns around and gives that money to the states, which in turn spend the money on what actually needs to happen. The question of 'why don't the people just spend the money themselves' is easily answered by organizational needs. Individual people rarely have the capital themselves to accomplish collective goals, so they pool resources as managed by the government. This is one of (if not the only) reason we have government. The state being the one to manage a public expenditure is sensible and proper.
We have an extra step in the above system though. Why is the fed involved? Getting the funds passed through the federal system causes wastage. Even if it takes one minimum wage employee half an hour to get the funds sorted and passed along (which is a hilarious figure for anyone who knows bureaucracy even remotely), that's still a few dollars spent for pretty much no reason whatsoever, as well as time delay. When you figure in actual wastage levels in bureaucracies on both the federal and state levels, this just doesn't make sense. The fed shouldn't be involved if everyone is in accord.
Now, lets see what happens when the states and people are not in agreement with the fed. (There are two other cases, where state wants and people don't, and where people want but state doesn't. I'll go through these if people really want me to, but I expect people can figure it out on their own) The federal government wants the state to produce 2.7 snarfling widgets per person in the state. Neither the people nor the state have any need nor desire for snarfling widgets, so they don't want to produce them. What does the federal government do then? They take money from the people (because that's what HAS to happen for government to spend. They don't have money of their own) and therefore from the state, and hold it up and say "You can have this back if you use some of it to do what we want you to." So the state accepts the money and churns out 2.7 snarfling widgets per capita and has a bit of money left over to do the things the people and state actually want to. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but that reeks of extortion to me, far worse considering that the carrot was taken from us to begin with. So, the government takes our carrot, dangles it over us until we perform a little dance for it, and then we get our carrot back, except that it's missing a chunk and smells vaguely manky.
The thing is, there are proper uses of extortion in government. Ending segregated schools, as a relatively uncontroversial example,* was not something that most people in Alabama wanted, nor was it something the state wanted. That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We need the federal government for things, even some that go against the will of some of the states. That's the thing that I hold as the metric. If the federal government goes against the will of all the states (cough cough Obamacare cough) then they really shouldn't be doing it, EVEN if it's the right thing to do in the moral platonic sense. If the government passes a law that is right, but unacceptable to the people, that law just won't work, and it weakens the potential for the government to do legitimately good things in future.
The concept of 'the ends justify the means' is always a sticky one. In a way, the government is already the 'means' though, so I see no reason to make it any slimier and evil than it already is. If the government wants to use that excuse, they'd better have an explanation that is so beautiful and well thought out it would make Socrates, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson cry tears of transcendent joy.
I just realized this is almost a return to my political ethics series from wayback. This may bear further scrutiny.
*Yes, I KNOW the arguments. Just bear with me, I said relatively.
Instead, let's go through a bit of a thought exercise. The Federal government accomplishes many of its machinations through grant-in-aid and similar means, where they will give the states a sum of money, with a series of caveats on how it is to be spent. The states then institute the various programs and regulations that the federal government wants them to.
First, let's assume that these programs have the will of the people, the state, and the federal government all in accord. Yes, I know that this is bordering on high fantasy, but bear with me for the sake of argument. The people consent to be taxed by the federal government, and then the federal government turns around and gives that money to the states, which in turn spend the money on what actually needs to happen. The question of 'why don't the people just spend the money themselves' is easily answered by organizational needs. Individual people rarely have the capital themselves to accomplish collective goals, so they pool resources as managed by the government. This is one of (if not the only) reason we have government. The state being the one to manage a public expenditure is sensible and proper.
We have an extra step in the above system though. Why is the fed involved? Getting the funds passed through the federal system causes wastage. Even if it takes one minimum wage employee half an hour to get the funds sorted and passed along (which is a hilarious figure for anyone who knows bureaucracy even remotely), that's still a few dollars spent for pretty much no reason whatsoever, as well as time delay. When you figure in actual wastage levels in bureaucracies on both the federal and state levels, this just doesn't make sense. The fed shouldn't be involved if everyone is in accord.
Now, lets see what happens when the states and people are not in agreement with the fed. (There are two other cases, where state wants and people don't, and where people want but state doesn't. I'll go through these if people really want me to, but I expect people can figure it out on their own) The federal government wants the state to produce 2.7 snarfling widgets per person in the state. Neither the people nor the state have any need nor desire for snarfling widgets, so they don't want to produce them. What does the federal government do then? They take money from the people (because that's what HAS to happen for government to spend. They don't have money of their own) and therefore from the state, and hold it up and say "You can have this back if you use some of it to do what we want you to." So the state accepts the money and churns out 2.7 snarfling widgets per capita and has a bit of money left over to do the things the people and state actually want to. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but that reeks of extortion to me, far worse considering that the carrot was taken from us to begin with. So, the government takes our carrot, dangles it over us until we perform a little dance for it, and then we get our carrot back, except that it's missing a chunk and smells vaguely manky.
The thing is, there are proper uses of extortion in government. Ending segregated schools, as a relatively uncontroversial example,* was not something that most people in Alabama wanted, nor was it something the state wanted. That doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. We need the federal government for things, even some that go against the will of some of the states. That's the thing that I hold as the metric. If the federal government goes against the will of all the states (cough cough Obamacare cough) then they really shouldn't be doing it, EVEN if it's the right thing to do in the moral platonic sense. If the government passes a law that is right, but unacceptable to the people, that law just won't work, and it weakens the potential for the government to do legitimately good things in future.
The concept of 'the ends justify the means' is always a sticky one. In a way, the government is already the 'means' though, so I see no reason to make it any slimier and evil than it already is. If the government wants to use that excuse, they'd better have an explanation that is so beautiful and well thought out it would make Socrates, John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson cry tears of transcendent joy.
I just realized this is almost a return to my political ethics series from wayback. This may bear further scrutiny.
*Yes, I KNOW the arguments. Just bear with me, I said relatively.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
In Lieu of Original Content
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
*sigh*
So, Starbucks has taken back their previously decidedly neutral stance on firearms in their stores. This has sparked not insignificant controversy in the gun world. Not being one to back down from a fight, I've got a few things to say here.
First off, my stake in this is limited. Being under 21 still, I am not legally allowed to carry in most places. Furthermore, I am both a Mormon and poor, meaning Starbucks is generally not part of my life in any case.
Disclaimers aside, this has had me pulling a Piccardian facepalm since the letter came out.
To sum up my opinion in brief. Starbucks has every right to put dictates on the behaviors of their customers. We in turn have every right to try to hurt them as best we can through boycott and publicity. I have doubt that Starbucks is the right venue for this fight.
This discussion has brought up some interesting questions about the notion of protected classes though. That's sorta what I want to talk about here.
First off, I think protected classes are important. Discrimination based on qualities of birth is problematic because, frankly, people suck. If you must rely on the weight of public opinion to validate your inherent nature, the tyranny of the majority is going to screw you. Preventing this is why we have a government in the first place.
It becomes a different case when it's a chosen trait.
I've heard lots of people talk about putting 'black' or 'Irish' or 'gay' in place of 'ccw holder' in stuff like this. I think this a brilliant way of testing for bigotry, prejudice and discrimination. I worry that it leads people to think the solutions are the same.
Here's another thing you can put in for consider. 'No shirt no shoes no service.' Frankly, it's exactly the same. A business places a qualification on their customers.
I think that a private business on private land has every right to place whatever qualifications on their patrons they want, so long as those qualifications can be met by anyone.
If a business wants to require all their customers to be pantsless and wear beanies, more power to them, but I will not be giving them my business, and I will be openly critical of them. If a company requires you to use a Maserati to go grocery shopping and wear a python like a feather boa, that's fine by me. Yes I will make fun of them.
Noncompliance with these terms in turn can only possibly result in a trespass charge at worst. (Ideally.) Legally binding posting against xyz is problematic.
Coming back to Starbucks specifically, I think we are without any form of legal recourse, which is just the way it should be.
We need to be careful in our advocacy to not be guilty of the same things we accuse the antis of. Starbucks is a frustrating case overall, because we just wanted to go get coffee, and they wanted to give it to us, but then people got upset and the entire thing blew up. I see this as a loss in the larger culture war. If we bring this into the legal war though, we're just asking for trouble.
We need to be careful in our advocacy to not be guilty of the same things we accuse the antis of. Starbucks is a frustrating case overall, because we just wanted to go get coffee, and they wanted to give it to us, but then people got upset and the entire thing blew up. I see this as a loss in the larger culture war. If we bring this into the legal war though, we're just asking for trouble.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Anti-Anti-Federalist Federalists...
This semester so far has been fascinating. I am taking a course in Constitutional Law, and it's given me rather a lot to think about.
I like to keep my ideals open to scrutiny and criticism. As such, some of the talk of the early days of the constitution was somewhat uncomfortable and thought provoking. I couldn't decide whether I liked the Federalists or Anti-Federalists more, or what I thought of John Marshall. It is easy for me to look at the constitution and say "This is awesome" but looking at the way it came to be, plus the immediacy of court cases that have political motivation is dizzying, confusing, and troubling.
Lets take a look at some ideologies.
The Federalists grew out of a frustration with the Articles of Confederation. They saw the failures of a weak national government time and time again, notably with Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. The myriad currencies floating around, the interstate tariffs, the repeated rights violations across the fledgling nation, all made it abundantly clear that things were not so good in the social experiment started a decade earlier.
The Federalist answer to this, as perhaps you might have figured out from the name, was to strengthen the federal government. They saw the failures and squabbling of the states, and sought to rectify, by fiat if need be. A party made up of primarily merchants, plantation owners, and others who could be described as bourgeoise, they feared the destruction of their wealth by people like Daniel Shays. They sought to protect their positions.
Many of them sought the creation of an American Elite, such that the reins of power would always stay within the hands of those who would remain sympathetic. They feared democracy and the will of the mindless masses.
Some of you may be reading this and thinking "Euch, those evil Federalists are behind everything wrong with our country!" Others may be saying "Oh come now, be fair. The Federalists did lots of good stuff! Besides, half the stuff you couch in those critical terms are actually good!" If you're thinking either of those things, I've succeeded so far. Bear with me.
The Anti-Federalists in turn, well... The name basically said it all. Mostly small farmers and other landowners, (Since at the time, suffrage was based on land ownership. Stake in the game and all that) the Anti-Federalists opposed the Federalists in most things. Highly distrustful of the national government, having just fought a nasty war to get rid of a despotic government, they sought to maintain power in the states. Thomas Jefferson was something of a figurehead for the movement, and the Declaration of Independence was as a manifesto to them.
They foresaw a government run amok, with all things shoehorned under its purview. They foresaw a state of people utterly dependent on their overlords in government, who were themselves, though still technically answerable to the people, little less than full blown nobility. They saw the fundamental rights of humans tossed aside as blithely as a crisp wrapper.
Unfortunately, they didn't really have any ideas as to how to stop any of that either.
So, here we have on the one hand the centralization oriented Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists trying to be irritating and idealistic. And somewhere in all this conflict, we got a brilliant document that has stood the test of time remarkably well.
So, how do you get from point A to point B? Frankly, by doing what the Federalists want.
Reading the Federalist Papers is always a fascinating pursuit. While I think it in everyone's best interest to read all of them, you might as well start with the common ones, Federalist #10 and #51.
I am distinctly dubious of the modern federal government. Most of the things that the Anti-Federalists predicted have in fact come true. We have families that exist for politics. The Bill of Rights is under the sort of fire that wants to know what the meaning of 'IS' is. We have a federal government that is a picture perfect example of horrific bloat. We have a government debating my right to even write this post.
The thing is, I don't know of anything in a document that could have stopped this from happening. We've seen in places like Massachusetts, California, and New York that the states are not necessarily any better at preventing excess, and we know they are a good sight worse at some things, national defense for example. Reading the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, we should have had a government that would do precisely what it was needed to, and absolutely nothing more.
The problem is that people very quickly deviated from what was on the page. John Marshall is a fascinating case, in that while I haven't come across anything he stated yet that I think was wrong (not true of later courts) I know just how much his opinions have been used to justify ridiculous excess. Interstate Commerce clause anyone? The thing is, how do you stop someone from violating the Constitution with the Constitution? It's the same concept as stopping Alexis Aaron with JOML. (Just One More Law)
The opinion I have come to feels like something of a wash. Both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists were right.
The AFs had remarkable foresight about the downsides of the Federalist system, and did something hugely needful in the creation of the Bill of Rights. (See the bit where just because it doesn't say the government can do something, it doesn't mean they won't, which was Madison's argument)
The Federalists in turn walked a very fine line of "Yes, this is flawed, but it seems to be the best bet we've got." Reading Federalist 10 and 51, Madison at least had no reservations about the fact that people were liable to screw stuff up royally. The Constitution can be read as just another political document, or it can be read, in conjunction with the Federalist Papers, as one of the most astute and shrewd analyses of human nature to have yet turned up in our long history.
No governmental system will ever be perfect. It's part of that whole "imperfect humans" thing, or, to be more crude about it, GIGO. The Federalists walked the razor's edge in creating a system that did just enough and no more. The fact that it took 150 years for Roosevelt to smarm in and screw it all up is a testament in and of itself to the document.
I've given this rather a lot of thought this semester, but I don't claim to be infallible. If you have any points to make, either in support or criticism of the position here, I absolutely welcome them. I do ask that you be polite, but my commenters tend to be really good about that, so I'm not worried.
Please pass this along if you found it interesting or informative. Until next time, Cheerio!
I like to keep my ideals open to scrutiny and criticism. As such, some of the talk of the early days of the constitution was somewhat uncomfortable and thought provoking. I couldn't decide whether I liked the Federalists or Anti-Federalists more, or what I thought of John Marshall. It is easy for me to look at the constitution and say "This is awesome" but looking at the way it came to be, plus the immediacy of court cases that have political motivation is dizzying, confusing, and troubling.
Lets take a look at some ideologies.
The Federalists grew out of a frustration with the Articles of Confederation. They saw the failures of a weak national government time and time again, notably with Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. The myriad currencies floating around, the interstate tariffs, the repeated rights violations across the fledgling nation, all made it abundantly clear that things were not so good in the social experiment started a decade earlier.
The Federalist answer to this, as perhaps you might have figured out from the name, was to strengthen the federal government. They saw the failures and squabbling of the states, and sought to rectify, by fiat if need be. A party made up of primarily merchants, plantation owners, and others who could be described as bourgeoise, they feared the destruction of their wealth by people like Daniel Shays. They sought to protect their positions.
Many of them sought the creation of an American Elite, such that the reins of power would always stay within the hands of those who would remain sympathetic. They feared democracy and the will of the mindless masses.
Some of you may be reading this and thinking "Euch, those evil Federalists are behind everything wrong with our country!" Others may be saying "Oh come now, be fair. The Federalists did lots of good stuff! Besides, half the stuff you couch in those critical terms are actually good!" If you're thinking either of those things, I've succeeded so far. Bear with me.
The Anti-Federalists in turn, well... The name basically said it all. Mostly small farmers and other landowners, (Since at the time, suffrage was based on land ownership. Stake in the game and all that) the Anti-Federalists opposed the Federalists in most things. Highly distrustful of the national government, having just fought a nasty war to get rid of a despotic government, they sought to maintain power in the states. Thomas Jefferson was something of a figurehead for the movement, and the Declaration of Independence was as a manifesto to them.
They foresaw a government run amok, with all things shoehorned under its purview. They foresaw a state of people utterly dependent on their overlords in government, who were themselves, though still technically answerable to the people, little less than full blown nobility. They saw the fundamental rights of humans tossed aside as blithely as a crisp wrapper.
Unfortunately, they didn't really have any ideas as to how to stop any of that either.
So, here we have on the one hand the centralization oriented Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists trying to be irritating and idealistic. And somewhere in all this conflict, we got a brilliant document that has stood the test of time remarkably well.
So, how do you get from point A to point B? Frankly, by doing what the Federalists want.
Reading the Federalist Papers is always a fascinating pursuit. While I think it in everyone's best interest to read all of them, you might as well start with the common ones, Federalist #10 and #51.
I am distinctly dubious of the modern federal government. Most of the things that the Anti-Federalists predicted have in fact come true. We have families that exist for politics. The Bill of Rights is under the sort of fire that wants to know what the meaning of 'IS' is. We have a federal government that is a picture perfect example of horrific bloat. We have a government debating my right to even write this post.
The thing is, I don't know of anything in a document that could have stopped this from happening. We've seen in places like Massachusetts, California, and New York that the states are not necessarily any better at preventing excess, and we know they are a good sight worse at some things, national defense for example. Reading the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8, we should have had a government that would do precisely what it was needed to, and absolutely nothing more.
The problem is that people very quickly deviated from what was on the page. John Marshall is a fascinating case, in that while I haven't come across anything he stated yet that I think was wrong (not true of later courts) I know just how much his opinions have been used to justify ridiculous excess. Interstate Commerce clause anyone? The thing is, how do you stop someone from violating the Constitution with the Constitution? It's the same concept as stopping Alexis Aaron with JOML. (Just One More Law)
The opinion I have come to feels like something of a wash. Both the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists were right.
The AFs had remarkable foresight about the downsides of the Federalist system, and did something hugely needful in the creation of the Bill of Rights. (See the bit where just because it doesn't say the government can do something, it doesn't mean they won't, which was Madison's argument)
The Federalists in turn walked a very fine line of "Yes, this is flawed, but it seems to be the best bet we've got." Reading Federalist 10 and 51, Madison at least had no reservations about the fact that people were liable to screw stuff up royally. The Constitution can be read as just another political document, or it can be read, in conjunction with the Federalist Papers, as one of the most astute and shrewd analyses of human nature to have yet turned up in our long history.
No governmental system will ever be perfect. It's part of that whole "imperfect humans" thing, or, to be more crude about it, GIGO. The Federalists walked the razor's edge in creating a system that did just enough and no more. The fact that it took 150 years for Roosevelt to smarm in and screw it all up is a testament in and of itself to the document.
I've given this rather a lot of thought this semester, but I don't claim to be infallible. If you have any points to make, either in support or criticism of the position here, I absolutely welcome them. I do ask that you be polite, but my commenters tend to be really good about that, so I'm not worried.
Please pass this along if you found it interesting or informative. Until next time, Cheerio!
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
The Immobilizers
There is a mantra in the sci-fi novel Dune by Frank Herbert called the Litany Against Fear.
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing......Only I will remain."
The people who committed the acts of evil 12 years ago today were well aware of this principle, if unlikely that they have actually read any Herbert. Fear as a mind killer is a potent impulse against action.
Fear is hardly the only emotion with a soporific effect. Despair and grief are perhaps even more potent in the likelihood that the sufferer will simply be unable to get anything done.
To grieve still 12 years later does no good. Never forget those who died and suffered. Let their lives stand as witness against the evils that make such acts possible. But do not allow your will to be subsumed by negativity, such that this evil can continue unchecked.
It is a great disservice to the memory of the people who died to sit back in hand wringing despair. Honor their memory by doing what you can to prevent it from happening to you. Learn to protect yourself, examine your principles, act towards your own security.
As for you, Mr. President, I would advise you to be very careful of the people you would have us call friends. Syria is in terrible shape, but as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Felix Frankfurter said after the Deshaney v. Winnebago Social Services case, there are times when the Constitution does not provide a cure for the evils of the world.
On a related note, treason is constitutionally defined. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." I don't know how you consider that, but helping Al Qaeda, the supposed great enemy of the last 12 years, in the overthrow of Syria seems to me to be a dangerous road, and one that could end very badly for you. Reflect long and hard on what you're allowed to do, since you have proven yourself incapable of doing what you should do.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. I'd consider that notion.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. I'd consider that notion.
Friday, September 6, 2013
A Proper Fisking
Gay Cynic sent me this fascinating little piece that kicked over my giggle-box enough to warrant sharing. I have never done a piece by piece fisking before, but I can hardly imagine a better place to start.
What better place to start than the title?
Let's see whether the article bears out the title, shall we?
Also, to be clear, you are suggesting that an ideology based entirely on the liberty and rights of the individual with a distinct animosity towards government is going to result in a tyrannical government, yes? Just making sure I understood here...
(Note, I am not going to bother commenting on the occasionally bizarre sentence structure and grammatical foibles. That speaks plenty loud for itself, and making fun of it seems too much like egging the short bus)
I must say, I am impressed with how much weirdness you can get on the page with so few words. It's like taking a 30 piece jigsaw puzzle and creating a linear accelerator. Or perhaps taking a single sheet of paper and turning it into a gnarled, non-einsteinian origami work. Coated in poo.*
Let me see if I understand you here. Radical libertarians are completely wrong because they think people are completely selfish, while in reality people are so highly evolved and special that we understand the value of cooperation. Clearly those selfish, government hating libertarians are just not quite as evolved as you, mr. author. Oh... but wait, now society doesn't work because there are so many selfish, uncooperative people involved.
Hmm... I seem to be out of bread. This is a problem. We must roll back the state! Those dang statists made me eat all my bread, and then made me stay here and play video games all day.
Make sense to you? That's apparently what our esteemed author is saying...
So, as long as we accept that being polar opposite in three characteristics is strikingly similar, we can move along.
As for Somalia, didn't we already decide that it was a Communist state by your definition? I'm confused again. How is it that liberty is at its peak when you have roving gangs of 'authority' raping and shooting people willy nilly and for no discernable reason? I'm sure this is just a case of me being a stupid, less evolved, selfish person, but I'm trying to understand your glorious vision!
As for where the 'sweet spot' falls, I think you have completely failed to see the coincidence of liberty and communitarian values. See, if a person thinks that personal liberty is paramount, they ALSO think the personal liberty of everyone else is just as valuable. If they don't, then guess what. They aren't libertarian. They are anarchists who want to be holding the big stick.
To say that libertarianism takes away the responsibility of self-governance is baffling. The entire point of libertarianism is that self-governance is generally better in many cases than institutional governance.
The only thing I want to see in the dustbin of history after reading this is the abhorrently arrogant mentality that goes into the self-congratulatory masturbation of discounting all opposition without the slightest interest in actually understanding it.
Mr.s Hanauer and Liu, you clearly have no understanding of what a libertarian is, nor do you seem to have any interest in correcting this deficit. Yet you feel entirely comfortable telling us what unevolved rabid idealists we are, completely ignoring the presence of our arguments, much less the nature of what those arguments are. You apparently assume all your readers are sycophantic drooling morons who will blindly mewl back whatever tripe you feed them without the slightest care towards critical thinking. To read the comments on your own site, this is rather thoroughly not a safe assumption.
You are the problem with the world today. Go take your elitist patronizing inanity and shove it where the sun don't shine.***
*Because I'm classy like that.
**Unless you want to be REALLY certain that you get exactly 87.254% popping, in which case, you should definitely seek professional help. There are lots of good OCD specialists these days. (Also, play D'yer Mak'er. Most consistent results by far.)
***Specifically in a garden or a farm somewhere. This is high grade fertilizer you know.****
****Don't be gross.
What better place to start than the title?
Libertarians Are the New CommunistsWell, I'd say we're off to a wonderful start here. We have a claim that is completely illogical on its face, as the ideologies are rather opposed. Therefore, we must assume that they aren't saying "Communists" as in 'people ascribing to a political system of communal ownership of property after the fashion of Karl Marx' but are instead using it in the same manner as so many who can't properly refute their opponents arguments, being "Bogeyman!" with no relation to reality. While 'Nazi' is the typical, I am open to the possibility that they are aware of Godwin's Law and are attempting to head that off at the pass.
Let's see whether the article bears out the title, shall we?
Most people would consider radical libertarianism and communism polar opposites: The first glorifies personal freedom. The second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror images. Both attempt to answer the same questions, and fail to do so in similar ways. Where communism was adopted, the result was misery, poverty and tyranny. If extremist libertarians ever translated their beliefs into policy, it would lead to the same kinds of catastrophe.So far, initial assumptions seem valid. A piece of advice to the author. It's generally bad form to contradict yourself in the first paragraph. In terms of actual content (such as it is) I have to wonder, first off, what are these questions, and are these questions a different set of questions than every political ideology ever has attempted to answer?
Also, to be clear, you are suggesting that an ideology based entirely on the liberty and rights of the individual with a distinct animosity towards government is going to result in a tyrannical government, yes? Just making sure I understood here...
(Note, I am not going to bother commenting on the occasionally bizarre sentence structure and grammatical foibles. That speaks plenty loud for itself, and making fun of it seems too much like egging the short bus)
Let’s start with some definitions.Let's please. Get some definitions before value judgments and broad claims get tossed around, that could get confusing.
By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual liberty trumps all other values. By communism, we mean the ideology of extreme state domination of private and economic life.Can we get a few more definitions here? Depending on how you define liberty after all, we could be discussing anything from straight anarchy to a Bloombergian (oh, huh, look at the source...) emphasis on making all the 'right' choices for the people too stupid to make them for themselves. As for communism... Last I checked totalitarianism did not strictly equate with communism. The two play very nicely with each other, but by that definition, Somalia in the '90s was a communist paradise.
Some of the radical libertarians are Ayn Rand fans who divide their fellow citizens into makers, in the mold of John Galt, and takers, in the mold of anyone not John Galt.What's your point?
Some, such as the Koch brothers, are economic royalists who repackage trickle-down economics as “libertarian populism.” Some are followers of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose highest aspiration is to shut down government. Some resemble the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who has made a career out of trying to drown, stifle or strangle government.Same question. So far you've said that this group you are attempting to define neatly can fit several different definitions. Add to that the bit where royalism is kinda sorta completely incompatible with that personal liberty thing and I have to wonder what you're trying to do here. So far you've managed to fail terribly at defining what you're talking about, and have contradicted yourself rather a lot. But perhaps I'm being too hasty. You have a good deal more article to redeem yourself.
Yes, liberty is a core American value, and an overweening state can be unhealthy. And there are plenty of self-described libertarians who have adopted the label mainly because they support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance. These social libertarians aren’t the problem.No disagreement, but the bit where you seem to be setting up a 'but' statement is intriguing.
It is the nihilist anti-state libertarians of the Koch-Cruz-Norquist-Paul (Ron and Rand alike) school who should worry us.Hold on, I'm confused. One paragraph ago you were describing a bunch of different schools of thought, now they're all one? Also, nihilism... where'd you get that from? So far all you've commented on is anti-government feelings and certain oversimplified economic principles. Or is a love of liberty an inherently nihilistic thing?
I must say, I am impressed with how much weirdness you can get on the page with so few words. It's like taking a 30 piece jigsaw puzzle and creating a linear accelerator. Or perhaps taking a single sheet of paper and turning it into a gnarled, non-einsteinian origami work. Coated in poo.*
Human NatureOh goody, now we get this same level of clarity and insight into one of the thorniest and most irksome issues that has plagued the entire history of academic navel-gazing.
Like communism, this philosophy is defective in its misreading of human nature, misunderstanding of how societies work and utter failure to adapt to changing circumstances. Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish, when in fact cooperation is the height of human evolution. It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders. And it is fanatically rigid in its insistence on a single solution to every problem: Roll back the state!Oh, now we're back to communism. I wondered when that would turn up again.
Let me see if I understand you here. Radical libertarians are completely wrong because they think people are completely selfish, while in reality people are so highly evolved and special that we understand the value of cooperation. Clearly those selfish, government hating libertarians are just not quite as evolved as you, mr. author. Oh... but wait, now society doesn't work because there are so many selfish, uncooperative people involved.
Hmm... I seem to be out of bread. This is a problem. We must roll back the state! Those dang statists made me eat all my bread, and then made me stay here and play video games all day.
Make sense to you? That's apparently what our esteemed author is saying...
Communism failed in three strikingly similar ways. It believed that humans should be willing cogs serving the proletariat. It assumed that societies could be run top-down like machines. And it, too, was fanatically rigid in its insistence on an all-encompassing ideology, leading to totalitarianism.OK, now we're getting into the title! So, communism failed because of the same problems as libertarianism has. So, libertarians think everyone is selfish and terrible. Clearly communism must have failed because they didn't take into account the wonderful altruism of its people... oh wait, it failed because they people were selfish and terrible. These libertarian anti-statists want societies to run completely free, so the communists.... wait, you mean they failed because they wanted society to have no freedom? Fanatic rigidity, here we go! Clearly they must be failing together that way... except the ideologies end up in completely different places.
So, as long as we accept that being polar opposite in three characteristics is strikingly similar, we can move along.
Radical libertarianism, if ever put into practice at the scale of something bigger than a tiny enclave, would also be a disaster.Uh.... I think I missed a step here. You've said a lot about what you think libertarians ARE. I still haven't seen why they are a bad thing until now. What would make this a disaster again?
We say the conditional “would” because radical libertarianism has a fatal flaw: It can’t be applied across a functioning society. What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power? A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress. A Secretary Norquist would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation, so that the already wealthy could exponentially compound their advantage, as the programs that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted. A Koch domestic policy would obliterate environmental standards for clean air and water, so that polluters could externalize all their costs onto other people.I am still utterly failing to see the connection between your claims (much less between your claims and reality). You say that the Pauls hate government, but speak of them ruling. News flash, we don't HAVE rulers here. That's sorta the point of the whole constitution thing. I'll buy exponential compounding of wealth (that's sorta the whole point of banks...) but I'm not seeing anything here that would 'gut the middle class.' Care to point out where I've missed something? Same goes for the Kochs.
Radical libertarians would be great at destroying. They would have little concept of creating or governing. It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.Destroying what? Creating what? Even in the worldview you spout, neither creation nor destruction are inherently good or evil. Creation by what you've said is Good, unless it's creating, say, greenhouse gasses or exponentially rich people. Destruction is evil, unless it's destroying pollution causing industries or those silly lesser human libertarians.
As for Somalia, didn't we already decide that it was a Communist state by your definition? I'm confused again. How is it that liberty is at its peak when you have roving gangs of 'authority' raping and shooting people willy nilly and for no discernable reason? I'm sure this is just a case of me being a stupid, less evolved, selfish person, but I'm trying to understand your glorious vision!
Some libertarians will claim we are arguing against a straw man...Yup, that's exactly what I'm doing. Saying I will do something and then giving me good reason to do that is meaningless unless you can prove you AREN'T using a straw man.
...and that no serious adherent to their philosophy advocates the extreme positions we describe. The public record of extreme statements by the likes of Cruz, Norquist and the Pauls speaks for itself. Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most effectively do its work -- not whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist.Cite your sources please. What statements are these? Do these statements fill in the mysterious gap in your logic between the libertarian limitations on government you have described and the anarchy you are arguing against? Also, whether or not to regulate is the first question in how best to regulate. The way I see it, the rest of you skipped a couple steps.
The alternative to this extremism is an evolving blend of freedom and cooperation. The relationship between social happiness and economic success can be plotted on a bell curve, and the sweet spot is away from the extremes of either pure liberty or pure communitarianism. That is where true citizenship and healthy capitalism are found.What are the axes on these curves? Can you cite your source? What sort of bell curve are we talking? Single, bi, or multi-modal? Symmetrical or asymmetrical? Mean-median distribution? What percentages go into the histogram? Is the total social happiness of the nation "1"? Don't use math unless you're prepared to be rigorous. 'Falling on a bell curve' is meaningless. I can make a bell curve between percentage of popcorn kernels popped in a bag and meters to Led Zeppelin songs played during popping. Doesn't mean that it will have any utility whatsoever.**
As for where the 'sweet spot' falls, I think you have completely failed to see the coincidence of liberty and communitarian values. See, if a person thinks that personal liberty is paramount, they ALSO think the personal liberty of everyone else is just as valuable. If they don't, then guess what. They aren't libertarian. They are anarchists who want to be holding the big stick.
True citizenship enables a society to thrive for precisely the reasons that communism and radical libertarianism cannot. It is based on a realistic conception of human nature that recognizes we must cooperate to be able compete at higher levels. True citizenship means changing policy to adapt to changes in circumstance. Sometimes government isn’t the answer. Other times it is.So you in your infinite wisdom have solved the human nature question. Care to explain? So far all you've managed to do is contradict yourself and make generalities against extremes. Even now, as you attempt to reach the summit of this steaming pile of offal you are attempting to pass off as a legitimate analysis you contradict yourself yet again. Sometimes government isn't the answer, yet deciding whether to regulate at all is foolhardy and evil! Make up your bloody mind, or at the very least say what those times ARE.
If the U.S. is to continue to adapt and evolve, we have to see that freedom isn’t simply the removal of encumbrance, or the ability to ignore inconvenient rules or limitations. Freedom is responsibility. Communism failed because it kept citizens from taking responsibility for governing themselves. By preaching individualism above all else, so does radical libertarianism.You are the only one who has said that freedom is the strict removal of encumbrance, apart from anarchists. Who is this 'we'? From what I've seen, nearly everyone, particularly libertarians, recognizes that. Do you need to convince yourself of this?
To say that libertarianism takes away the responsibility of self-governance is baffling. The entire point of libertarianism is that self-governance is generally better in many cases than institutional governance.
It is one thing to oppose intrusive government surveillance or the overreach of federal programs. It is another to call for the evisceration of government itself. Let’s put radical libertarianism into the dustbin of history, along with its cousin communism.Evisceration of government is anarchism. If we have to use surgical metaphors, go with Liposuction, or perhaps appendectomy.
The only thing I want to see in the dustbin of history after reading this is the abhorrently arrogant mentality that goes into the self-congratulatory masturbation of discounting all opposition without the slightest interest in actually understanding it.
Mr.s Hanauer and Liu, you clearly have no understanding of what a libertarian is, nor do you seem to have any interest in correcting this deficit. Yet you feel entirely comfortable telling us what unevolved rabid idealists we are, completely ignoring the presence of our arguments, much less the nature of what those arguments are. You apparently assume all your readers are sycophantic drooling morons who will blindly mewl back whatever tripe you feed them without the slightest care towards critical thinking. To read the comments on your own site, this is rather thoroughly not a safe assumption.
You are the problem with the world today. Go take your elitist patronizing inanity and shove it where the sun don't shine.***
*Because I'm classy like that.
**Unless you want to be REALLY certain that you get exactly 87.254% popping, in which case, you should definitely seek professional help. There are lots of good OCD specialists these days. (Also, play D'yer Mak'er. Most consistent results by far.)
***Specifically in a garden or a farm somewhere. This is high grade fertilizer you know.****
****Don't be gross.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)