The vast bulk of people who today call themselves “libertarians” have no clue what the term means. For them, Libertarianism comes down to

1.) I must be allowed to own as many guns of all types as I want, and

2.) All taxation is theft.

This is not Libertarianism. Indeed, it’s not even a political philosophy. It’s simply a childish way of not thinking about the world or society. That’s why these “libertarians” have no problem whatever with someone like Alito–sure, he thinks that the government can trample all of your rights at any time for no reason. But he believes in unrestricted gun ownership and no taxes!

Just to comment on The Poor Man link:

After writing this post I climbed into the time-machine and when I climbed out into the future — after humankind’s environmental impact had been mitigated either by technological innovation or de-evolution (both coming from government mandated-funded power, i.e. a socialistic remedy) — I saw that the laissez-faire globalwarming-denier crackpots were pretending, like many conservatives today with regard to the civil rights movement, to have been accomodating all along. To have recognised its ethical logic and moral imperative all along.

That’s how it’ll be with a lot of them while at they same time they’ll try more laissez-faire bullshit (“well, we fixed it, now we can let the energy companies self-regulate again!”).

Reactionaries, especially such fanatical ones, can never really change even as they take credit for that which they tried so hard to obstruct because reaction for them is as much a temperament as it is an ideology.

There’s an understandable branch of libertarianism; it’s put in such phrases as “leave me alone”, “toke it up, dude”, “My home is my castle”, “get the fuck off my land”, “would someone please arrest the jackasses who keep breaking into my house?”

Such a libertarianism is pragmatic and sensible. The problem is that libertarianism for some reason attracts the dogmatic. Therefore the movement as a whole lacks perspective. It recognises no heirarchy of rights, much less a heirarchy of property rights. For them there’s not much difference in a human’s ownership of a home or personal sentimental possession, and a corporation’s ownership of a chemical storage facility.

Nor do they recognise that person’s rights to put what they want in their body, to sleep with whomever (with consent), to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to enjoy wholesale free speech and expression and assembly, etc, should be, and are, more protected, more inalienable (sic) than an *entity’s* “right” to, say, pollute at its leisure. But you can’t tell them that, because “freedom is freedom” and hippies who demand a cleaner earth and environmentally-friendly policy are just commie scumbags.

Hence, propertarians and propertarianism, de facto corporate whore-ism, “yay pollution is progress” and “global warming isn’t real!!!1!!”.

What part of “please stop using violence against me and mine in order to lavish favors on you and yours” don’t you guys understand?

Uh, Heffer, that would be the “violence” part.

God spare me from libertarians. Without exception, every one I’ve ever met is either simply too intellectually lazy to try and understand diversity of thought or is simply so solipsistic-it-borders-on-autism that you can’t help wonder whether they should be considered a danger to themselves, or others.

I’ve heard of a few “principled” libertarians, but they seem to engender a following that sensible people would consider embarrassing. I’m guessing embarrassment for libertarians is statist, or something.

Admirable restraint, Retardo- I find it difficult not to point out that Somalia is a libertarian paradise according to the faithful in these debates.

(Btw, how is that precious little “Free State” program going for them these days?)

Libertarians are nothing more than Republicans that like to smoke dope.

Commenter Timothy at Hit & Run came up with an even better and funnier “shorter” Sullum than my previous comment:

I sure wish drugs were legal so we could undermine social security and make old ladies freeze in the street.

Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade, and anarchy seemed to hold the attention of those rebellious junior high kids, as well. Then, well, then I grew up.

Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade

Yeah, so did Ayn Rand. But now? Sadly, No!

Calling oneself a Libertarian is the political analogue of saying, “But I’m really bisexual.”

Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade

That confirms the consensus around the Geriatric Ward, which is that the national debate is being conducted by a ninth grade civics class on a particularly hot day one week from the end of school. And all because Ronald Reagan ran for president for sixteen years, and then was proclaimed a miracle worker when times grew bad enough for him to be elected.

Children in their formative years should be kept away from anything or anyone purporting to have all the answers. The people I know who became libertarians in college generally got over it halfway through Atlas Shrugged or after the world punched ’em in the nose once or twice. But at 12 or 13 it’s like the first girl to grant you a feel under her blouse but over the bra: even if there’s nothing there you may wind up chasing the thrill for the rest of your life.

I credit a very decent high school education for bringing Ayn Rand to my attention very early in life. When I was 16 (1978), an inexplicable fad swept through the small, backwoods town I lived in at the time where everybody was reading The Fountainhead and was becoming delirious with dialectical epiphanies. The English teacher I had at the time (the French teachers reject Ayn Rand out-of-hand) decided, on his own (he had that kind of freedom) to assign The Fountainhead. After a month-long healthy debate about the pros and cons of hero-worship, objective reality, flawed or damaged personalities and cultism, everyone pretty much came to the conclusion that a person as old and experienced (and dead) as Ayn Rand probably merits a very critical approach.

And that was the end of that.

Foolish leftos. You too will embrace libertarianism when you realize it is the only political philosophy in the history of state societies that approaches public power skeptically and critically.

Oops. Ayn Rand wasn’t dead in 1978. Although, in a sense, she was.

Foolish leftos. You too will embrace libertarianism when you realize it is the only political philosophy in the history of state societies that approaches public power skeptically and critically.

As evidenced by Glenn Reynolds and the Reason Boys (inc. Cathy “Moral Equivalence” Young) fellating a sitting president.

Maybe it’s time we changed the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to the “No True Libertarian” fallacy.

Libertarian thinking was corrupted by Ayn Rand and her very selfish philosophy. Original libertarianism advocated for small, limited, but effective government – it is less able to infringe our rights, but still able to provide necessary services (universal health care, national defense, education, etc).

Real libertarianism promotes women’s rights (oh noes!), personal responsibility (oh noes!), and respect for the lives and rights of all others (oh noes!). Those three things right there disqualify the majority of conservatives from claiming to be libertarian.

I’d guess that most libertarians are neo-conservative on foreign policy and ultra-conservative on social issues, but Reaganomic on economic issues, so they claim they’re libertarian in order to feel better about themselves.

The real joke about libertarianism, as well-intentioned as its roots may be, is that libertarians would have to employ statist measures to prevent non-libertarians from organising socially, for the purpose…*gasp*…of forming a state.

Hence, the conundrum…and the ideological vacuity that libertarianism (at heart, primitivism) really is.

Libertarianism is the political party for people who don’t like people.

Hmmm. A proposal. I’ll be inclined to be a much better host to libertarians if they promise to launch all their html ICBMs against Glenn Reynolds whenever he cranks up that “But I’m a Libertarian!” bullshit again. Deal?

According to your deal, I’d have to read Reynolds. No dice.

a libertarian is what a republican calls himself when he wants to get laid.

that being said, i’ve never encountered a “real” libertarian. most libertarians are of the glenn reynolds “i hate taxes, kill the muslims” variety. in never fails to amaze me how “anti-tax libertarians” seem to not realize that, well, wars cost money, A LOT OF MONEY. and that money comes from taxes. in the run up to the iraq debacle all the libertarians i knew were cheerleading this disaster because “iraq’s oil would pay for the war”. this was delusional and A REPUBLICAN PARTY TALKING POINT. so much for “libertarianism”. i will take libertarians seriously when they start to purge conservatives from their movement. may i suggest starting in the pages of reason magazine. the flagship “libertarian” intellectual magazine. a magazine in which you can regularly read conservatives expressing disdain for the rights and liberties of the individual.

Hi, I’m joe. You’ll probably see my comments in the in the Hit & Run comments threads because I’m a liberal who likes to argue with smart people who disagree with me, and I’m sure as hell not going to find them at any right-wing blogs. So I argue with the libertoids instead. It’s kind of fun – I’m usually outnumbered about ten to one, so it’s a fair fight. 🙂

Anyway, I’ve been observing the species for a long time, and I think you’re way off to conflate Reasonoids with Republicans, or accuse them of carrying water for Bush. Certainly, there are the Reynoldses and Volokhs who latch onto the term so they can be Republicans and still stand a chance of having sex once or twice a decade, but the Reasonoids are the real deal. Some of them, like Julian Sanchez or Matt Welch, could even be said to be vaguely leftish.

Which is not to say you shouldnl’t beat up on them, their silly ideas, and their appalling intellectual inconsistency. But to accuse Jacob Sullum, who keeps writing books with the theme “End the drug war because drugs never hurt nobody” of being an authoritarian conservative is just plain silly.

I thought Libertarianism sort of stemmed from taking Nozick’s writings to heart, while borrowing Mills’ good ideas and running with them, all while. I don’t agree with paternalism either, but how in the HELL did they decide property is the be-all-end-all?

As the post is in response to my initial response, I should respond!

It’s disingenuous to say that Reason “endorsed” Alioto. Some Reason writers liked him, some didn’t. Your link goes to one opinion of one Reason writer.

Your link that purports to show “Reason’s position that police brutality against anti-war hippies is a real laff-riot subject” shows nothing of the kind. It shows protesters being arrested, none of whom are being brutalized. It even makes fun of the cops for the reasons they’re arresting the protesters. You’ll find Reason has little patience for police overstepping their authority. Your accusation is dishonest, plain and simple.

Then Matt Welch has the gaul, the temerity to voice an opinion of the war in Iraq that doesn’t include opposing it.

If anyone here (and there may be some of you) actually bothered to read the articles at Reason, you’ll find plenty, and I mean plenty, of harsh criticism of Bush et al for a variety of reasons. Probably less than 5% of the regular posters at their entertaining and educational blog, Hit ‘N’ Run, defend the Bush administration for anything. Most are disgusted by the war and the dishonesty behind it. There are regular Democrats there, too, who defend the party vigorously and reasonably.

People with libertarian beliefs (as opposed to “Libertarians,” who may or may not actually exist) are just like liberals and conservatives in that some are honest and some are dishonest. Some are reflective and some are reflexive.

The reflexive response I’ve seen here to libertarian beliefs is not unlike the kind of thinking one sees at Town Hall or Free Republic. It’s utterly reflexive, cartoonish (yes, libertarians want to abolish all taxes and see poor people suffer! of course!), and unconstructive.

I, myself, don’t consider myself to be a libertarian. I share some beliefs of people who do, but then I also share some beliefs of Democrats, and I think the Democratic party is just as useless and disingenuous as the Republican party.

It’s funny how those links to Reason‘s “endorsement” and “position” don’t actually link to Reason.

Glad to see you all educating each other on something none of you seem to have the first clue about. Good luck with that.

You can characterize a position as “libertarian” from any end of the political spectrum. It’s a vertical axis, not horizontal. Statism vs. Individual rights. It’s basically summed up in the Bill of Rights, probably the most libertarian document on earth. You can be left wing and totalitarian, like Castro, or right wing and totalitarian, like El Duce… same with left wing/right wing anti-statist. And anti-statism isnt the same anarchism, as some latch on to. It’s the belief that there are clearly defined limits on the role of government. That the government can’t legislate indescriminately any area… a la this kind of thing. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02records.html Those amendments are there for a purpose..

But of course, you all would understand this if you took the time to read Reason, rather than carp like a bunch of teenagers in a basement going,”yeah, jocks/nerds/goths are such dicks”.

Lastly, there’s a difference between using the term as a noun vs an adjective. I’m not sure you guys grasp the difference there. You can describe anarcho-capitalists as ‘libertarian’, but that doesnt make them ‘Libertarian’… like the difference between democratic, and Democrat?

“Libertarians are republicans who smoke dope”? Perhaps. You could also say they’re democrats who passed Economics class.

Cheers,

JG

JG said it much better than I did. Thanks, JG.

Could at least one of you bothered to at least skim through some of Reason’s articles?

Sadly, No!

You can characterize a position as “libertarian� from any end of the political spectrum. It’s a vertical axis, not horizontal.

I stopped here. Pasty probably got even worse, but the prissy tone and Klonopin-induced hallucinations are really not the kind of drama I find enjoyable.

Yikes. The more I read, the more I am amazed. First, the Sadly, No! folks make a big fat error by assigning typical Townhall values to a writer whose columns happen to be syndicated there. Then, after being called out on their horseshit, they cherry-pick even MORE horseshit, most not even from Sullum himself, and none actually within the Reason site itself, as a defense of aforementioned big fat error. Yes, yes, dig your hole ever deeper.

Just admit that you fucked up big time, and were too lazy to actually verify the facts.

The comments here are even better…let’s bash libertarians with tired old quips, because it makes us all feel better about our own insecure political beliefs…ahhh, that’s better…

I think the Democratic party is just as useless and disingenuous as the Republican party.

A-ha! That’s it! I know you say you’re not a libertarian, ljm, and I have no reason not to take you at your word, but I’m going to use your comment to illustrate the point I’ve been groping at all morning. (In other words, humor me.)

At one point during the writing process, the shorter I’d written for this week’s Sullum column was, “As a libertarian, I believe it’s all bullshit, anyways.” I abandoned it because it was too vague, but it I wish I’d kept whittling away at it. Like a lot of liberals, I share some core values with libertarians. But, ultimately, every time I argue Democrat-vs.-Republican politics with a libertarian, we’ll eventually reach a point where he’ll throw up his hands and make some variation on the theme that all politicians are crooked and whaddya gonna do?

And that dismissive cynicism is what I find so maddening about libertarians.

Yeah, the truth hurts.

Mal de mer said = “Klonopin-induced hallucinations are really not the kind of drama I find enjoyable”…

…whatever that means..

Here, try this for visual aid.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

You have to get to the end of the thing to see an example, or else click on the ‘composers’ example here http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/composers.php

Jeez, you wouldnt think i’d have to draw you a picture..

ljm and JG–Your defense is noted, but most of us are stuck with the self-described Libertarians we see, talk with, and know from day to day. I have several friends who are proud Libertarians–and their entire political philosophy comes down to “I want guns and I don’t want to pay any taxes.” (Although, to be fair, one of those people also advocates mass genocide of muslims.)

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.

And that dismissive cynicism is what I find so maddening about libertarians.

Well, that’s something I can understand. I have to fight that cynicism in myself. But I don’t dismiss all politicians out of hand, without knowing their record. Once I know their record, THEN I dismiss them! I kid. I vote in every election, sometimes for Democrats, sometimes for Republicans, but I vote. And I write letters.

But it’s hard not to be cynical when the Democrats talk about Hillary Clinton (anti-flag burning, anti-video game, pro-drug war, pro-death penalty, pro-Patriot Act, war-powers voting Hillary Clinton) as being a possible candidate in ’08. Two politicians I respect are Russ Feingold and Ron Paul. I disagree with both of them a lot of the time, but they’re honest and aren’t afraid to disagree strongly with their parties. But the parties reject them because the simply are not interested in honestly trying to make government work better, but rather stay in power. I wish everyone would reject both parties until they start to stand for something other than, “we’re not the other guys!”

Travis,

First, why do you find it so maddening? What if I asked you to choose between the Third Reich and Al Qaeda as your leaders?

Second, you are again being disingenuous when you say “every time I argue…” Either that, or you happen to be talking to the same 1 or 2 libertarians all the time. Browse through the Reason archives. Look at the articles, and the comment threads @ H&R. Yes, there will be a good amount of “they both suck”, but there will also be many nuanced, in-depth discussions of the issues at hand—and I’m talking, the actual parts and pieces of the issue, rather than just “The Democratic Side” vs “The Republican Side”. Just because you can’t peg libertarians down, it pisses you off. Cry me a river. Sometimes, life is hard, and sometimes, people discuss issues in terms other than partisan affiliation. If that makes your head hurt, oh well. Reason has a whole site that disproves your little “What’re you gonna do?” quip.

Lastly, I find it amusing (and sad, actually) that you criticise libertarians for not shacking up with a particular political party, but then you criticise Sullum and others for SUPPOSEDLY shacking up with the Right. So, the right is unacceptable. Neither is unacceptable. Apparently, according to you, the only “acceptable” position is yours.

You were lazy. Your backpedaling, obfuscating, grasping-for-straws reply is, well, pathetic.

Derelict:

“I have several friends who are proud Libertarians–and their entire political philosophy comes down to “I want guns and I don’t want to pay any taxes.â€?

Your friends notwithstanding, it’s irresponsible and lazy to ascribe this narrow justification to all libertarians—and then go so far as the claim that you’re “stuck” with said lazy justification.

In other words, your friend’s reasons for being libertarians make an easier target than, say, principled ones like LJM and JG presented, so, you’re “stuck” with them. No, you’re sticking with them because it makes them easier to dismiss.

“Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda.”

Yes, and 5+5=3. Look, it’s one thing to be lazy, Derelict, but it’s quite another to just outright lie. Then again, if you have to lie to make your point, well, there’s probably not much point arguing with you in the first place.

First, why do you find it so maddening? What if I asked you to choose between the Third Reich and Al Qaeda as your leaders?

Wow, that’s not only libertarian, it’s glibertarian.

It’s probably maddening because nihilism, cynicism and inaction are not solutions to anything. It’s just whining, which seems to be plaguing the affluent pretty badly lately.

Is GILMORE a bot, btw?

Wait a minute, Evan claims that the choice between the Democratic and Republican parties is equivalent to a choice between “the Third Reich and Al Qaeda as your leaders?” and then accuses Travis of “obfuscating” and “grasping-for-straws”???

Perhaps he can point to a particular article in the vaunted Reason archive that clearly shows that the US politics are no different from Germany under Hitler or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

And here we all are thinking libertarian thinkers are unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky utopians rather than clear-headed political realists.

“Both parties suck” is “nihilism, cynicism, and inaction”?

To the contrary, it can (and does) lead a libertarian to take one of many paths: vote for the lesser of the two evils; vote for a third party; abstain from direct political action, as a form of protest; and then, yeah, there’s the “throw your hands up and say ‘it’s all bullshit’ approach,” because not everyone thinks politics is the sum of all life.

Then you’re lying with your claim that you “look(ed) at Reason over the last six years”.

“It’s probably maddening because nihilism, cynicism and inaction are not solutions to anything.”

No, they’re not. Nobody said they were. Just because you wish to ascribe those qualities to libertarianism in general doesn’t mean they’re correct or valid.

The funny thing about this whole flame war is that most of you commenters are fervently attacking this big Straw Man Libertarian that you’ve built up in your mind. And the possibility that any libertarian might venture from this preconceived Straw Man just confounds your whole criticism of libertarianism, so you just keep repeating the same tired old shit over and over again.

It’s probably maddening because nihilism, cynicism and inaction are not solutions to anything.

Yes. (Now that is lazy writing.)

Very clever idea. Seizing on a sentence and characterizing that as someone’s entire political position. I am going to re-post the important part of Evan’s comment, because a simple “go back and read the whole thing” obviously will not fly with this crowd.

Yes, there will be a good amount of “they both suck�, but there will also be many nuanced, in-depth discussions of the issues at hand—and I’m talking, the actual parts and pieces of the issue, rather than just “The Democratic Side� vs “The Republican Side�. Just because you can’t peg libertarians down, it pisses you off. Cry me a river. Sometimes, life is hard, and sometimes, people discuss issues in terms other than partisan affiliation. If that makes your head hurt, oh well. Reason has a whole site that disproves your little “What’re you gonna do?� quip.

Of course, his main point calls for more reading. So I don’t know why I’m wasting my time.

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.

Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find these articles, all critical of the Bush agenda.

http://www.reason.com/links/links111504.shtml

http://www.reason.com/links/links090403.shtml

http://www.reason.com/links/links090203.shtml

http://www.reason.com/links/links122704.shtml

http://www.reason.com/links/links011005.shtml

http://www.reason.com/0206/fe.bd.john.shtml

http://www.reason.com/0206/fe.bd.watching.shtml

But, ultimately, every time I argue Democrat-vs.-Republican politics with a Democrat or Republican, we’ll eventually reach a point where he’ll throw up his hands and make some variation on the theme that the other team sucks.

And that ‘our guy’s farts smell like roses’ habit is what’s so maddening about establishment pawns.

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.

Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find these articles, all critical of the Bush agenda.

http://www.reason.com/links/links111504.shtml

http://www.reason.com/links/links090403.shtml

Like a lot of liberals, I share some core values with libertarians. But, ultimately, every time I argue Democrat-vs.-Republican politics with a libertarian, we’ll eventually reach a point where he’ll throw up his hands and make some variation on the theme that all politicians are crooked and whaddya gonna do?

And that dismissive cynicism is what I find so maddening about libertarians.

We would appoligize for not hating who you hate as much as you hate them or liking who you like as much as you do but then that would just be a hollow appology wouldn’t it.

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.

Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find these articles, all critical of the Bush agenda.

(I’ll post them one at a time, because I tried to put them all in one and the post was flagged, understandably.)

http://www.reason.com/links/links111504.shtml

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.

Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find many articles, all critical of the Bush agenda. I tried to post links, but I wasn’t allowed to.

I’m a libertarian and a common reader of Reason, and this all seems pretty simple to me: Travis implied that Sullum is a deep down Bush/Republican supporter, which is clearly false if you follow what he writes. It’s a mistake he made by assuming everyone falls into one of two political categories.

Renato’s defense is pretty poor. He doesn’t even cite anything Sullum wrote–just other Reason writers–and he doesn’t actually cite any endorsements of Bush/Republican policies. Those do exist, of course, but you can find at least as much opposition to those policies on Reason. Though what you should look at is Sullum, not everyone else.

Travis’s defense on his blog is also pretty poor: “[Sullum’s] arguments are usually so tepidly advanced or buried deep within his columns that it takes a couple of readings to discern exactly where he stands. That cautious subtlety is the aspect of his writing that I’ve chosen to highlight through mockery.” The Sullum column that started this whole tiff had this subtitle: “Is the NSA’s phone call database legal because the president says so?” How can Travis be serious that “it takes a couple of readings to discern exactly where [Sullum] stands”?

derelict said:

“Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.”

it would be great if you could provide some links to show this…esp the part about not caring about civil liberties

JPJ,

I see that you’ve never heard of hyperbole-for-effect. In the event that you’re actually that dense, and not (as I suspect) just trying to latch on the chinks in the armor, allow me to explain: I was not asserting that the left & right are like Hitler & Osama – I was asserting that both are undesirable, so I refuse to make a choice between two undesireables.

“And here we all are thinking libertarian thinkers are unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky utopians rather than clear-headed political realists.”

And here I was thinking that the people reading this were at leats marginally intelligent, and could understand the point I was trying to make, rather than reflexively misconstruing it.

Yeah, Ian, I gotta wonder how someone could actually type the words “And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties” with regards to Reason (care to name any site on the web who cares MORE about civil rights??) and then hit the ‘Submit Comment’ button, without being just a little bit insane.

Derelict said =

“We look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda…and precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.”

?!?!?
You have got. to. be. kidding… this is either some other magazine you’re talking about…or you’re just willfully making stuff up??

jesus mary mother of god. start with these! You dont have to look far

Sullum on liberties = http://www.reason.com/sullum/052406.shtml
Editorial staff all over the NSA story http://www.reason.com/hod/nsa051206.shtml
Gillespie being pilloried as a “liberal” for criticing GOP immigration insanity http://www.reason.com/gillespie/interview050506.shtml
More civil liberties concerns http://www.reason.com/links/links042506.shtml
MORE more civil liberties http://www.reason.com/0604/co.rb.rant.shtml
Want civil liberties? try, MORE http://www.reason.com/sullum/042606.shtml
Criticism of the victim politics of the religious right http://www.reason.com/cy/cy040406.shtml
More making fun of Bush http://www.reason.com/links/links051606.shtml

Dude…. thats whats on the *homepage*. Theres also an archive….and the blog…which are *bottomless pits* of ‘dissent against the admin’ and ‘defense of civil liberties’.

So, you want to try and rephrase that comment?

JG

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.

Then I submit you haven’t really looked at Reason at all. A minute of searching and I find many articles, all critical of the Bush agenda. I tried to post links, but I wasn’t allowed to. Maybe they’ll show up later. But as other posters have said and clearly demonstrated, the characterization of Sullum as a Bush supporter or Reason as a supporter of Bush policy has been disingenuous from the start.

Mal de mer said,
Is GILMORE a bot, btw?

If by “bot”, you mean, “guy who has to explain very simple political concepts (like that there is more than one dimension to political theiry other than “left/right”) to you”…

…then yes, you caught me.

JG

Whoops, I wrote “Renato” for some reason when I meant “Retardo.” Guess I was being a bit retardo myself.

“Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties.”

There is just no way anyone who had actually looked at the last six years of Reason could write that with a straight face.

To the contrary, it can (and does) lead a libertarian to take one of many paths: vote for the lesser of the two evils; vote for a third party; abstain from direct political action, as a form of protest; and then, yeah, there’s the “throw your hands up and say ‘it’s all bullshit’ approach,� because not everyone thinks politics is the sum of all life.

Sorry, Democracy isn’t just about voting, and people who think other people believe politics is the sum of all life don’t really grasp politics.

I’ve never argued very long in person with a libertarian because the evidence of having only a superficial grasp of democracy (lack of activism of any kind, evidence of very little reading on the subject, a certain disdain for ‘stupid people’, etc.) is all too evident for me and I point that out quickly.

Online, it’s simply hopeless. Glibertarians think solipsism and talking a lot is substantial activity. Where they get this bizarre notion is a mystery. I think it has a lot to do with affluence.

JG I think means “libertarian equals Objectivist Munchwagon”

Hey, loafnuggets, since you have such a hard time explaining what it is you really are about, why not advertise it? Could it be that it is so steeped in sociopathic longing for a “perfect” society based on the Reason of Likeminded Solons who are actually infantile chumpwads?

Of course, I’m just paraphrasing.

Online, it’s simply hopeless. Glibertarians think solipsism and talking a lot is substantial activity. Where they get this bizarre notion is a mystery. I think it has a lot to do with affluence.

you forgot about the money….we are a free market sort so instead of actually going out and being active we prefer to just pay someone else to do it for us. 🙂

By the way reason takes donations…cato does to…same with the aclu and the eff

I think it has a lot to do with affluence.

That would be nice…

There is just no way anyone who had actually looked at the last six years of Reason could write that with a straight face.

Sure they can, Julian. You just have to remember that “very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda” is a code phrase for “tons of sharp-edged criticism of Bush and his agenda,” “precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties” is code for “extensive coverage of the evisceration of civil liberties, with much more criticism than has been offered by most leading Democratic politicians,” and “much euphoria over the tax cuts” is code for “some references here and there to the tax cuts, some of them generally positive, but with an understanding that they don’t mean much without spending restraint.”

I’ve never argued very long in person with a libertarian because the evidence of having only a superficial grasp of democracy (lack of activism of any kind, evidence of very little reading on the subject, a certain disdain for ’stupid people’, etc.) is all too evident for me and I point that out quickly.

Whereas Mal de Mer is the sort of person who would never exude disdain for “stupid people.” And I can’t imagine him talking about a subject — say, libertarianism — that he’s done very little reading on.

Ouch. AS much as it pains me to say it, the S,N! team (the big boys and the peanut gallery, that is), while certainly on the scoreboard, seems to be taking a bit of a drubbing here.

“Seems” because I haven’t read Reason and thus cannot confirm whether they are principled libertarians or self-mislabeled hacks. (The possibly-unrepresentative sample of their writings [and those of other self-identified libertarians] often displayed in my local rag’s op-eds leans towards the latter, sadly.) But some of the blanket statements on libertarians seem equivalent to the “Charlie Sheen represents the left” sentiments from another post.

That said, one could reasonably go on to say that some seem to be taking Teh Snark a bit too seriously.

‘Tis been a cringeworthy dustup.

Affluence?

Gee, wow, that’s insightful. And maybe it’s *class* too….or maybe *gender*…or!Race!…. (you see, my liberal arts degree-of-truth allows me to see through all!)

Or maybe it’s just that you seem to need to find some simple, alternate explanation why other people who ARENT right-wingers find your posture hopelessly naive.

…and whats funniest is that this all discussion erupted over your misinterpretation of Sullum’s position on a topic we actually all AGREE on 🙂 That the NSA hath crossed the line…

But – forgive me – let’s not start having a discussion with any substance *now*…

peace, and a fond farewell.

your bot
JG

Reason’s non-endorsements of Alito.

Reason’s gripes and accolades for Glenn Reynolds.

You certainly seem to “agree with this characterization of a Reason article” far more than you disagree with any actual Reason articles themselves. Have you ever even read any of this stuff or do you just read the Cliff’s notes from other blogs?

Meanwhile, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties

O RLY?
Let’s take a look at, oh I don’t know, say the last six months of Reason cover stories

THE POLITICS OF SKY-HIGH HOUSE PRICES How the government jacks up the price of your home

“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,” THREE YEARS LATER Iraq’s Troubled Present and Haunted Future

PEAK OIL PANIC Are we running out of oil? What should Bush do about it?

The Agony of American Education How per-student funding can revolutionize public schools

ARE WE READY FOR THE NEXT 9/11? The sorry state-and wasteful spending-of the Department of Homeland Security

AMERICA’S CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION POLICY How U.S. law punishes hard work and fractures families

So two expressly critical articles of Bush, one ambiguous. An exposition of sound education policy based on libertarian principals. An examination of housing costs that does indeed touch upon taxation, amongst other things. And a libertarian defense of open borders more principled and radical than any Democrat could support.

Ignorance is one thing, stupidity another, but dishonesty is unforgivable.

Just wait in four years, the Dems will be in naitonal power and the Repubs will be sidelined, and ALL the roles will reverse:
-Dems will fight against civil liberties (ala neo-Echelon of neo-Clinton) and Repubs will be the ones who are frightened about “privacy”…
-Dems will start another war somewhere against some decrepit state the needs “humanitarian help” (ala Kosovo), while the Repubs will rail for isolationism…
–Dems and Repubs believe in “values”, and so while Repubs get all frazzled about gay marriage the Dems will get all huffy video game violence or something else Timmy is doing that is violent

And of course things will stay the same
-Dems will still join hands with Repubs to fight the terrible drug war, and die-hard liberals still won’t give a damn because the 60’s counterculture was so long ago to matter and somebody’s gotta do something about Timmy smoking the Reefer!
-Dems will join Repubs to increase farm subsidies for “family farms”, and the developing world will be screwed by our subsidized grains and tariffs…
-Dems will join Repubs in gaming the market for Big Oil via giving tax breaks and other perks to oil companies for “national security” or being “green” or some other regulatory bs, thus raising the floor of entry for smaller oil companies…
-Dems and Repubs fight against them fereigners taking our jerbs!, whether globalization or immigration. Chuck Schumer and Tom Tancredo, I’m looking at you…
-Russ Feingold and John McCain will have a make-out session over having a re-vamped McCain-Feingold bill, that will once and for all eliminate any challenges to tenure for incumbants via placing a cap on all that harmful speech in that thar internet…

And liberals will still wonder why libertarians don’t drink the Kool-Aid…

Whereas Mal de Mer is the sort of person who would never exude disdain for “stupid people.� And I can’t imagine him talking about a subject — say, libertarianism — that he’s done very little reading on.

What are you? Nine? I don’t have disdain for ‘stupid people,’ although it’s true I don’t suffer fools all that well…especially since March 2003. As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian and dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals, regardless of the fact that we take actions as individuals.

Let me say that I respect other people’s choice to call themselves libertarians (if it is, in fact, a choice, and not some cop-out). But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with or even respect libertarianism, which I find fundamentally flawed.

I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian and dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals, regardless of the fact that we take actions as individuals.

If we are fundementally social animals why on earth do we need governement to set up social systems and institutions?

especially considering that small groups setting up social systems and institutions are far more apt at adjusting to change and inovating.

I think you are confusing government with sociaty and culture.

[i]As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian and dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals, regardless of the fact that we take actions as individuals.[/i]

Which is why I will never be a liberal, because they will always insist that YOU TOO are a social animal and must join the herd, and that bag of Lays and the Little Debbie snack cake is bad for you and the tribe and so must be taxed for your own good, or how about all that money you made building your own buisness, I mean you took on your own risk and whatnot, but people NEED and so we’ll be taking that money from you and your children’s inheritance for your own good, and guns may be ok by the Constitution but that was a different time and you’ll put your eye out, oh not to forget how Nancy Pelosi made a really good comment on how eminent domain can help the whole town if city snags your home so we can build our friends chain of Wal-Mart because that builds up our tax base while you need to suck it up since you are a social animal…

And liberals will still sit while the drug war burns on…

“As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian”

Utopian? How so? I’ve always thought that the libertarian attitude was while markets may not be perfect it’s naive to think a central planner could do a better job. To me that libertarian line of thinking seem anti-utopic.

quoth Mal de mer:

I respect other people’s choice to call themselves libertarians (if it is, in fact, a choice, and not some cop-out).

I feel so respected. Can we hug now?

Jesus, Travis whiffing a snarky Shorter regarding Sullum engenders the most earnestly dull thread in the history of the site. Libertarians, toss us a bone here: some word play or wisecrackery, please! I demand Nonsense from the readers of Reason.

So you don’t have disdain for “stupid people.” You just respond to criticisms with comments like “What are you? Nine?” OK.

If you’ve “read enough” libertarian literature “to come to the conclusion that it…dismisses the fact that humans are, fundamentally, social animals,” you haven’t read much libertarian literature. The fact that we’re social animals is one of the most basic assumptions in the work of F.A. Hayek, Herbert Spencer, Adam Smith, and other not-so-obscure libertarian and classical liberal writers. One thinker revered among libertarians, Albert Jay Nock, practically frames his whole political worldview around the distinction between “social power” and “state power.” There may be some teenage Randites and moss-eating survivalists out there who think society is a myth, but most libertarian thought is all about social cooperation.

I feel so respected. Can we hug now?

Sorry Rimfax, you have been deemd by the Personal Choice Oversight Commission to actually have copped out and not made an actual choice, so your choosing abilities are temporarily suspended, feel free to appeal.

Go hug The Cato Institute, glibertarian scum. 😉

That’s what true liberalism (and respect) is. You agree to live and let live and that your beliefs are your own to have….you don’t agree that you have to like everything.

So you don’t have disdain for “stupid people.� You just respond to criticisms with comments like “What are you? Nine?� OK.

It wasn’t the criticism I was reacting to…it was the passive-aggression, which I find generally manipulative and migraine-inducing.

Very much like glibertarians, to tell you the truth.

That’s what true liberalism (and respect) is. You agree to live and let live and that your beliefs are your own to have….you don’t agree that you have to like everything.

Gee, doesn’t that sound awfully familiar to what libertarianism also proclaims…
Except of course when the issue is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD, then we gotta stop that whole live and let live nonsense and roll up our sleeves for some good old fashioned taxin’ and regulatin’, because if it was good enough for FDR then it’s good enough for me 🙂

“As for reading about libertarianism, I’ve read enough to come to the conclusion that it’s basically utopian�

Did you just browse wikipedia or something? In a “libertarian world” there will be of course winners and there will be losers just like today. No libertarian I’ve read presents anything like a utopia. Maximizing liberty of course, but nothing utopian.

Why am I being lectured on libertarianism? Aren’t their swines out there corrupting the noble idea who could really benefit more than I from the pearls being cast about here?

By the way…callling me “stupid” isn’t a really a compelling argument. Just an FYI.

I’ll say this for S,N! at least your squirrels are young and well fed. (except for the one in the clock)

Nor do they recognise that person’s rights to put what they want in their body, to sleep with whomever (with consent), to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to enjoy wholesale free speech and expression and assembly, etc, should be, and are, more protected, more inalienable (sic) than an *entity’s* “right� to, say, pollute at its leisure. But you can’t tell them that, because “freedom is freedom� and hippies who demand a cleaner earth and environmentally-friendly policy are just commie scumbags.

I do belive what you are describing is a problem with the commens rather then a problem with property rights. Our problem is with government ownership and expansion of the commens which alwasy leads to greater pollution and moral hazard is far less effective at protecting the health and enviornment then individuals protecting thier own intrests through cooperation…Ducks unlimited anyone? The nature conservancy anyone? Consumer reports anyone? the list goes on and on and on.

“Glibertarians!” That is hiLARious. You just added a “g” to make a whole new word! So, while you’re diverting from the fact that you actually haven’t done any reading on libertarian philosophy, you can simultaneously judge a whole group of people without worrying about nuance or individuality. Wow! That’s brilliant and bigoted at the very same time! 😉

What the…

Gee, every single comment i made here was deleted. Nice! nothing like thought police to help keep people comfortably uninformed.

so much for the liberal notion of free speech…

JG

“You were lazy. Your backpedaling, obfuscating, grasping-for-straws reply is, well, pathetic.”

Yes, let’s talk about grasping at straws, Ev. You claim that most of us here have not read through the Reason articles. Now how on Earth could you possibly know that? Are you related to Miss Cleo?

“Could at least one of you bothered to at least skim through some of Reason’s articles?”

Sadly, yes! Some of them I agree with whole-heartedly; others I find utterly idiotic. Stick that one in your cap.

Why am I being lectured on libertarianism? Aren’t their swines out there corrupting the noble idea who could really benefit more than I from the pearls being cast about here?

Well gee buddy, I dunno?
Maybe it’s because all of you took some stupid cheap shots on our side, and then when we tried to defend how our brand of libertarianism is different from Glenn Reynolds you guys then had the gall to start lobbing such brillaint gems of insight such as “I thogut libertairanism was cool in the 8th grade, now it’s the SUX00R LOL!!!11!!”

Oh, and for apologetics for the destruction of civil liberties, if I could get a penny for all the liberals/pregressives who were/are apologetic (if not starry-eyed in admiration!) to Communism or to it’s retarded-schmuck spawn like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez I’d be a millionaire…

So, yes, I will be taking my pearls from here, because why bother with people who even compare themselves to swine since that means they don’t even care if they eat/sleep/think covered in their own filth…oh, that was a joke like the satire of Jacob, this will make it better
😉

Boy do I regret wandering over here from the Hit N Run —

never mind this..it is just to kill the italics

so this is like a vice mag with no photos of boobs type thing?

anyway, i’m just waiting for a democrat to get back in office so you guys can go back to not paying any attention to politics, like the good old 90s. i used to think the “angry white men” were annoying; how sorrowfully wrong i was on that account.

“Let me say that I respect other people’s choice to call themselves libertarians (if it is, in fact, a choice, and not some cop-out).”

Well, that’s just peachy keen. Glad to see you hew to the same sort of introductory line used by your typical bigot in a misguided attempt to soften the focus of their irrational hatred.

If you actually respected libertarian thinking, you’d advocate leaving us alone.

Maybe it’s because all of you took some stupid cheap shots on our side, and then when we tried to defend how our brand of libertarianism is different from Glenn Reynolds you guys then had the gall to start lobbing such brillaint gems of insight such as “I thogut libertairanism was cool in the 8th grade, now it’s the SUX00R LOL!!!11!!�

When did I say SUX00R LOL!!!11!! I would never use many exclamation marks.

Oh, and for apologetics for the destruction of civil liberties, if I could get a penny for all the liberals/pregressives who were/are apologetic (if not starry-eyed in admiration!) to Communism or to it’s retarded-schmuck spawn like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez I’d be a millionaire…

Oh, my God…are you having a dialectical ephiphany? I feel like such a voyeur.

So, yes, I will be taking my pearls from here, because why bother with people who even compare themselves to swine since that means they don’t even care if they eat/sleep/think covered in their own filth…oh, that was a joke like the satire of Jacob, this will make it better
😉

Kids….sure keep ya hoppin’, don’t they?

er…”epiphany”

By the way, I closed the tag. Yes. Thank you.

Who left the tag open? Of course, I’m sure that is your personal right.

Where is Gov. Tarkin with his “You are all that’s is left of your strange religion”. I’m sure it is my right to misquote Star Wars.

Sorry about the school yard crap. I agree the S,N! team is not up to the task. I think that it is because they cannot fathom how fundamentally stupid and depressing the pie-in-the-sky ubercapitalism of John Stossel chumploafs really is, and how they wouldn’t want to read about some mind-numbingly inane claptrap that most certainly graces the occasional page of Reason. I’m sure when I am sitting in the CEI lobby, I’ll have a copy of Reason to peruse. Then I will come back strong, and ready to roll.

“When did I say SUX00R LOL!!!11!! I would never use many exclamation marks.”

Ooh, look, needless pedantry.

If you actually respected libertarian thinking, you’d advocate leaving us alone.

What a whiner. I’m not over at The Cato Institute calling the Randites a bunch of Maoist ideologues now, am I?

quoth Sexy Sadie:

Sadly, yes! Some of them I agree with whole-heartedly; others I find utterly idiotic. Stick that one in your cap.

Thank you, Sexy Sadie, for getting it. We don’t want you to agree with us. We want you to stop calling us what we’re not.

The point being that it’s impossible for you to claim to respect something whilst at the same time adhering to a sociopolitical worldview that would actively seek to extinguish the freedoms of those who adhere to it.

Not whining. Pointing out your inconsistent doublethink.

Hugs ‘n’ kisses,
mg

Who left the tag open? Of course, I’m sure that is your personal right.

It was that traitorous, counter-revolutionary Zach, I believe.

Ooh, look, needless pedantry.

Thank you.

If you actually respected libertarian thinking, you’d advocate leaving us alone.

Okay, in a long thread chockablock with visiting critics, that was pretty damn funny.

there were multiple tags open…i know becouse I closed them…first in one post then with five or six in my last.

A suggestion to the web master…put a close tag at the end of the comment template.

So much for libertarians being against social cooperation eh?

“pie-in-the-sky ubercapitalism”

That must be Pinko speak for “greatest wealth generating engine that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other institution known to man”?

How is government ownership of land different than corporate ownership? The corporate ownership I speak of is the large kind, because they have the most impact on the land. They are as isolated from the land as the government in DC is.

When it comes to the environment, it isn’t effective to use the principles of governing man to govern nature. In economics, the game will have haves balancing have-nots. Until there is a way that our society can balance the development vs. conservation debate (in which development inevitably wins most of the time) libertarian environmentalism is bullshit.

I think that it’s this issue that puts me over the line and makes me liberal instead of libertarian. Some things just have to be administered on a centralized basis, kinda like the military.

How about this? Feel free to mock us as corporate toadies, druggies, porn fiends, polluters, technophiles, welfare scolds, immigrant lovers, isolationists, pimps, hyper-federalists, utopian minarchists, privacy nuts, and lots of other things that we arguably might be. Just try not to mock us for being lock-step Republican toadies when we kick their nuts about as often as we kick the Democrats.

That way we won’t have to mock you for being a Pat Buchanan proxy site and you won’t have to delete our mundane posts when we come barking over on your turf.

Some things just have to be administered on a centralized basis, kinda like the military.

ouch

What’s the count on deleted posts, by the way?

I’ve had one yanked from the Townhall post that started this thing. I can’t really imagine why it was yanked.

Anyone else?

you just deleted my comments…and the italics closing tags with them…really smart there guys…verplanck colvin now looks like an idiot for responding to comment that was deleted

Well, I often find conversations with libertarians lapsing into utopian schemes. I point out something good that the government has done, say, the interstate highway system and am met with the answer, “The private market would have come up with a similar system and without taxation!” Well, maybe but how does one argue with such a counterfactual claim?

The libertarian position is basically, “If it is good, the market will provide it. If it is bad, the market won’t.” Take it on faith because there is simply no empirical way to prove it.

JPJ says

“Take it on faith because there is simply no empirical way to prove it.”

No empirical way? Then what do you call the horrible failures known as “formerly socialist countries” ? Wouldn’t the failure of command economies imply that the free market is indeed the engine of prosperity?

LIBERTARIAN PEOPLE!!!! Enough with the RUSH. They suck!!! Tom Sawyer BAD SONG!!!1

Put down your books and your pseudo-intellectual arguments and your 12-sided dice and go outside and visit the real world, which exists in such BEAUTY and COMPLEXITY that even Ayn Rand CANNOT understand it! So please stop EATING IT!!! IT’S not yours to EAT alone as you do not own it and NEVER will!!!!

Seriously, isn’t all of human history enough empirical evidence for you?

Also SADLY, NO! offers free (don’t say it, I’M WARNING you) end of ITALICS script so close ’em up COCONUTZ!!!!!

I blame the free market for unclosed tags. In Soviet Russia, the People never had to endure this.

ExactaMENTE Mal de MER!!!! We have all the script here in ABUNDANCE. Don’t be GREEDY though!!!

Wouldn’t the failure of command economies imply that the free market is indeed the engine of prosperity?

Perhaps if market regulation were all or nothing, but it isn’t, it’s a spectrum. Actually, even if it were binary, the failure of certain command economies wouldn’t necessarily prove the concept itself was flawed, it might just prove their implementations were.

Knock knock.

Okay, Dan, I disagree. I am a staunch liberal hippie (not in any sense a libertarian, except in a civil liberties sense) and I LOVE the song “Tom Sawyer” by Rush.

How is government ownership of land different than corporate ownership? The corporate ownership I speak of is the large kind, because they have the most impact on the land. They are as isolated from the land as the government in DC is.

Well, let’s start with large government and it’s land holdings. The number one polluter in the US is the US Government. The US Gov. is responsible for military vehicles that were never designed for emmisions, toxic waste dumps at many locations around the country including nuclear waste and toxic waste ponds (http://www.adti.net/environment/bndunlop_kasten_1000.html) and allowing elected representatives to lease gas guzzling vehicles for their daily commute from Richmond to DC (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/NEWS06/60313001).

Are all of these environmental hazards known? Of course not! National security takes precedent over any environmental concerns the public may have. Don’t belive me, try a FOIA request and see how many pages you get that are blacked out. What happens if one of these waste sites is found to be polluting ground water? Are you going to sue the government. If you do, and you win, who pays? The government doesn’t make money, it extracts it from the public citizenry. In other words, if you sue and win, you are just winning back your (or fellow citizens) money.

Corporate land ownership with big government is not much better. In this set up you have large corporations like Exxon-Mobil, PG&E or GeorgiaPacific making massive campaign contributions to lawmakers in exchange for the one thing they can do, draft laws that favor the large corporations. Corporate and government bedfellows are reasponsible for the leasing of logging permits on government lands , the revised EPA rules that favor polluters and the no-bid contracts for Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan. The larger the government hand the more corrupt it becomes. It is amazing just how many pies the government sticks it’s finger’s into. Then the government drafts laws limiting the amount of liability that companies are responsible for.

Corporate land ownership with small government. GP want’s to log on land’s it doesn’t own. It has two choices, convince the land owner to lease the rights to log (under full contract not to clear cut or what ever the land owner feels is appropriate) or make an offer to buy the land outright and maintain it. Exxon want’s to make billions of dollars on oil production, then they will have to fully fund the appropriate infrastructure including pipelines and pay for the proper land leasing. Sure, it will drive the cost of oil up but it will mean that businesses will produce more fuel efficient cars to compensate. Lastly, if you sue a company for violating your personal or property rights and you win, you hit them where it hurts most, in the wallet. None of this “Government Negotiated Settlement” crap either, but an honest to goodness lawsuit.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz! What did I just say about the peudo-intellectualism AND the 12-sided dice and NOT EATING IT? Can you read or did you go to a PRIVATE school?! Must I break out my stash of Cobags??!

THIS is not HIGH SCHOOL people!!! THOSE pimples on your FACE are never going to go away! Go OUTSIDE!!! THE INVISIBLE HAND DEMANDS IT!!!!!!

sexy SADIE? So sad!!!1 DO NOT TRUST the MARKET. Neil PEART BAD DRUMMER like a MACHINE, that is SOUL LAcking!

By the way, folks. Nice to see you’re deleting posts. Guess that freedom of speech thing only applies to those who don’t contradict you.

Wait, Corporations bribe corrupt government to do bad things, so somehow removing govt. doesn’t grease the wheels for more bad things?

The only way this could get better is for John Stossel to poof out of thin air and repeat his privatize the FDA bullshit. Because corporations would never lie, and perfect markets most certainly dont’ require the absence of monopolies AND educated consumers, so I’m really happy that large corporations won’t use their monopolistic leverage to say, misinform consumers about say the dangers of smoking, the dangers of the food they consume, pollution, global warming, etc. etc.

ALL I can add is that when you discuss Tom Saywer, you need to do the *psew* *psew* Ba-na-na-NAR *pseeeeeeeewwwwwwwwww*

What is this low-class dodge? I haven’t noticed any deleted posts.

…although, I don’t really care either. The glibertarians have really been behaving badly today….

“By the way, folks. Nice to see you’re deleting posts.

I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I just got here so I’ll try to fix the broken html in a bit, but I havent messed with any posts, much less deleted any.

Pinko Punko,
Umm, nobody ever said that corporations don’t lie. Let me ask you a question, how many choices for purchasing electricity do you have in your neighborhood? Every where I have lived I have only had one choice for electricity and if I am lucky a different company for gas. Can you say Government sponsored (mandated) monopoly? Since the deregulation of the airline industry, prices have dropped over 30%, and that is with the massive fuel increases of late. Since deregulation of the telecommunications industry phone prices have dropped from $1/min long distance to the $.028/min that I pay. That is a reduction of over 97%. Tell me again how government controlling businesses is good for the public? I acknowledge the need for the FDA, EPA and other watchdogs but I don’t see the benefit in the government telling me that I can only have one power provider or one trashman for that matter. By allowing the government the control of business you are inviting BIG business to manipulate the government into doing thier bidding at the expense of smaller, more nimble and environmentally friendly competitors.

What is this low-class dodge? I haven’t noticed any deleted posts.

If you don’t “notice” it, it’s like it never happened!

The glibertarians have really been behaving badly today….

Yeah, imagine defending someone against being misrepresented, providing links to his actual words. What evil, boorish brutes.

By allowing the government the control of business you are inviting BIG business to manipulate the government ”

And just why is the government corrupted by Big rather than small business? Could it be because of the legalized bribery coming from ultimately libertarian conflation of “money=speech”?

Big has more “speech” than little, just as rich has more “speech” than poor, hence the favoritism and corruption. And because the rich and the corporate are by nature sinless entities (greed is good!), all the blame goes to the corrupt, bribed politician, rather than the amorally fucktardious corrupting entity.

Campaign contributions are bribery; that’s the propertarian system (it’s teh FREEEDOM!!!1!!!!1!!). Thus, plutocracy. It’s a bit more complicated than it used to be, but essentially propertarianism has won and the dream of atavistic dreams — a rollback of the New Deal and the Progressive Era reforms — has already come true.

As for “missing” posts, there are a few that were here and are now no longer. All but one by GILMORE, all by Joshua Corning, all by Warren.

To quote:

Gregor Samsa said,
June 3, 2006 at 1:16 am
LIBERTARIAN PEOPLE!!!! Enough with the RUSH. They suck!!! Tom Sawyer BAD SONG!!!1

Magically, there are no posts remaining referencing RUSH made by anybody from Reason H&R. I suppose I will just chalk it up to your server eating them. It was said that prior to having all postings removed both Joshua and Warren recieved this message when they attempted to post:

Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.
You may want to contact the blog admin via e-mail to notify him.

I guess the government and “The People” really aren’t the same thing anymore. And on that, I agree with the glibs. Maybe they should start voting again. Also, why doesn’t someone break the link between money and power with some kind of electoral reform? Tighter contribution and spending limits and public financing for campaigns?

Glibs: Awwk! That sounds really hard! Can’t I just sit around and whine about the government? Isn’t that good enough?

Yeah, imagine defending someone against being misrepresented, providing links to his actual words. What evil, boorish brutes.

Glibs need more love…and help with sarcasm and humour, obviously.

If you don’t “notice� it, it’s like it never happened!

How would I know? I swear, I haven’t noticed. Maybe they did get thrown into the spam queue…that’s happened to my comments here a few times.

Why not wait for evidence before attributing malice? Don’t Glibs like evidence?

Propertarian guys:

I think I just fixed the italics bleed but since I’ve never edited comments before, I havent yet found whatever posts the spam filter supposedly ate. I’m loooking and will restore what I can or refer it to someone more skilled.

Regardless, we don’t delete posts around here for content unless it outs someone or is threatening. No one is censoring you, though word press (a soulless entity, like your friend, the corporation!) might be accidentally.

I’ll try to keep it simple, so even socialists like yourselves can understand.

Humans are corruptible. This also applies to government officials, despite what you so-called “liberals” believe. So, when you give a government official the power to interfere in the economy, you can be sure that he will grant favours to those who bribe him.

The classical liberal sollution to this is simple : keep the government away from the economy. With the government unable to grant favours, no one will to try to buy them.

Instead, what do people like you advocate ? More and more restrictions on freedom … That’s just treating the symptoms, not the cause.

PS You could at least be honest enough to admit that you’ve been deleting posts. After all, it’s your right to do so.

I doubt the spam filter ate the missing posts. They weren’t blocked from going up here: They *were* up here, and now they’re gone.

They were good posts, for the most part. More to the point, they were arguments from actual libertarians who believe the thing libertarians actually believe, rather than imaginary cartoon characters who say “the rich and the corporate are by nature sinless entities” and the other idiocies being attributed to them here.

Special note to Mal de Mer: Since you mentioned “help with sarcasm and humor,” I thought I’d offer a little friendly advice myself: the “glibertarian” thing isn’t getting any funnier with repetition. Keep it up, and you’ll sound like one of those warbloggers who still think it’s clever to call people “moonbats.” (How long has it been since Ishmael Reed wrote that essay about “Gliberals”? 30 years? 40? Long enough that any variations on the jibe are going to taste stale…)

Look, propertarians, we just got this software last week. And in going into the comments, I’m doing something I’ve never done before.

I’ve found the thread finally and am manually restoring them. I dunno why they are in moderation but that’s what it fucking says.

yeah all my posts have been deleted…warren’s have as well and GILMORE’s also…there might be others. You guys are lame for doing it.

I thought liberals were against generalizations?

I mean all anyone’s really written here is, every libertarian I’ve known is crazy, so they all have to be.

Libertarian response: Here’s some links that I think disproves you so I think your characterization is wrong.

Sadly No repsonse: Every libertarian I’ve known is ….

It seems a little childish to conflate limited knowledge of a few with total knowledge of an entire group, Hell – think of the difference between Christians, those that don’t judge, and those that judge everyone except themselves. Catholics are almost evenly split in voting demographics.

Either way – Kudos though for admiting to the error in post deletion and attempting resolution. While prejudices may run wild around here, at least someone has integrity.

PS – I see that it also ate tigrismus’ sympathetic post. So much for our intentional deletions of persecuted propertarian comments.

I have to do each of these by hand ‘cos I dont know of any other way and am winging it. I should be done in a few.

Special note to Mal de Mer:

Oui?

Since you mentioned “help with sarcasm and humor,� I thought I’d offer a little friendly advice myself:

“Friendly” as in I *heart* U Mal de Mer 4evah! or “friendly” as in passive-aggression masquerading as haughtiness and condescention….

the “glibertarian� thing isn’t getting any funnier with repetition. Keep it up, and you’ll sound like one of those warbloggers who still think it’s clever to call people “moonbats.�

Gee, missed that one. This is just banal, prissy scolding. Ouch! Retract those claws, missy!

(How long has it been since Ishmael Reed wrote that essay about “Gliberals�? 30 years? 40? Long enough that any variations on the jibe are going to taste stale…)

Well, it seemed to me that ReedzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ….

Gosh, this gLibertarian libertediousness is really a lot more fun than I ever thought it would be.

Government by Disney animated dog?

i actually the sound of like “propertarian” better than “libertarian” – just sound it out slowly. not being very doctrinaire i’m hep to new nomenclature.

on the other hand there’s fond warmth around “glibertarian,” as i’m proud of my quick wit and winsome charm.

Spot on, dhex.

The fact that they use “propertarian” as an insult just goes to show what these “liberals” actually believe.

You’d think that after the total failure of communism, people would realize that private property and the free market are the cornerstones of freedom and prosperity. But noooo… Hell, it must be tough admitting you’ve been wrong all these years.

I’ve restored all that were in moderation queue. But I didn’t find the posts by that Joshua dude, though I remember seeing them and wanting to reply to them when I came back to the computer this evening.

I’ll ask Seb to see if he can find them.

Are everyone else’s comments accounted for?

BTW, if our aim was in deleting prickly comments, why would we shitcan Joshua’s substantive criticisms and tig’s sympathetic snarkings to H&Rs but let stand Yaphet Kotto’s snotty replies?

We dont purposely delete comments. Period.

Passive-aggressive cattiness and now quick wit and winsome charm? Good God, it’s like a Junior League mixer in here with these gLibs.

Oh noes…and now a gLib said “spot on!”

That’s it. I’m in faux-British heaven.

Well. It looks like I slipped past your ‘unimpeachable dissenting thought’ filter. At least for the time being. For the record I had two brilliant comments (and one inside joke) up on this thread for over three hours this afternoon.

Looks like the thought police tossed em down the memory hole. Nice echo chamber you got here.

The fact that they use “propertarian� as an insult just goes to show what these “liberals� actually believe.

You’d think that after the total failure of communism, people would realize that private property and the free market are the cornerstones of freedom and prosperity. But noooo… Hell, it must be tough admitting you’ve been wrong all these years.

Shouldn’t you be out spitting on some homeless person right now? I’m not a commie; I’m a social dem and if you can’t tell the difference between Sweden and the Soviet Union, that’s your fucking problem.

I’m against the blanket equasion of property rights to “human being” rights like speech, privacy, free asembly, etc. All rights are *not* equal. Moreover, I’m against the social darwinist nitwittery that informs much libertarian attitude.

Retardo,
your pants are on fire

Oh, I know the difference between a “social-democrat” and a communist.

The social-democrat takes 50% or more of your wealth and severely restricts your freedom. The communist takes everything you have and then shoots you in the back. Yes, the former is much better than the latter.

But that’s like saying taking a punch in the face is better than getting killed.

And what you call “social darwinism” I like to call “individual responsibilty”.

And since when do social-democrats give a crap about individual freedom? You’re the ones dying to regulate everything.

Still waiting to see my posts restored
doot doot doodle doo doo doot doot doo doot

can you hear me now?

Okay, this communist shit’s bothering the fuck out of me. The Soviet/PRC’s failure does not prove a good damn thing about The Cornerstones of Freedom and Prosperity. All it proves is, gasp, people in power are pretty much prone to being falliable and corruptible. Tell you what, when the libertarians actually organize a country or two based on libertarianism and stop just sitting around countries bitching about how much money they should be making if it just weren’t for the limitations of government, I’ll listen to your charming little tracts about why communism proves corporations=freedom

Well now! All scoring advantage the Reason folks had has evaporated in a miasma of haughty, humorless condescension. It’s like having a certain law professor come by, but without all the offense-taking.

It doesn’t help that they’ve displayed just the sort of lack of understanding of “socialism” that they purport many folks here to have. Bundles of straw and false dichotomies thrown in for good measure. Tsk tsk. (Psst: Technically, the military is a socialist institution. Should we all hire private armies paid for by user fees?)

Hi everybody. I’m a regular commenter on Hit and Run. I come at libertarianism from more of a leftish slant.

The thing is, you guys are arguing with just one type of libertarian. Behind every stereotype there is indeed an anecdote. But for every anecdote there are dozens of other anecdotes that don’t fit the stereotype.

Look at a typical long thread on Hit and Run, and you can probably find a few comments that fit the stereotypes you’re arguing with. You can also find a whole bunch of people jumping all over the person who makes those arguments. We aren’t a monolithic bloc.

Anyway, as to Reason in general and Jacob Sullum in particular: Reason has been one of Bush’s best critics. Maybe not quite as incessant as more knee-jerk critics, but persistent and absolutely razor-sharp. And Jacob Sullum is one of the sharpest people writing for Reason. Not to mention a HUGE critic of the Bush administration.

Ah, yes. The USSR failed not because it was based on a false premise (namely, that you can have a prosperous society without private property). It failed because it didn’t have the right people in charge.

And who are the people who should have been in charge ? The social-democrats, who else!

It’s obvious that people in power are pretty much prone to being falliable and corruptible. But does that mean that the power of the government should be limited ? OF COURSE NOT !!! It means that the social-democrats must always be in charge.

And why exactly does the mention of communism bother you? After all, you have a lot in common. Communists don’t give a crap about private property – neither do you. Communists don’t give a crap about personal freedom – neither do you.

If any of you actually are open-minded enough to look at the evidence and decide for yourselves, join us over at H&R for a few days. Even hard-core leftists whose aim seems to be to insult us are usually treated as if their arguments are worth listening to. Who knows, you might find your preconceptions were incorrect. You might even discover how much we agree.

Oh, and Sexy Sadie, I hope you don’t mind, I’ve taken this line:
Libertarianism is the political party for people who don’t like people.
as my sign-off line on another libertarian board. It made me giggle!

Well, if nothing else, the comments this thread has engendered are living proof that many libertarians (much like their more socially conservative brethren) behave like uber-sensitive lunatics when threatened.

And Linguist, that last comment wasn’t directed at you. I had in mind more along the lines of Daniel, SixSigma, and the charmer who started all this mudslinging–Evan.

The thing is, you guys are arguing with just one type of libertarian. Behind every stereotype there is indeed an anecdote. But for every anecdote there are dozens of other anecdotes that don’t fit the stereotype.

Oh, I know this. If you take all the various strands of libertarianism and mush them all up together, you know what you tend to get? Liberalism.

You guys at Hit and Run sound a little less humourless. That’s good sign. Although, I won’t join you. I had all of this discussion 23 years ago, when I thought I was a libertarian.

Q: How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Get the fuck outta my house!

Nice move, Sexy Sadie.

First, you people accuse libertarians of things that have nothing in common with libertarianism.

Then, when some libertarians decide to confront you, you start crying foul.

Mind you, I’ve never heard an actual rebuttal of libertarian arguments.

“All scoring advantage the Reason folks had has evaporated in a miasma of haughty, humorless condescension.”

scoring? yes, you may very well win the internet at this rate.

i mean, what do you guys want? for me it’s real simple; the cornerstone of “property” as a concept is the self. no private property = no private life. you guys don’t dig on that, or feel it’s a slippery slope to very bad things ™, or whatever.

and so we split.

i’ve never gotten through more than 20 pages of ayn rand and i absolutely fucking hate rush. and i’m sure some of you have unique talents and hobbies as well. etc.

I thought liberals were against generalizations?

Well, when you make broad, sweeping generalizations like that, you’re bound to look silly. I have to admit, I’ve never met a self-proclaimed libertarian (either with a “Big L” or a small one, cause apparently there’s a difference) that wasn’t a complete cod-knocker when it came to politics. I think it’s air of smug superiority that gets to me, that whole “Smirk smirk, I’m for freedom and liberty while you stupid, naive liberals want the government to control every single aspect of daily life. You want the government to chose the kind of toilet paper we use, you socilamilist!!!” That and the use of Teh Government as some all-powerful booger man, holding down the virtuous capitalist trailblazer. Just sounds stupid, cause I don’t know if none of y’all noticed, but it ain’t poor motherfuckers running the halls of government. I swear, it’s like the whole wad of ’em seem to think that if there weren’t any of those evil, liberty-destroying government regulations, we’d have a capitalist paradise and no owner of business would ever fuck over a customer or cut corners on worker safety or try to create a monopoly or even control the means of informing the public. Cause, ya know, nothing like that’s ever happened before and there’s certainly no danger of people even trying such chicanery in today’s political climate.

Still, less intrusive government and a more concentrated tax base, that’s all good. It’s the whole clique thing that gets to me. Over a hundred comments over one measley pot-shot, and it’s basically been nothing but a dick-measuring contest. Score one for the power of the intranets.

Hey, maybe one of you libertarian stalwarts can explain something to me. Say we get that flat tax thing that seems to set y’all’s collective hearts a-flutter. Apart from the concerns of an increased black market and the corporate world not adjusting prices to reflect the new tax scheme, what’s to stop either the government to continue to spend tax dollars like a drunken frat boy on a Friday night or the hordes of lobbyists that infect the current political climate to make the new flat tax code just as unmanageable as the current one? Blind faith?

When I asked for empirical proof for the libertarian claim that the market can supply all the social good a government can, Daniel replied, “what do you call the horrible failures known as “formerly socialist countriesâ€? ? Wouldn’t the failure of command economies imply that the free market is indeed the engine of prosperity?”

Sorry, but that makes no sense. I asked for empirical proof that the market can supply the “good” things the government can. The failure of the Communist countries of the Eastern bloc simply doesn’t speak to that question.

I think it might be the binary thinking: either a completly free-market libertopia or the USSR (which somehow must be indistinguishable from the USA or Sweden). The idea that there are some things the market does well and some things the government does well simply isn’t part of libertarian thought.

We have a mixed economy, seem to be doing pretty well. Sweden has a mixed economy, ditto. I like the national parks, the interstate highway system, meat inspection for sanitary conditions, drug efficacy laws, vaccination laws, educational requirements for children, child-labor laws, maximum hour laws, . licences to drive and operation motor vehicles, and lots of other things my government does. I’m sure that others can supply other things they like about the government. The FDIC, rural electrification, the Endangered Species Act, all these internets that the kids are so excited about these days.

Libertarians see these things as intolerable infringements on their freedoms, although they seldom go further than to claim that taxation is theft. When asked to provide proof that some of these things could be provided by a purely market driven economy they proclaim the evils of the USSR. Well, I just don’t see that as an answer.

And the answer, by the way, seems to cut against Evan’s claim about how his comparisons between the USA Third Reich or Al Quada being a jolly hyperbole. Every time I want to proclaim a loyalty to a mixed market economy in a democratic system, they basically accuse me of supporting totalitarian regime. Do you REALLY not see a difference between a liberal democracy and totalitarianism? Because if you don’t it is difficult to see how communication is possible between us. Alas.

Dammit, I left out a thought. I meant to add that even though every libertarian I’ve ever met or read has come off as a self-centered, disingenuous jackass, I’m sure there’s more than a few who honestly stand by the principles expoused in the whole shebang. That being said, the whole “It’s my money, why should I pay for someone else’s sewage and public utilities and sidewalks, what about my liberty” thing is a bit, well…prickish. Just because programs that help people are flawed and abused don’t mean that we should simply abandoned people when they’re down on their luck.

That’s the impression I always get from even the most benign libertarian theory – that and a worship of power, be it capitalistic or from the barrel of a gun – and while I can’t provide an irrefutable argument against being a self-centered prick, as I doubt one exists (in a Rortian sense, anyway), I wouldn’t be as discombobulated with libertarian ideology if more of ’em just owned up to it.

For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about anarchists on the left who have no problem with who gets hurt when the Revolution succeeds and halls of power run red with the blood of capitalists, facists and whatever poor bastard making just above minimum wage at Starbucks to feed his kids or pay for school and just happens to get in the way. “Collateral damage” I’ve heard it refered as, and it’s just as bullshit.

Hail Discordia. All Hail Eris. Twist And Shout.

Retardo: “I’m against the blanket equasion of property rights to “human beingâ€? rights like speech, privacy, free asembly, etc.”

Isn’t the ultimate property right the right to your own person embodied in the Bill of Rights?

Wow, this is the most boring thread in the history of boring threads, and I read it all! And now I realise why Libertarians annoy me: They NEVER SHUT UP!

Aw, c’mon, folks. I don’t agree with our guests here, but they are a billion times smarter than the wingnut theocrats who own the Republican party right now.

Alright, all you unlettered, lazy, socialist sadlynoites. Here’s something that may persuade you—Frodo the Libertarian is running for Congress.

Aw, c’mon, folks. I don’t agree with our guests here, but they are a billion times smarter than the wingnut theocrats who own the Republican party right now.

That’s probably true. They still talk too damn much, though. Whine whine whine, the MAN is keeping me down, blahbitty blah blah….and I’m spending a Friday night reading it. Now I’m depressed AND bored. Thanks a lot, libertarians!

Q: How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Get the fuck outta my house!

OK, that was funny.

“Now I’m depressed AND bored.”

the invisible hand strikes again!

make better choices, kid. good luck to ya.

Even though I have been a complete prick here, my comments weren’t deleted.
I think that proves that even though the SadlyNo crew may think we’re crazed wingnuts, at least the posts were lost unintentionally. So thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry about the new software, hope it works better next time…

Isn’t the ultimate property right the right to your own person embodied in the Bill of Rights?
So, you do realize you’ve just equated human beings to property, right?

Unless I’ve missed a sardonic point here.

“Libertarianism made sense when I was in 8th grade.”

The modern political party that is closest in philosophy to men like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson is the Libertarian Party.

Oops. Got sloppy with the URL.

Human beings are property alright. The question is, do you wish to own yourself or to be own in part or in full by someone else?

Thomas Jefferson advocated bloody revolutions every couple years just to keep government officials on their toes. I would propose that this element of Jeffersonian philosophy would be roundly ignored by any modern political party, including Libertarians.

As this thread is seriously snark-defecient anyway, I have a question for the libertarians. Someone mentioned services like power and gas companies, and Government intrusion. Let’s imagine that large sections of the US were still without gas and power. In a truly free-market economy, whatever would prevent gas/power companies from ignoring rural and sparsely-populated areas? Indeed, in a free market context, it makes the most sense to completely neglect these areas, as to maximize profit you need the biggest potential customer base and the smallest installation and maintanence costs possible (in other words, a big city).

Likewise, what’s to protect companies from polluting the shit out of the environment without Government intervention? Again, the “best” thing to do in a free-market context is to maximise profitability and the environment be damned.
Likewise, pumping tonnes of hazardous toxins is perfectly acceptable, as far as I can gather, by libertarian principles (“it’s their land. They can do what they want.”) What’s to stop them from polluting under Libertarianism. Also, who builds roads, footpaths, traffic lights; or createes national parks or public parks and playgrounds; if not for the Government. What possible motivation would private companies have to build any of these things without Government involvement? There is absolutely zero profit motive to any of these structures or utilities.

Perhaps some of the more rabidly anti-tax can tell me who helps the poor in a libertarian society. There’s no profit-motive to providing welfare or subsidized housing, for instance. Or is the plan to just cross our fingers and blindly rely on altruism to stop the poor from starving to death, or indeed for provision of all the services I’ve just mentioned.

Answer those questions satisfactorally and I’ll rethink my belief that libertarianism isn’t a hopelessly-utopian philosophy at best and an excuse for the selfish to remain that way and still maintain a veneer of a social conscience at worse.

The question is, do you wish to own yourself or to be own in part or in full by someone else?
How do you balance this fact that as social creatures, people are inherently going to be owned in part or in full by any entity it engages in a obligational setting with? To gain full ownership of the self, we’d have to abolish family (a roundly Commielist idea), friends, business, and anything else that would disrupt the self from gaining a full bubble of self-absorbtion.

In other words, take that Randian shit somewhere else, people aren’t built for full ownership.

Having full ownership of oneself does not preclude mutually agreeable relationships such as family life, friendships, employment, etc. Or contractually giving up most of that ownership for a period of time by, for example, enlisting in the military.

And of course, if human beings and all their rights reduce to property rights, the libertarian philosophy MUST embrace slavery. After all, if ALL rights are property rights, I can sell myself and my children into slavery. And society would be obligated to enforce my owner’s right to treat me and my children as property and do what the owner will to me and my children, including killing me and torturing my children.

It would be an infringement of MY freedom to prevent the enforcing of the contract that enslaved me because in libertopia, I freely chose to be enslaved. A libertarian cannot recognize any other social forces besides free choice when entering a contract because such a recognition undercuts their belief in absolute freedom to dispose of my property, including my body and the bodies of my children, as I see fit. To deny that I have such a right is to admit that there are other sources of rights besides property and that cannot be consistently done by the libertarians.

Of course, I’d be happy to read anything in the vaunted Reason archive that shows me my errors, just supply the URL.

Isn’t the ultimate property right the right to your own person embodied in the Bill of Rights?

Oh jeebus, I love these traps. This is where I say “yeah, strictly speaking” and then you say, “aha! gotcha!” and I lose patience.

My right to my liver is not that same as my right to the pack of gum I bought, much less to a corporation’s “right” to pollute the land it owns. But you can’t tell propertarians that because “freedom is freedom” and all property is equal.

There is a heirarchy. You guys are calling socialists-statists-liberals lazy when at the same time you engage in the epitome of intellectual sloth: there is a hierarchy of rights, they aren’t all equal, and if you’d shitcan your desire to fit a working philosophy into an epigram, everyone would be better off.

Look, I’m sympathetic to Jeffersonian libertarianism, because Jefferson knew which rights matter and which could be infringed in a pragmatic way. But fuck a bunch of the Milton Friedman brand of libertarianism, which can be basically summed up in the ultimate Charles Montgomery Burns Shorter: “That plane crashed on my property!”

I confess I’m hostile to libertarians for personals reasons too, however, as anyone sane would be if they had to encounter David Nieporent’s insane shit as much as I have. Also, I am predisposed to loathe libertarians because re: baseball, they are fucking moral cretins whose attitude to steroids is “yay cheating is FREEDOM!!!!!!1! you rock, Barry Bonds!”, so sorry about not giving you H and R guys a better benefit of doubt.

In a truly free-market economy, whatever would prevent gas/power companies from ignoring rural and sparsely-populated areas?

Those are good questions and even though I’m the least intelligent libertarian defender here and I’ve been drinking, I’ll give you my two cents.

Well, they wouldn’t. Getting gas/power to rural and sparsely populated areas is profitable. That’s why it gets done.

Likewise, what’s to protect companies from polluting the shit out of the environment without Government intervention?

Most folks who have libertarian beliefs/leanings don’t think the government shouldn’t enforce environmental regulations, just like they don’t think stop lights should be abolished. It’s a false stereotype that libertarians want zero government regulation.

As far as taxes and the poor go, I think some libertarians purer than myself think that charity would do the job, but I’m highly skeptical of that. I think there must be some way to provide services to the poor without the waste and corruption that we have today.

And, finally, snark.

(hic!)

???

” In a truly free-market economy, whatever would prevent gas/power companies from ignoring rural and sparsely-populated areas? ”

their insane desire for profits?

just guessing, here.

So many questions!

It might interest y’all to know that many of these questions are hotly debated by libertarians who don’t consider the answers to be foregone conclusions. Then again, it might not. It depends on how dearly you hold onto your most treasured stereotypes, I suppose.

There’s not a lot to be gained by painstakingly listing here the various policies favored by different sectors of the libertarian nerdscape, when the “opposition” presented is drivel like
To gain full ownership of the self, we’d have to abolish family (a roundly Commielist idea), friends, business, and anything else that would disrupt the self from gaining a full bubble of self-absorbtion.

So let me get this straight. Friends, business and family are not relationships freely entered into by consenting humans? Choosing with whom I personally associate is just me being self-absorbed? I guess I’m “not built for” understanding such a total, sensible, mature worldview.

if human beings and all their rights reduce to property rights, the libertarian philosophy MUST embrace slavery.

Of course: a contradiction of FREEDOM!11!!

And your general point is illustrated in Thomas Sowell’s advocacy of the “right” to sell your own kidneys. I have been trying to be resevred in my language but I’m kinda buzzed right now and don’t have much patience. Libertarians are idiots who refuse to recognise that there’s such thing as structural coercion. That’s why they don’t get the anti-steroids in baseball argument, and why they are too dense to see the evil and fascism in Sowell’s pet cause (perhaps it would do to remind them yet again that it’s little different from eugenicist William Shockley’s suggestion that interested Darwinian Achievers pay Darwinian Losers [that’s right: black people] to be castrated.)

But no, cartoon concepts that have lost all meaning (FREEDOM!1!! LIBERTY!!!1!!) because they have no context automatically trump people, who are just evil and want to steal rich people’s money.

Even though I have been a complete prick here, my comments weren’t deleted.
I think that proves that even though the SadlyNo crew may think we’re crazed wingnuts, at least the posts were lost unintentionally. So thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry about the new software, hope it works better next time…

Hey thanks. You guys, pricks or not, are welcome here anytime. And thanks especially for not believing the censorship hype. We’re serious about that sort of thing, so long as you dont post someone’s personal info or threaten violence.

jpj, Retardo

I don’t see how much of what you said follows from any libertarian philosophy I’m familiar with. I think most libertarians wish to see the greatest amount of freedom to choose as possiable within a rule of law based on human rights. I.e., to do as I choose as long as my choices don’t directly prevent my fellows from doing the same.

I say freedom to choose instead of just freedom since freedom to choose includes choosing to give up freedom for other considerations.

So let me get this straight. Friends, business and family are not relationships freely entered into by consenting humans? Choosing with whom I personally associate is just me being self-absorbed? I guess I’m “not built for� understanding such a total, sensible, mature worldview.

Oh, I’ve been used as a target! Fun.

Family is not a relationship entered into freely. I was born, I’m therefore obligated to my parents. I’m also expected, on the part of my parents/stakeholders, to be obligated to relatives of my parents. I had no say in the matter, and even if I was, I’m fairly certain that as fetal tissue, I was far too young to be held accountable for any contract I signed. Family is completely minus consent.

Business is a requirement of civilization. If I don’t work, I don’t get money, I can’t get food, I can’t get living space, I live under an off-ramp, get pnuemonia on a cold snap in July, can’t get medical attention because I have no money, and die retching under before-mentioned off-ramp. Even if I get a job, I am owned by superiors. That’s hierarchy, it does exist, and we’re all trapped in it until somebody figures out a way to abolish it. As a commie, I’m actually pretty receptive to the idea of abolishment of hierarchy, but I’m not expecting it to happen if a Libertarian gets elected into an office.

Friends can be a mutually agreeable relationship. Of course, I have friends that I’m not even sure how I became associated with them. On occasion, you acquire obligations that are completely out of your means of control. Thus defeating consent.

But surely marriage is consented! Well, sure, marriage can contain consent. Of course, marriage also contains the ideas of arrangement, shotgun weddings, what have you. So it does defeat consent on occasion as well. Also, mutually-shared ownership must still be ownership, yes? So, you’re required to give up full ownership. This would defeat the purpose of the pithy slogan “do you want full ownership or be owned in part or full.” Because, well, you’ve just become owned in part.

Oh, but I forgot, I’m just talking drivel. I should get some talking points first that invoke freedom.

Retardo: “And your general point is illustrated in Thomas Sowell’s advocacy of the “rightâ€? to sell your own kidneys. I have been trying to be resevred in my language but I’m kinda buzzed right now and don’t have much patience. Libertarians are idiots who refuse to recognise that there’s such thing as structural coercion.”

If I understand what you mean by “structural coercion” (and I very well may be misunderstanding you) I’d argue that yes, it certainly exists, but it’s not very meaningful as a thing in itself. Structural coercion is omnipresent. All our choices are the results of antecedent causes beyond our control. But if “structural coercion” negates freedom, then we are never free, and any choice can be overriden in the name of “truly” freeing us from structural coercion.

I would counter that, while none of us our gods–all of us are constrained by the physical world–the best thing we can do is allow individuals to be as autonomous as possible, and make their own choices. That’s a general rule–there are certainly some exceptions. I don’t see why selling your organs is one of them. It isn’t suicide. People donate their organs all the time. And for some people, giving up their organs for monetary gain may be worthwhile, by their standards. You don’t have to like that choice, but at least respect it.

That’s a general rule–there are certainly some exceptions.
Who gets to decide the exceptions made?

I dont understand what the objective of this blog is if they provoke public discussions, then edit the content of the discussions indiscriminately –

I posted a number of comments here that were removed, then later replaced – selectively. Many are still gone…. in fact most of the clear rebuttals of “Derelict” are gone now… While the claim,

“, we look at Reason over the last six years and we notice very, very few hard-edged dissents from the Bush agenda. Instead, we see much euphoria over the tax cuts, and a general hard-right lean. And precious little notice of the evisceration of civil liberties…

…still stands. regardless of the fact that this is so demonstrably false that its evidence of either blatant ignorance, or a childish lie.

It’s one thing if people are slanging offensive verbiage indiscriminately, but to edit comment boards in effort to preserve the ‘appearances’ of a debate – without any substance – is totally pathetic.

The people running this site should ask themselves what they’re really committed to.: “democracy”, “pluralism”, “honest debate”, or some isolated, sterilized thing that invokes them disingenuously at times for convenience’s sake?

JG

Dammit, people. NO POSTS WEARE INTENTIONALLY DELETED. Go back and read the thread to find out what happened.

Matt –

You had me then you lost me. Let me explain what I mean using baseball for now.

Barry Bonds uses steroids to get better. Second tier players then start using. Eventually it slides down the talent hill and here we have the tragedy of coercion, the guy who is forced into taking steroids, against his will, to keep his marginal place in the majors. All because of other peoples’ “FREEDOM!1!!” to cheat.

Now to frame it back on what I mean by the Sowell statement, and tie it to the difference between types of property, and how the libertarian catchall/tautology/allequal definition of property is by nature dehumanizing because, in practice, it results in a culture in which property/capital is more important than property/human:

Guy is broke, destitute. In the libertarian dreamworld, all human parts can be reduced to capital, hence it becomes a bank that en economic class will be forced to use to survive. You know where I’m going so I’ll stave the inevitable epithets of “what paternalism!” with this: preventing organ sales is not to prevent stupid decisions but desperate ones.

Above all, it is despicable to demand of a human that they must do something or perish (the ultimate structural coercion), yet that is exactly what pure capitalism is all about. And I dont give a crap if it sacrifices some maximalist concept of FR33DOM!!1!! to insist that the “choice” (because regardless of the libertarian/social darwinist insistence that all economic destinies are under one’s own control, most poor/disabled/”inferior” people actually can’t do much to help their condition) to do nothing does not result in starvation and death.

And one more thing. While I know that this doesn’t apply to a majority of libertarians, I know it applies to at least one libertarian I know: libertarianism as social darwinism is a philosophy they embrace because it reinforces in them the idea that what they got, they deserve, and that those without are *intrinsically* inferior, undeserving, and so worthy of their darwinian deserts, i.e. death. There is a spencerian branch of libertarianism that is megafascist and I dont mean that in its original racist sense.

If there’s too much incoherence in this post, be nice and blame it on the drugs.

and so the means of production should go to the state and by default the only means of meeting a bodies needs ie food and shelter. So now the state owns your body…who again are you calling a fasist?

try try again

Family is not a relationship entered into freely.

Right. A family is the ultimate socialist unit. Umm Hitchens back when he was human put it well:

As I was moved to say at their conference, a family is collectivist as a society and socialist as an economy. It reveres the individual but it operates, approximately, on the principle “from each according to his or her ability and to each according to his or her need.” If these socialist values are good enough for the rearing of American children, why are they not good enough for American society?

I’m sure the libertarians will now accuse Hitchens and me of advocating communism, when neither did nor does. Social democracy, otoh.. but nevermind: you just *know* what a totalitarian society the Swedes have – ask the libertarians! Help, I’m being repressed!!!1!1!!

Retardo: “Eventually it slides down the talent hill and here we have the tragedy of coercion, the guy who is forced into taking steroids, against his will, to keep his marginal place in the majors.”

After due consideration to the risks and rewards, or not, he makes a choice. Hardly coercion.

and so the means of production should go to the state and by default the only means of meeting a bodies needs ie food and shelter. So now the state owns your body…who again are you calling a fasist?

Some libertarians. And your strawman.

I don’t believe in nationalizing industry.

After due consideration to the risks and rewards, or not, he makes a choice.

Ah, the classic libertarian Geddy Lee definition of “choice”.

Some “choice” it is to be forced to poison your body and cheat at your job, just to be able to keep it.

“If you choose not to decide/You still have made a choice!/I will choose Free Will/.

Hey, Propertarians Friends!

RE: the disappearing posts that I couldnt recover, the man with the ultimate set of keys is looking into it. We hope to restore everything ASAP.

I’ve seen the software you are using arbitrarily drop comments on other blogs.

For example, using this link, I can see eight comments posted by Warren.

Whoa, an argument about Libertarianism and Justin Raimondo hasn’t shown up, yet. This is a new one.

That’s weird, Charles. As I’m a ..well, retard when it comes to techy issues, I have no explanation but as I said, it’s being looked into by non-retards.

“Some “choiceâ€? it is to be forced to poison your body and cheat at your job, just to be able to keep it.”

You have very liberal definitions for coercion and force. 🙂

Guy is broke, destitute. In the libertarian dreamworld, all human parts can be reduced to capital, hence it becomes a bank that en economic class will be forced to use to survive. You know where I’m going so I’ll stave the inevitable epithets of “what paternalism!� with this: preventing organ sales is not to prevent stupid decisions but desperate ones.

I’ve never understood why liberals make this argument. Let’s assume you’re correct: selling his organs is this broke and destitute guy’s only hope to survive. Those who are against him selling his organs (you, presumably) would ban the transaction, i.e. you can’t sell your organs. This, in your view, would prevent him from making a “desperate” choice. But you get caught up in your own premises — it’s his only way to survive AND he shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Ummmm….so what happens to him now?

You can’t really back off and say “well, maybe it’s not his ONLY way”, because then your structural coercion argument goes out the window (or is, at least, very much weakened). What I’m really left with, and I’m not trying to snarky here, is that you believe that if someone is reduced to one option for his survival, then that someone should not be permitted to exercise that option if that option offends some sort of moral code to which you adhere. The practical effect of your argument is the broke and destitute guy having zero options instead of one.

Of course, I will now brace myself for the “See?? Libertarians think the poor should sell their organs!!” idiocy that will follow this post.

re: Deletions

My bad if that was the case. Apologies.

JG

Daniel: I should hope I have something in common with communism, I actually happen to believe that shit. But let me tell you something. I also happen to believe in personal freedom; being that it kind of goes along with the idea of destroying the conflict between the classes that creates hierarchy to have it. What I don’t believe in is property being the only meaning to my existence. I don’t believe corporations are personal beings, generally because corporations are owned by precisely the sort of motherfuckers that create class division. Call me a kook, but I’m not the one’s who’s been convinced companies equate to persons.

Retardo–

“Barry Bonds uses steroids to get better. Second tier players then start using. Eventually it slides down the talent hill and here we have the tragedy of coercion, the guy who is forced into taking steroids, against his will, to keep his marginal place in the majors. All because of other peoples’ “FREEDOM!1!!â€? to cheat.”

Just so I understand you, what’s your objection to steroids? Do you think steroids “impurify” the sport, or are you afraid for players’ health? I don’t agree with the former and I don’t know much about the latter. I’ll just assume it’s the latter, and I’ll assume that steroids do pose a health threat.

I do think you have a point here. Competitors–whether they’re baseball players or businesses in the market–make certain sacrifices in order to stay on top. Saying that they do so “against their will” is overblown. But it certainly may be true that baseball players would benefit from colluding instead of competing when it comes to steroid use, i.e., collectively agreeing not to take steroids. If they want to do that, I’ve no problem with it. I just don’t see why the MLB or, especially, the government should impose such a policy on the players if they’re willing to take the risks.

In the meantime, of course, I don’t approve of players who break the existing rules, because that penalizes the honest ones. But then, that’s just another problem with steroid prohibition. Instead of leaving steroids open to any player who wants to use them, only some players do (the sneakier ones), and that just makes things more unfair.

“Now to frame it back on what I mean by the Sowell statement, and tie it to the difference between types of property, and how the libertarian catchall/tautology/allequal definition of property is by nature dehumanizing because, in practice, it results in a culture in which property/capital is more important than property/human:

Guy is broke, destitute. In the libertarian dreamworld, all human parts can be reduced to capital, hence it becomes a bank that en economic class will be forced to use to survive. You know where I’m going so I’ll stave the inevitable epithets of “what paternalism!â€? with this: preventing organ sales is not to prevent stupid decisions but desperate ones.”

Nostradennis answered this about as well as I can. I really don’t understand what you hope to accomplish by banning Mr. Broke’s “desperate choice” in this case. According to your own premises, that just forces the broke guy to suffer an even worse fate.

Most baseball players won’t lose their jobs if they can’t use steroids; they’ll still have paying jobs that are now safer, so it’s a tradeoff. But Mr. Broke, according to your description, has now lost an opportunity (albeit an unpleasant one) and gained nothing, and will now starve to death.

I don’t understand the bit about “property/capital is more important than property/human.” Are you saying organ sales will cause people to value money over body parts? I don’t see how legalizing organ sales would change how people value the two. Laws don’t dictate subjective evaluations; laws merely constrain how we can act upon them. In any case, there are thousands of people who die every year on organ waiting lists. It’s certainly pro-human to implement a policy that will save people’s lives by increasing the organ supply.

Here’s how we get at the point that organ sales are a bad idea.

Say you have this one guy. He doesn’t intend to sell HIS organs, but he is interested in selling organs. Now, how do we prevent this person from taking a bunch of people, and selling off THEIR organs for HIS profit?

The danger is not in the desperate broke guy, the danger is in the guy trying to make money off the desperate broke guy.

Hrmm, I’m hitting that spam filter a lot.

Nobody ever said the government has to control everything. yes, I enjoy my lower priced phone service, but how many companies are we down to now? and we could make an argument about terrible airline service blah blah. I am ALL for deregulation of COMPETITION, but for regulation of safety, standards, pollution, and environment. Certain limited resources, resources that are not just limited, but FINITE need special protection, and the magical hand of the market or technology need not apply. For example, a cure for cancer is probably highly, highly in demand, however, market forces alone will not be enough to bring this about. There are some things that cannot be decided by market forces. For example urban planning up front can make for incredibly attractive living spaces, but the population density that might need be achieved to create a market for such spaces may not exist at the time planning need take place for the cost to be unprohibitive. The sad fact is that some forms of planning can see farther into the future than the market. So we really not arguing about airline or telephone regulation. So let’s jump ahead to the next level, OK kids?

I will say that I never saw a post about Rush before Gregor’s post. In some live commenting systems, a comment will appear to the viewer on the page, but will not appear to anyone else. Also, I believe that a certain number of comments over a threshhold number in a certain amount of time will be marked as spam by spam karma 2, if from commenters not previously OKd (commenters that have been seen before). You can look up the actual filter. We run SK2 at 3B, and it works this way, but we have the filters set so it has never been a problem. You can go over there and see that tigrismus specifically mentioned a comment getting eaten. So please just chill.

Patkin–

“Say you have this one guy. He doesn’t intend to sell HIS organs, but he is interested in selling organs. Now, how do we prevent this person from taking a bunch of people, and selling off THEIR organs for HIS profit?”

You mean, organ theft?

First of all, as far as I know, there isn’t a single documented case of organ theft (urban legend notwithstanding). That’s so even though a (black) market for organs already exists. Organ theft may be difficult to pull off because donors need to be matched to recipients, or because it’s relatively easy to tell who a stolen organ came from.

Second, you could make this argument for just about any good. “If it’s legal to sell X’s, people will start stealing X’s.” Not a very strong argument, by itself, for banning the sale of anything.

Third, legalizing organ sales might very well decrease the chance of organ theft. If there’s an entirely legal avenue for procuring organs, then no one in the supply chain has to deal with criminals.

Since the discussion keeps returning to organ sales…

The National Kidney Foundation is behaving reprehensibly, especially given its mandate. When I first got interested in organ donations, I naively thought that the foundation would be in the business of doing everything possible to encourage kidney donations. I was terribly wrong. The group vehemently, and successfully, opposed a bill that would have allowed tests of incentives for organ donors. (CEO John Davis brags here, scroll to second item.)
[…]
Keep in mind by way of context that there are 66,000 Americans on the waiting list for kidneys and that if every single person in the country agreed to be a post-mortem kidney donor, that would only double the supply of cadaver kidneys to about 13,000 a year, since a relatively few causes of death allow for organ transplants.
[…]
The National Kidney Foundation vs. Open Debate and Increasing Kidney Donations

[…] Author’s Aside: S,N! is being overrun by a laughingstock of libertarians. The invisible hand is strong there and just as silly as ever. […]

Yawwwwnnnn! Usually an invocation of “external costs” is enough to chase the libertarians back into their trailers. Let’s see if it works: EXTERNAL COSTS! EXTERNAL COSTS! EXTERNAL COSTS!

[Are they still here?]

A hundred comments later and you kids are still talking about RUSH??!! NEXT TOPIC: the inherent uncleanliness of John Stossel’s BOOSHY MOOSTACHE.

Retardo: Guy is broke, destitute. In the libertarian dreamworld, all human parts can be reduced to capital, hence it becomes a bank that en economic class will be forced to use to survive. You know where I’m going so I’ll stave the inevitable epithets of “what paternalism!� with this: preventing organ sales is not to prevent stupid decisions but desperate ones.

Nostradennis: I’ve never understood why liberals make this argument. Let’s assume you’re correct: selling his organs is this broke and destitute guy’s only hope to survive. Those who are against him selling his organs (you, presumably) would ban the transaction, i.e. you can’t sell your organs. This, in your view, would prevent him from making a “desperate� choice. But you get caught up in your own premises — it’s his only way to survive AND he shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Ummmm….so what happens to him now?

I don’t really disagree with the Libertarians about drugs, and admire them for making that point.

What makes me laugh is their assumption that if only they didn’t have to fork over all them taxes on their profitable business, that they could somehow still enjoy all the govt perks that make their business possible (little things like sewers, highways, public education, fire departments, police, environmental laws, etc. etc.)

Reminds me of a story my dad told me when i was about ten about Elmo, a retarded dwarf who hung around a tavern my dad used to frequent in the 1940’s… the big joke was that the barflies would put a nickel and a dime down on the bar and offer Elmo his choice.

General hilarity would ensue when Elmo would choose the nickel instead of the dime.

“But why would Elmo do that?” I asked my dad.

“Because Elmo was smart enough to know that if he chose the dime, nobody would play the game with him.”

Sorry, Libertarians, it’d be nice to save those taxes and choose the dime instead of the nickel, but the game would end real soon.

The reason libertarianism doesn’t have much support anymore in the U.S. is that liberals, as they describe themselves today, believe in freedom of personal behavior — sexual behavior and so on — but want to regulate markets, whereas the conservatives want markets to be free but seek to regulate people’s personal behavior. The libertarian doesn’t like either form of regulation, unless it meets pretty tight criteria: The target of government intervention has to be an activity that either imposes external costs or creates external benefits. That position, I think, has very little appeal.
Sex, Economics, and Other Legal Matters: Judge and scholar Richard A. Posner speaks out on the Clinton impeachment, the Microsoft case, and nude dancing.

🙂

Woops….trying that again:

Retardo: Guy is broke, destitute. In the libertarian dreamworld, all human parts can be reduced to capital, hence it becomes a bank that en economic class will be forced to use to survive. You know where I’m going so I’ll stave the inevitable epithets of “what paternalism!� with this: preventing organ sales is not to prevent stupid decisions but desperate ones.

Nostradennis: I’ve never understood why liberals make this argument. Let’s assume you’re correct: selling his organs is this broke and destitute guy’s only hope to survive. Those who are against him selling his organs (you, presumably) would ban the transaction, i.e. you can’t sell your organs. This, in your view, would prevent him from making a “desperate� choice. But you get caught up in your own premises — it’s his only way to survive AND he shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Ummmm….so what happens to him now?

Here we have the archtypal gLibertarian predilection for using reason not for exposition or achieving concensus, but simply to prolong a discussion interminably.

Retardo’s scenario is a description of a possible real-world event at a particular point in time…the rest of us who read it could assume easily that most of us observing these events would see them rougly the same way.

Nostradennis responds by framing the entire context of this situation in isolation. Anything that when on in the past for this man to arrive at such a desparate situtation is simply not part of the discursive frame, and the scenario is re-cast as resting on a “premise” that has not been examined carefully.

With ideologues, it is ever thus. The real-world collides with the hypothetical and rather than using the hypothetical to establish a real-world, science-based experiment (which I hope some day, the long-awaited Free State lab-rat maze will remedy) a thought-experiment is engaged, in which a vast set of pre-existing real-world conditions simply do not exist.

It’s all great fun (not really), but it just does not provide a useful examination for events that occur in the world around us, in the here and now, which is all there is.

Libertarianism is generally ahistorical – the early European libertarians who thought of the New World as a new libertarian utopia simply assumed that this “new” world didn’t have any people living in it already and that their most important property rights at that time came into being the instant they assumed ownership of this new world.

A curious foundation, to say the least.

Nostradennis responds by framing the entire context of this situation in isolation. Anything that when on in the past for this man to arrive at such a desparate situtation is simply not part of the discursive frame, and the scenario is re-cast as resting on a “premise� that has not been examined carefully

Uh, no. Nostrodennis surely has plenty of ideas about how to deal with structural problems like poverty. He just doesn’t think they should include reducing the options of the people who are already poor.

Wow! Only one comment on here and I’m a “unber-sensitive” something something.

Thank you Sadie – that makes my day.

Uh, no. Nostrodennis surely has plenty of ideas about how to deal with structural problems like poverty. He just doesn’t think they should include reducing the options of the people who are already poor.

Oh this is a new twist…when dealing with someone’s reason, one has to assume a body of thought for which one has no way of knowing?

Lord, it really doesn’t get better than this, does it?

By the way…when you wrote “uh, no…”, were you rolling your eyes and pursing your lips? If not, I suggest you revisit Randian Reasonning Guidelines for Precocious Toddlers., as you might be slipping into unorthodoxy.

I’m late to this party. But I was certainly invited.

But maybe I’m being philosphically unfair as well as a rude host. Perhaps I should be more like my friend digamma, who considers the good stuff in Reason to be “libertarian� but the bad stuff, not.

If I agree with Philosophy X, of course I’m going to believe that things I agree with are X-ian and things I don’t aren’t. This seems tautological.

Don’t you get to do the same thing to, say, the Washington Monthly, or the Democratic party itself? I don’t consider the fact that Democrats have done all kinds of stupid right-wing things an indictment of progressivism itself, I consider it their failure to adhere to their own values.

Why are we on Central European Time?

Likewise, what’s to protect companies from polluting the shit out of the environment without Government intervention? Again, the “best� thing to do in a free-market context is to maximise profitability and the environment be damned.

Yes, I generally find that the “best” thing I can possibly do is to foul my own air, food and water. It really pays off in the profit-maixmizing sense, ignoring away the tiny detail that I cannot enjoy those profits because I’ve poisoned myself to death.

Also, who builds roads, footpaths, traffic lights; or createes national parks or public parks and playgrounds; if not for the Government. What possible motivation would private companies have to build any of these things without Government involvement? There is absolutely zero profit motive to any of these structures or utilities.

Sadly, No!

Do you really think nobody ever built any of those things before TEH GOVERNMENT though of them? Evil Industrialist Andrew Carnegie used to build libraries like most people breathe, for crissakes.

Oh this is a new twist…when dealing with someone’s reason, one has to assume a body of thought for which one has no way of knowing?

Let’s see. The whole gist of your post was to assume a body of thought and fence with that strawman rather than deal with the point Nostradennis made. I redirected you to that point, and now you complain that you have to “assume a body of thought”?

Give me a fucking break.

It would be a obnoxious complaint in any event, since you don’t have to assume anything to get Nostro’s point. But it’s especially obnoxious when you’re posing as an expert on what libertarians think.

Speaking of obnoxiousness:

By the way…when you wrote “uh, no…�, were you rolling your eyes and pursing your lips? If not, I suggest you revisit Randian Reasonning Guidelines for Precocious Toddlers., as you might be slipping into unorthodoxy.

If you’re going to accuse other people of being smug and self-important, try JUST ONCE to post something here that doesn’t drip with smug, self-important condescension.

I’m not a Randian, by the way — indeed, I have a pretty low opinion of Rand. Lots of libertarians aren’t Randians, and Rand herself denounced libertarians as “hippies of the right.” But you know that, of course — after all, you “had all of this discussion 23 years ago, when I thought I was a libertarian.”

Jesse, I’ve declared obvious victory and gone home. You are free to continue arguing with my inner child if you want, but I doubt you’ll find it enlightening.

Since the object of trolling is to get a rise out of someone, I suppose you did win. Enjoy your victory, and your life.

Pay dirt! I got a “have a nice life.” That is all I ever wanted from gLibs.

*sniff*…oh, now I’m getting emotional…

I’m a liberal who agrees with libertarians on some things. At least I agree with the libertarians who tend to be anti-war, anti-capital punishment, pro-immigration. And I think they have a strong record for sticking up for civil liberties (sorry guys, there are some decent arguments against libertarian ideas out there but suggesting they don’t favor civil liberties is just a silly straw man). Yet, I have some questions for the visiting libertarians here. I buy the argument for example that individual freedom is generally a good thing. But what I like about liberalism is that liberals also emphasis the importance of protecting people from various forms of social harms. I don’t mean to be throwing out my own straw man here but it seems to me that libertarians often assume there are no conflicts between individual liberty and societal needs (correct me if I’m wrong). I agree that they are not always in conflict. Often they aren’t. But they sometimes are. Here’s an example. I believe we have a right to property…at least within limits. But many libertarians see this as an absolute right, at least as I understand them. So, eminent domain can never be invoked for any reason. Suppose there is a need for a garbage dump in one local area but no one is willing to move. Now, if a garbage dump cannot be built because everyone has an absolute right to property, then we have a conflict as now there’s a public health issue involved. How is that to be resolved in a libertarian universe? Or how about even greyer areas – you live next door to someone who shines bright lights that falls on your property or emits smells from his pig farm that make you feel a bit nauseous. Without zoning in the second case, this one becomes a problem as it’s not clear you could prove your nausea on the smell of pigs in a court. Which leads into one more issue – protection against unsafe factory conditions or polluted air. Both of these are issues where I think potential harms outweight personal freedoms. In the first case, the factory owner is in a much more powerful position than the factory worker and the loss of personal freedom to the factory owner to improve his safety standards is dwarfed by the need of the factory worker to be safe. And in the second case, one cannot predict which pollutants caused which harm so that could not be settled in court, making some regulation necessary in my view. I believe one of the libs said he wasn’t against regulation but then said he wasn’t quite a libertarian either. How common is that in the libertarian world? I have more questions but I’ll leave it at that for now. I’m not trying to pick on you libertarians, I’m genuinely interested in honest grown up conversation. It’s actually disappointing to me that in too many blogs, this one included, it’s sadly lacking (personal attacks, witty putdowns, and straw men rule the day). Anyone know some good blogs for grown up conversation?

So, Libertarians are once again outraged that they’re being ‘wrongfully’ conflated with Republicans/conservatives. And they’d like the S,N! people to be, I don’t know, beaten with canes or something.

Unfortunately for their argument, there’s a couple of reasons why the conflation happens AND sticks.

One reason is that Libertarians, by loudly proclaiming a balance point between both Republicans and Democrats (neither fish nor fowl), become, as self-proclaimed ‘moderates’ or ‘independents’, cannon fodder for both sides in an increasingly partisan atmosphere. Therefore, when they make arguments about drug legalization or civil liberties, they can (and sometimes are) bashed by the right, and when they make economic arguments based on the ‘Invisible Hand’ and the seriously wrongheaded idea that corporations will behave with human values in any market decision, they call down the wrath of Democrats. Fencesitters find only in times like this that they make excellent targets.

Here’s where the second reason comes in: The majority of ‘Libertarians’, come hell or high water, have hitched their wagon to the Republican Party and stayed there regardless of the ‘libertarian’ principles broken by the GOP in the last 6 years. ‘Libertarians’ broke 57-40 for Bush in 2004, despite a horrid foreign policy, a bad economic policy, and some truly unConstitutional domestic policies implemented. The majority of L’s has clearly lined up behind the GOP for forty years, and all the pretty words written between now and then don’t invalidate Julian Sanchez’s description of your alliance with the GOP – and in polarized times, picking a side will earn you contempt and disrespect from the other side, especially when you continue to trumpet your supposed individuality while still doing the GOP’s work.

Voting Republican whilst proclaiming Libertarianism doesn’t make you a Libertarian. You can vote Republican whilst proclaiming yourself to be D’Artagnan; it doesn’t make you a musketeer. And in these times, when you continually side with the GOP despite your supposed ‘objections’ to them based on single issue ideology (Pick the ideology: Guns/Taxes/Iraq), you’re not going to get either a ‘fair hearing’ or a real consideration of where you’re coming from, because it looks the same as where Tom DeLay and George W. Bush are coming from.

My comments have been restored. Just seeing if I’m allowed to post again.

I came to this post from hit & run and have read most of the comments so far, I would like to respond to a few of the questions raised about about libertarianism, while i can’t say that all libertarians would agree with me, these are my views. First of all I am not in favor of completely eliminating government, but in trying to limit it’s role to the smallest degree possible, I believe the most important function of government is to protect the rights of it’s citizens. In response to the question of how the market would provide what the government currently provides, I would say that in a truly free market when there is a demand for a good or service someone will see an opportunity to provide that good or service. Since there is no government enforced monopoly for that good or service the market would tend to police itself (it already does this fairly well, despite government interference) in most cases, if a person or corporation is harming or cheating their customers then the customers will simply take their business elsewhere. The people who are most informed about a particular product (car buffs, computer geeks, etc.), various enthusiast magazines, and organizations such as underwriters laboratories, consumer reports, etc. would still give the average person plenty of information to make his or her own decisions about what to purchase without the government looking out for everyone. In the case of social welfare I believe that individuals can make better decisions about what charities or organizations to donate their money to than the government can. Private organizations are much more likely to build held accountable for their actions and generally much more efficient in what they do than the government. If all charity were voluntary people could spend their money as they choose. I don’t understand why we think we have to make all our decisions as one collective body, if someone wants to give their money to an organization that supports or doesn’t support abortion, stem cell research, or whatever the controversy happens to be that should be their choice not ours, and no one should be forced to spend their money on things they don’t approve of or find effective. If we were relying on the market to provide most of the services we currently get from government people would have more money to donate to charities and local organizations they find worthwhile, and would in my opinion get a much better return on their money. As to the question of steroids in baseball I would say that the government has no business telling anyone what they can do with their body, but I certainly have no problem with major league baseball setting whatever rules they want. In the case of selling organs, while I personally wouldn’t want to part with one of my kidneys and don’t think I could be desparate enough to give it up, if someone else decides that it’s worth it to them then it’s really none of my business, it doesn’t matter if I think they’re making a bad decision because it’s not my decision to make. In my opinion we too often look to government to make decisions for everyone when we could all be making our own decisions for ourselves. For a possible compromise solution on education reform I encourage you to take a look at the following article from Reason about education reform in San Francisco, which I believe is an excellent example that the choice provided by a free market yields much better results than even the best intentioned government solution: http://www.reason.com/0604/fe.ls.the.shtml , and as to the idea that libertarians are conservatives who smoke pot I would suggest reading “Why I’m Not a Conservative” by F.A. Hayek (can easily be found on google).

“truly free market”= no monopolies, lots of capital, economic mobility and educated consumers. Since the real world operates in such a way as to go against all of those things, there is no such thing as a truly free market, and nothing short of truly free would work out in your scheme. It is good for you because you can always claim that the failure of your system was due to lack of a truly free market. This is why people consider libertarians to be utopians or pie-in-the-skyers. The supposed workable scheme is impossible, the criteria for reaching it are unsatisfiable.

People, people…you’re getting in with the finger-pointing and the hair-splitting, now! Can’t we just all agree that the current administration is not closely aligned with the wishes of ANY party, and then try to figure out constructive ways to compromise?

Getting into internet fights are about as constructive as jacking off on a 1000 piece puzzle to put it together. It might make you feel better, but it really doesn’t do anything.

This began when Jacob Sullum noted that Travis had made a habit of mischaracterizing his columns and the greater sin of not being funny. Here are the titles of the columns and T’s “summery”:

Nothing Personal-Is the NSA’s phone call database legal because the president says so?
“I feel bad even saying this, but I think the NSA may have overstepped some legal bounds, insomuch as these things matter.”

When Speech Is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Speak-Should reporters who use classified information be treated like spies?
“I’m not so sure that the president’s approval rating is the same thing as national security.”

Reasonable Search and Seizure, Capitol Hill Style-Since when is Congress worried about the separation of powers?
“As much as it pains me to say it, I think Congress should be concerned about the president violating the Constitution in the name of national security.”

Jacob capsulates his angst thusly; As anyone who reads the columns (or a random sampling of my other work) can see, the bad feelings, uncertainty, and pain allegedly associated with my criticism of the Bush administration exist only in Travis G.’s imagination, where I am a GOP flack notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary. If I’m going to be mocked, can’t I be mocked as a crazy libertarian, rather than a blindly loyal Republican?

A slam dunk n’est pas? Morosely, not in the cobalt zone of binary America.

In response we have this thread, with the seemingly contrite title “Bad Manners”. So this is to be a polite “Sorry Jake, just a little collateral damage. No hard feelings.”? Ruefully, no.

First we have a link to Travis’ own response where he informs us that “It’s waaaaay too subtle, but I was actually paying him a compliment”. Which near as I can tell is bluespeak for “I didn’t call him a sissy, so he should shut up already”. Next he proceed to cop to the accusation of not tarring Jacob with the “crazy libertarian” brush. Of course now he’ll apologize for incorrectly tarring him with the right-wingnut brush? Sorrowfully, who you kidding.

Travis attempts to justify his pigeon holing. Presumably because he only knows of two and he feels uncomfortable sharing his with anyone who hasn’t signed the loyalty oath. Apparently, Jacob is guilty of burring his anti-conservatism in his sub-titles, and also failing to froth at the mouth.

Travis then switches gears and makes the astonishing claim that, he knows Jacobs critiques of W are a thinly veiled facade, since he’s not more popular amongst the readers of Town Hall!? He then goes on to make the patently false claim that libertarians are a Republican voting bloc. And again asserts that since he attacks a Democrat, that makes him a Republican.

Returning our attention to this thread, we find Travis’ comrades caring the “You’re either one of us or one of them” banner, this time waving it at Reason magazine. In support of the Reason is a bastion of hate-mongering, W minions, we’re supplied with two links to the “Reason endorsement” of Judge Alito. Said links must of course point to Reason’s website or at least something written by the Reason staff right? Woefully, hahaha.

Then we’re informed of “Reason’s position that police brutality against anti-war hippies is a real laff-riot subject.” Again we’re supplied with two links, one of which again points to a totally unrelated site. The other (glory be) actually points to a Reason photo essay of the protests around the Republican convention. We can assume that it contains pictures of police roughing up protesters and smug quips for captions right. Slanderously, nothing of the fucking kind assholes.

Oh and then there’s the whole Matt Welch problem. From what I can tell, the Matt Welch problem is that; in the run-up to the war, in addition to writing columns like these:
http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/SaudiShills.htm
http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/adultsupe.htm
– critical of Bush, he wrote some other columns critical of liberals. And we can’t have that now can we.

And the post closes with more baseless accusations “supported” by irrelevant links.

In the comments, at first there was a pathetic attempt to hold the “Reason is a bastion of the hard right” line. When that fell apart, it descended into variations of “you are a dufuss you eat doo doo nyah nyah nyah nyah” Software problems seem to have contributed significantly to this decline.

After all this though, can we at least get Travis or one of the staff to admit that the author of “Saying Yes: in defense of drug use” in particular, and Reason magazine in general, are simply not partners in the vast right-wing conspiracy? And that they are just wrong for saying that they were?

Well? Can we?
Sadly, no!

Since there is no government enforced monopoly for that good or service the market would tend to police itself (it already does this fairly well, despite government interference) in most cases, if a person or corporation is harming or cheating their customers then the customers will simply take their business elsewhere. The people who are most informed about a particular product (car buffs, computer geeks, etc.), various enthusiast magazines, and organizations such as underwriters laboratories, consumer reports, etc. would still give the average person plenty of information to make his or her own decisions about what to purchase without the government looking out for everyone.

.

You pass over various objections much too quickly.

Taking your business elsewhere assumes that there is another entity out there who CAN assume your business, which is not always true – look at energy regulation and California, for one example. While the THEORY of the free market says that there will always be someone to pick up the slack, the REALITY of the world as-is says to that theory, ‘Sadly, No!’. It also fails to assume that ‘competitors’ can and do engage in price fixing, whether overt or covert.

The free market is not moral. The free market does not have a ‘morality’ as any churchgoer would understand it. Therefore, the free market will not behave in a way that is moral except through accidents.

Secondly, the enthusiasts you talk about may as easily be paid by the companies to make false or exaggerated claims about products, or may be paid to NOT discuss alternatives. There are a multitude of ways businesses can crush viable comptetion, legal or otherwise, without some regulation of the markets. I’d refer you to such things as the Tucker Torpedo, the anticompetitive practices of Microsoft re: browser technology, the below-cost strategy of the big-box competitors in the field of selling gas. The true omega of the free market strategy is ALWAYS, as in any form of economic Darwinism, one survivor who writes the rules in a way that favors themselves throughout the ends of time – unless some other party prevents it.

Wow. I’ve just read through ALL the comments on this thread — because as a good liberal, my sense of personal integrity demands that I consider all sides to an argument.

So with eyes glazed and mind benumbed I struggle through to the bitter end to find this from Phil:

Do you really think nobody ever built any of those things before TEH GOVERNMENT though of them? Evil Industrialist Andrew Carnegie used to build libraries like most people breathe, for crissakes.

So that’s it then; the libertarian argument against government provision for the common good rests on the assumption that the noblesse oblige of the wealthy will suffice.

sw

and so the means of production should go to the state and by default the only means of meeting a bodies needs ie food and shelter. So now the state owns your body…who again are you calling a fasist?

Some libertarians. And your strawman.

I don’t believe in nationalizing industry.

oh so mr progressive am i to take it you are in favor of abolishing zoning laws (shelter) and eliminating the FDA (food)?

There are plenty of ther state controls of industry that i am sure you have no problem with. Strawman indeed…ha!

“People, people…you’re getting in with the finger-pointing and the hair-splitting, now! Can’t we just all agree that the current administration is not closely aligned with the wishes of ANY party, and then try to figure out constructive ways to compromise?

Getting into internet fights are about as constructive as jacking off on a 1000 piece puzzle to put it together. It might make you feel better, but it really doesn’t do anything.”

….Mom?….is that you?…..

So that’s it then; the libertarian argument against government provision for the common good rests on the assumption that the noblesse oblige of the wealthy will suffice.

no that is just one…you still have moral hazard, unintended consiqueces, lack of efficiancy, lack of inovation, loss of responibility…i am sure the list goes on…but i just woke up.

So that’s it then; the libertarian argument against government provision for the common good rests on the assumption that the noblesse oblige of the wealthy will suffice.

no that is just one…you still have moral hazard, unintended consiqueces, lack of efficiancy, lack of inovation, loss of responibility…I am sure the list goes on…but I just woke up.

It seems to me not that libertarians belive that only private industry can produce a public good but that lefty moonbats somehow think that public good is impossible without government intervention….as if nothing good has ever happened without the state dictating it.

As if as soon as private enterprise or profit enters the picture that the good is somehow dirty or unclean….

So that’s it then; the libertarian argument against government provision for the common good rests on the assumption that the noblesse oblige of the wealthy will suffice.

Exactly. The belief is that the free market is always moral and always makes morally correct choices. It is also that the ones with means will automatically pick up the burdens of the common good, and do so while gaining no profit from them.

As I said I’m not trying to completely eliminate government, and I don’t claim to be an expert on every government policy decision, there may well be some areas where we still need a minimal amount of government regulation, what I meant by “a truly free market” is a market with a substantially lower amount of government regulation than we have now (I should have explained that better). I do believe that most of the time the market will police itself, there will always be exceptions like Enron to name just one, but investors don’t want to invest in a company that is lying about financial information, or harming consumers, or doing anything else to hurt their potential profits. We still have scandals now from time to time despite the government attempts to prevent it and probably always will, if someone sets out to do something dishonest it probably isn’t going to bother them too much that the government says they can’t. And I’m not saying that the government shouldn’t prosecute corrupt CEO’s or whoever is perpetrating the fraud or theft or whatever other illegal action is in question. I think it is perfectly valid for people to use the court system to seek redress for fraud or other illegal acts committed by others whether they are individuals or corporations or any other entities. I am not an anarchist, I’m not calling for completely eliminating the government, I just believe it’s proper role is a much smaller one. Anyway, I’m not trying to pick a fight or convince anyone I’m right, I just wanted to share my views on libertarianism and hopefully show you that we’re nothing like republicans (most of us anyway). My view of libertarianism in general is that libertarians see no need (or right) for the government to interfere in any person’s life (be it lifestyle/health choices or business transactions) so long as they are not infringing on anyone else’s rights.

Thanks, NobodySpecial.

While I honestly found some of the arguments put forth by the visiting libertarians here occasionally compelling — and found myself wincing now and again at some of the rejoinders from “our” side — when it comes down to the basic question of what sort of social construct is best designed to “promote the general welfare”, there’s just no way I’m going to put my trust in “the market” over government for, of, and by the People.

If our government is currently doing a lousy job of things, I lay the fault for that on the distortions of capitalism (money=speech, property=freedom), not on the basic idea of democratic governance in itself.

sw

It’s uselles arguing. Whenever someone points out the dismal failures of goverments, the standard answer is : “Yes, but only because the wrong people are in charge”.

And the worst thing is, history’s lessons go right over your heads.

I pointed out the failure of communism because they tried to achieve prosperity without a free market. And they ended up in misery. The lesson a sane person would learn from this is that wealth is generated by the free market.

Instead, the socialists say : “No, communists failed because the wrong people were in charge”.

scarletwoman, NobodySpecial,

OK you trust self-serving politicans more than you trust self-serving consumers.

But will you at least acknowlege that libertarians are not consevatives?
And that saying we carry water for Bush is bullshit?

And no one has tried to defend the characterization of Jacob Sullum as a Bush supporter, because it is indefensible.

I lay the fault for that on the distortions of capitalism (money=speech, property=freedom), not on the basic idea of democratic governance in itself.

Oh get over yourself scarlet…not once have libertarians been against democratic governance…willfull dillusionment between what a libertarian and an anarchist is, is not a reasoned argument.

Warren said,
June 3, 2006 at 5:56 pm

My comments have been restored. Just seeing if I’m allowed to post again.

If a comment doesn’t go through right away, it hit the spam filter somehow and one of us has to go in and manually approve it.

I just wandered online and found ten comments waiting for approval. Everything except spam gets approved. You can make fun of our mothers if you want; we post everything.

Oh yeah? Cuz I heard your mom was so massive she’s got an event horizon…

Hey, your momma’s so fat, the last time she saw 90210 was on the bathroom scale…

Scarletwomen & NobodySpecial –

I don’t know any libertarian that claims the free market always gives a moral solution to any given problem. You see, in the real world, as both you of you probably readily understand, black and white doesn’t always work, so shades of gray are necessary.

The question is simply this – given the option between free people or collective government, which one screws the people less? Or reworded – everything in life will have to be rationed due to human’s infinite wants but finite abilities – the discussion then is what is the best way to ration? Since we know everyone can’t have everything.

To paraphrase what Churchill once said, Capitalism is the worst econmic system – expect all the others.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Alright, it’s a fair cop.

Quote of the day

“The hive mind should be thought of as a tool. Empowering the collective does not empower individuals — just the reverse is true. There can be useful feedback loops set up between individuals and the hive mind, but the hive mind is too chaotic to be fed back into itself.”– Jaron Lanier

From
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lanier06/lanier06_index.html

SixSigma,

You ask, “given the option between free people or collective government, which one screws the people less?”

Imo, this is a false dichotomy. The whole point of the formation of the United States as a republic was to create a collective government of free people. You know, as opposed to a monarchy or a dictatorship or feudalism.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But even taking your premise at face value, my answer is that I have very little trust in “free people” as individuals acting outside the bonds of collective government. Human nature being what it is, individuals who are free of the societal restraints embodied in collective government can all too easily tend toward greed, exploitation, dominance and piracy.

As someone said above, look at Somalia — all those folks “free” of government — how well is that working out?

sw

p.s. — I first tried posting this over two hours ago but kept getting “timed out” messages after several long waits. So this probably is a wasted effort at this point. Oh well…

Mixed system=the best system.

The ideal “educated consumer” doesn’t exist. This gives us the nutritional supplement industry. False claims, little regulation, astroturfing, etc. etc. Once capital becomes concentrated, there may be demand, but not necessarily any reason for demand to be met, depending on the expense and how easy it is for demand to be met. It is just silly to trot out the ol’ usual usual about the educated consumer. This is fantasy. We currently have monied interests claiming that “carbon dioxide is life”. I’m certain a MASSIVELY good economic argument, meaning clear benefits relative to costs could be made RE:global warming, however the market demands the quick buck, and of course in this case if the quick buck is made, there is no possibility for the market to respond to warming that is years ahead- it is just too far ahead for the magical invisible hand.

Did you just DEGRADE the INVISIBLE hand?

The HAND is THEIR god!

LIBERTARIAN people stop OBJECTIFYING my epistomologies!!

Mal de Mer: Nostradennis responds by framing the entire context of this situation in isolation. Anything that when on in the past for this man to arrive at such a desparate situtation is simply not part of the discursive frame, and the scenario is re-cast as resting on a “premise� that has not been examined carefully.

No. I’m not recasting a thing. Retardo set forth some extreme circumstances in an effort to make a world in which organ sales were permitted into some sort of dystopia. I didn’t put Mr. Broke and Destitute into those circumstances. Retardo did. But the truth is that those very circumstances — the “worst-case” scenario — actually make a compelling case for allowing the sale of one’s organs.

Your entire response is typical and intellectually lazy. Rather than address my argument, you went “ummm, hey….big issues…my worldview…circumstances…yadda yadda…hey! look over there!” and then ran out the back door of the house, declaring “obvious victory.”

Jesse: Uh, no. Nostrodennis surely has plenty of ideas about how to deal with structural problems like poverty. He just doesn’t think they should include reducing the options of the people who are already poor.

Mal de Mer: Oh this is a new twist…when dealing with someone’s reason, one has to assume a body of thought for which one has no way of knowing?

Please identify for me the body of thought you need to assume to actually engage me on the organ sales issue.

Okay, no one addressed my arguments so I’m going to try to restate them one more time, in a more succinct form. 1. How do libertarians deal with the tension between an individual’s right to property (which I acknowledge he or she *generally* has a right to) and societal needs *when* these conflict (and I’m not suggesting they usually do)? My test case was the need for a garbage dump when no one is willing to move – how is that resolved without violating the *absolute * right to property? Another case could be the need for a park. Our founders acknowledged this in granting the right of eminent domain in such cases. Or how about zoning restrictions. Most people would not like to live next door to a pig farm. Some could claim a right’s violation of their own, that the fumes from the pigs make them sick. And what’s more important, a factory owner’s *absolute* right to do business as he pleases, or a factory worker’s need to have certain basic needs met, such as needing to feel safe or healthy? These might come into conflict on occasion. Having a regulatory body, such as OSHA, prevent such harms (rather than waiting for someone’s arm to be chopped off so they can sue) in advance seems like a sane solution to me.

Several posters have committed the fallacy of assigning some sort of moral dimension to term “free market.” This is abusrd. The free market is nothing more than the aggregate voluntary actions of individuals. The “free market,” as an ambiguous collective entity, doesn’t make choices. Free Individuals make choices. (This same faulty reasoning applies to meaningless concepts like “common good” and “social justice” as well.) To my mind, the freedom to make one’s own choices about how to dispose of your porperty is the most moral system of social organization that I can envision. I have not yet found a reasonable objection to it.

I’m a regular over at Hit & Run–I came to libertarianism from a laisser-faire perspective. …and I’ve been a huge opponent of the Bush Administration for years now. I don’t think I’ve had the pleasure of being denounced as both a “Bush Basher” and a right wing shill in the same thread over there, but I think it’s happened on the same day too many times to count.

Last I counted the Reason staff, I think about half were marginally in favor of the Iraq War while the other half (including Gillespie) were against the Iraq War. …but there isn’t anyone on the Reason staff I wouldn’t consider libertarian. The Libertarian Party doesn’t even take a position on the abortion issue. It must be tough for some in the bigger flocks to understand why others won’t separate themselves by lines drawn by others. I guess it feels better for them to think of us as the opposition just because of that.

I’ve subscribed the theory that the committed ends of the two major parties strive to become the charictures their opponents make them out to be. Our opponents makes us out to be both conservative and liberal–a contradiction. Maybe we’ve resolved that by not being willing to define ourselves on your terms? …If so, tough luck.

Is Liberalism big enough to encompass someone like me who vehmently opposes the Iraq War, wants an end to the Drug War, supports Gay Marriage, and despises the Bush Administration for Abu Gharib and its attacks on due process and probable cause? What if, like me, that same person also wants deep, deep cuts in federal spending, accompanying tax cuts, supports Second Amendment rights, thinks public schools should be privatized and uses Listerine after spitting the words “organized labor”?

Having read some of these comments, I suspect some of you don’t think such a person is possible, and maybe that’s the source of confusion. Sometims libertarians do call themselves “Classic Liberals” as in Adam Smith and John Locke, but surely that doesn’t account for the confusion or the animosity. To my ear, the animosity strikes a note in a key with a sound like an accusation of treason. …as if we were trying to look like liberals but were really traitors or, worse yet, counter propagandists trying to pass ourselves off as liberals. We’re not liberals. We’re not Republicans either.

We’re here. We’re libertarian. We’re not liberals. Get used to it.

agnostic: “Okay, no one addressed my arguments…”

Your questions would take an entire web site to address… 🙂

Matt,

Any “moral system of social organization” HAS to take into account how YOUR freedom to make your own choices regarding your “property” impacts MY life.

If I do not have some mechanism available (i.e. laws/government) to prevent harm to my OWN “property” then YOUR freedom is antithetical to MY freedom.

If you choose to engage in an activity on YOUR property that pollutes the ground water and therefore renders the water in MY well unpotable, then YOUR freedom is NOT a moral absolute.

sw

agnostic,

“My test case was the need for a garbage dump when no one is willing to move – how is that resolved without violating the *absolute * right to property? Another case could be the need for a park.”

I think that markets actually handle this problem rather neatly. If I own a house and the town needs a dump where I have my house, they can offer me whatever it would take for me to move. If I won’t move for a million bucks, the town needs to shop around. Trust me, it’ll find someone to move for that price. And if you think that a million bucks is too much for the town to pay, well then you have hard evidence that your entire town doesn’t need your dump as much as I need my house.

I’m definitely a left-leaning small-l libertarian, and I’m probably more sympathetic to Dems than Reps. But I personally believe that gov’t is really not efficient at *anything,* so the less they do, the better.

In general, I’ve found libertarians to be significantly better than democrats on Iraq war opposition (see, Rep. Ron Paul (R) Texas, a former libertarian party candidate, who unlike John Kerry, actually voted against the war: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul51.html), the drug war, civil liberties, and all other small gov’t and true constitutional issues (take a look at the “liberal” SCOTUS justices who voted against Raich and then read Clarence Thomas’ dissent — http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html), even if I have reservations about certain traditional libertarian views. Hit’n’Run offers the most insightful political perspective I have found. Unlike dem/rep partisan blogs, it really makes you support your position, and not just shout approvingly into an echo chamber. If you are at all skeptical about gov’t, organized religion, and conventional wisdom, I would urge you to check in occasionally.

mccleary

mccleary,

Just curious — in your hypothetical scenario demonstrating the wisdom of the “market”, you talk about “the town” offering “a million bucks” for you to move to make way for the allegedly needed dump.

“If I own a house and the town needs a dump where I have my house, they can offer me whatever it would take for me to move. If I won’t move for a million bucks, the town needs to shop around….

And if you think that a million bucks is too much for the town to pay, …etc.

How did the town GET that million bucks to offer you? Wouldn’t that be from taxes?

sw

Addendum to previous post:

I’ve read and enjoyed alot of Ron Paul’s writings, and appreciate his anti-war and pro-civil liberties stances. However, I also noticed quite some time back that he is anti-choice on the abortion issue, which I find most unfortunate.

sw

“How did the town GET that million bucks to offer you? Wouldn’t that be from taxes?”

scarletwoman,

Um, yes. It would be from taxes. I don’t understand your question. Are you assuming I’m completely against taxation? Could you please clarify? I certainly don’t like excessive taxation, but I see it as necessary, and especially valid on a local level where the people getting taxed have a much greater say in where the money is going. I’m no poli-sci major, but in general, I assume that towns tax residents, decide upon their needs, create budgets, and spend the money to meet the needs. If people believe their needs are poorly met or that taxes are too high, they can vote people out of office. I’m honestly not trying to be facetious — what am I missing here?

Also, I’d like to second Ken Shultz’s post. I am a libertarian that despises the Bush administration for a number of reasons.

mccleary

Sorry, I’m used to hearing “taxation is theft” as a liberatarian position. In turn, I didn’t understand how your scenario was a demonstration of the “market” at work.

I appreciate your explanation of your position on taxation — I really am endeavoring to understand the libertarian point of view beyond my instinctive suspicions about it.

My preference is to look for areas of agreement where we might make an alliance to rid our country of the radical right.

sw

when it comes to abortion some people seem to understand this otherwise queer notion of property quite well.

Pardon me for interjecting again, but I figure I might get a decent answer here to this question I’ve had for a while. How exactly do faux-Libertarians and Randtards such as Instawanker manage to consider themselves Libertarian, when the Libertarian Party’s platform specifically calls for the elimination of corporate personhood and has since Murray Rothbard was still breathing?

Oh, and I hate to bring his name up again, but I figure it’s safe to since an Antiwar link was provided earlier, but to address one of Retardo’s points, Antiwar’s been making Glenn Reynolds their whipping boy for a number of years now. Does that count as the HTML assault that Retardo had in mind?

scarletwoman:

I more or less agree with what you said in your response.

I do believe freedom from coercion is a moral absolute, condidional only on one not initiating force against anyone else. That said, one of the few legitimate functions most libertarians grant to government is the enforcement of property rights.* If I am polluting your property, then I have violated your property rights and can justly be charged to remedy the situation. If all goverment did was enforce property rights and contracts between consenting individuals we’d be 99% of the way toward a free society.

*Note: I personally do not believe that government has any legitimate functions — meaning that yes, I am an anarchist. I do believe that taxation is theft and should be viewed as such. But for the purposes of this discussion I am assuming that private law enforcement is not possible (even though I believe it is) and must be provided by government.

Libertarianism is consistent right until it hits property rights. If I could pick one regime to live under it would be geolibertarianism. Whether gl. is workable in the real world, where money truly is power (contrasted to our system where not every vote is for sale) I leave for another debate, but at least geolibs have a basically unassailable moral worldview.

To back up Scarlet Woman, yes, I’m used to the ‘taxation is theft’ argument as well. Or one must never ‘initiate force’ under *any* circumstances (doesn’t the Libertarian Party demand one sign an oath not to do so?). So, using tax money to pay off people refusing to move so a garbage dump or public park can be built, or crossing someone’s property to get to a common resource or saving someone from getting beaten to death in the next household over by a stronger family member wouldn’t be options for the Libertarien Party. Okay, so many of you libertarians don’t follow the party line. Cool. Is there a movement to start a new party – one that’s not so dogmatic and admits of the necessity of some of these things: environmental regulations, OSHA, taxation to fund necessary common good needs? If so, I might be able to get behind that. I do like the libertarian stance on civil liberties, the anti-war writings I’ve seen (though there are some backers of the war, too, just like there are backers among the Dems – one reason I’m pissed at them right now), the anti-drug war, and a few other things. I’m not even opposed to economic liberties; I just think there need to be limits to avoid other sorts of social harms.

McCleary, your response was interesting. But you mentioned only one house. Garbage landfills would take up a whole area – about a block. That’s a lot of tax revenue to get those people to move. Supposing, they all refused, the payouts weren’t sufficient. Currently, eminent domain pays out only market value for the house, isn’t that right. Historically, many people have dug in their heels in such cases (some rightly so, depending on the case) as their attachment to their home is worth more to them then simply getting market value for the home – and in this day and age, with housing prices going up, a million bucks is not necessarily going to be enough for some of these people. Are you ruling out forced evictions altogether (with compensation offered later)? I don’t like forced evictions, but then again, I wouldn’t like the spread of disease and/or a proliferation of rats in my neighborhood if the dump was too delayed in getting built. I buy your reasoning to a degree that if they weren’t willing to move for the right price then maybe it wasn’t really needed afterall. But this only works if we’re dealing with one person. If you have a whole block, then we have a free rider problem (which is a reason I don’t think private charity is necessarily enough to support the out of work, disabled, or elderly infirm).

I didn’t see an answer to my question about OSHA. Do you think that a factory worker’s need to be safe outweighs the owner’s right to do what he pleases with his factory? Again, I’m not arguing communism here. I wouldn’t suggest nationalizing industries – just a third party watch dog to avoid certain kinds of abuses.I’ve read that some libertarians suggest class action suits for this sort of thing, if safety or health conditions are violated in contracts. But I think that leaves a lot to be desired – letting people get hurt in the mean time for one thing. Some conditions might not be mentioned in the contract for another, leaving people with a Hobson’s choice – work in unsafe factories or go hungry.

But thanks for the polite and thoughtful response. I’ve seen too many blogs with people just calling each other names – see the earlier comments on this string. I’m embarrassed that my liberal cohorts have behaved much more childish, rude, and boorish here, than the libertarians, pulling out all kinds of tricks from the hat, including just attacking people personally, building up inaccurate straw men, using cartoonish type of characterizations to mock people they never met (I guess it’s kind of like the driving phenomenon where you feel you can be as rude as you want to be other drivers since they can’t see you that well behind the glass). That doesn’t advance dialog. I apologize if it seemed I was also throwing out a few straw men of my own. But that’s just how the arguments have been presented to me. It’s refreshing that I’m not seeing that party line thrown out here (again, any calls for a new party?) or some of the corresponding name calling or childishness I’ve also seen from libertarians from time to time.

“If you are at all skeptical about gov’t, organized religion, and conventional wisdom, I would urge you to check in occasionally.”

“If you are at all skeptical about gov’t, organized religion, and conventional wisdom, I would urge you to check in (to H and R) occasionally.”

Will do. Thanks for the recommendation. I’m skeptical about canonical religion at the very least as I am with any dogmas. But my anecdotal experience with Libertarians is that they reflexively dismiss any sort of religion or spirituality altogether including non-traditional medicine. If that’s true for the movement as a whole, then I think that’s sadly, equally dogmatic as embracing something based on faith alone.

PantherWill said,

June 4, 2006 at 5:49 am

“Pardon me for interjecting again, but I figure I might get a decent answer here to this question I’ve had for a while. How exactly do faux-Libertarians and Randtards such as Instawanker manage to consider themselves Libertarian, when the Libertarian Party’s platform specifically calls for the elimination of corporate personhood and has since Murray Rothbard was still breathing?

Oh, and I hate to bring his name up again, but I figure it’s safe to since an Antiwar link was provided earlier, but to address one of Retardo’s points, Antiwar’s been making Glenn Reynolds their whipping boy for a number of years now. Does that count as the HTML assault that Retardo had in mind?”

Abolition of the corporate personhood? Mmmm, better check up on that because even his successor, Lew Rockwell, praises corporations. I think you may be conflating their anarcho-capitlaist attack on the government granting a corporation legitmacy vs. their acceptance of the corporation as a voluntary organization.
As for the LP, here’s their platform: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

“Monopolies
The Issue: We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.

The Principle: Anti-trust laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association.

Solutions: We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.

Transitional Solutions: We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.”

As for the inclusion of Glenn Reynold in the libertarian movement, it’s not a monolith of Randoids or anarcho-capitalists…well….
Best way to explain it, doesn’t the liberal/progressive movement include such variety as between say Michael Moore and Joe Leiberman?
Yes, I recognize most here and the rest of the liberal blogosphere would balk at the idea that Joe Leiberman is a liberal/progressive, but a movement is not defined by one or even two issues, and if I understand what get most liberals angry, I would think that even Joe’s pro-Iraq war stance and his lack of hostility to Bush does not necessarily exclude him from the movement. From his 2005 voting record, the Americans for Democratic Action rated his voting record as 80% liberal, so at least he still votes Democratic by their standards…
http://www.adaction.org/ADATodayVR2005.pdf

So as for Reynolds, he’s is definitly on the Right/Republican wing of the movement, but then you also got guys like Bill Maher who are on Left/Democratic wing, and then you got guys like Justin Raimondo…well, he’ll vote for whoever is the most isolationist according to his anarchist heart, whether that’s Pat Buchanan or Ralph Nader…

How does libertarian theory deal with free rider or prisoner’s dilemna problems? Private charity will help some people out but many won’t give thinking others will pay the bill. And I think the garbage dump or the building of a park examples I gave should have been labeled as ‘prisoners’ dilemnas’. Here’s another, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have very safe and healthy factories to work in. But if this were strictly voluntary then a prisoner’s dilemna could arise – economically it could hurt one factory owner to shill out more money to provide greater safety if no one else is doing so or has not gotten on board yet.

In short, I think libertarianism makes sense as a general rule or a point of departure. But then runs into problems when it’s applied axiomatically or fails to acknowledge that there are at times, at least exceptionally so, where the rights of the individual to be free of coercion must be weighed against the need of people to be safe or healthy. This is where the free market should be supplemented by agencies like OSHA (no, I don’t work for them…), or other sorts of safety nets in terms of basic survival income, safety, and health. I don’t know how best to do this though. Whatever happened to the notion of a negative income tax? Seems like it would make sense to me as a means to fund the safety net.

“My preference is to look for areas of agreement where we might make an alliance to rid our country of the radical right.”

Believe me, I am all for this, too.

Here is a pre-election link from Jesse Walker that does a great job at summing up my feelings about Bush (and, yes, Kerry).
http://www.reason.com/links/links071304.shtml

And a nice piece of outreach from a liberal site describing commonalities with libertarians.
http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/11/i_heart_liberta.html

Garbage landfills would take up a whole area – about a block. That’s a lot of tax revenue to get those people to move. Supposing, they all refused, the payouts weren’t sufficient.

There are always barges to Staten Island.

Honestly, I’m not saying that legal E.D. is a bad thing (unlike illegal ED, such as the Kelo decision, which is an outrage), and I am clearly not an ED expert. Token liberal Joe on Hit and Run works in city planning and does a very good of explaining the value of ED. And rather than getting deeper into the detail of a hypothetical case, I’d prefer to just say that if a gov’t truly “needs” something, they shouldn’t averse to actually paying for it. And in my mind, the market for my house should be determined by the point at which a buyer and seller agree on a price, not on a gov’t estimate.

Lastly, I would say that most of the folks on Hit and Run aren’t capital-L doctrinaire Libertarians, and you are as likely to hear criticisms of the Libertarian Party and Glenn Reynolds, as you are of the Republican Party and Michelle Malkin or the Democratic Party and Markos (I apologize in advance if those are bad analogies — you get the point). And that is why some many Hit and Runners (including Joe!) felt compelled to defend Jacob and Reason. On the down side, many Hit and Runners actually do like Rush.

mccleary

Everyone notice that the pie fight degenerated into an actual discussion?

That is good.

It was bound to happen once Mal de mer declared obvious victory and went home.

Everyone notice that the pie fight degenerated into an actual discussion?

That’s all well and good. However, I’m still waiting to hear someone from the blue team beg forgiveness for equating Jacob, Reason, and libertarians in general, with W. Bush, and the radical right. Not holding my breath mind you.

That’s all well and good. However, I’m still waiting to hear someone from the blue team beg forgiveness for equating Jacob, Reason, and libertarians in general, with W. Bush, and the radical right. Not holding my breath mind you.

Warren,

I’d guess that agnostic, scarletwoman and others willing to reasonably discuss these issues weren’t the ones who made the worst accusations. I felt like our points were heard, and there is now probably a greater understanding of the flavors of libertarianism out there. God knows that the Libertarian party is hopeless, so I’m with Thoreau in hoping the Dem party embraces enough libertarian ideas to give them a sustainable appeal over Reps. No point waiting for an apology …

BTW — I appreciated your post about the Reason cover stories. You made a great concrete argument why Dems should pay a little more respect to the ideas of some potential allies.

All the best,

mccleary

Warren,

Sorry, even though I consider myself a member of “the blue team”, I am not so communitarian as to be willing to to “beg forgiveness” for actions/attitudes of other of my team members over which I have no control or input. We are no more a monolithic group than you libertarians, after all.

All I can do is offer an antidote of sorts by being willing to engage in non-snarky, non-judgemental exchange — you know, help “degenerate the pie fight into actual discussion”.

I will say this, I can respect where Jacob is coming from, and agree that he ought not to be painted with a “bushbot” brush.

It may not be enough, but I hope it is at least worth *something* — considering that I’m a socialist at heart.

Others’ mileage may vary…

sw

Matt (at 6:04 am),

Thanks for your reply. At this point I’m mainly trying to digest some of the ideas presented here — such as your declaration that “I personally do not believe that government has any legitimate functions…”

I find such a stance fascinating, if somewhat unfathomable. But I’m always up for broadening my worldview. I ‘m wondering if perhaps I ought to mosey on over to Hit and Run at some point and see if there’s an opportunity to continue this dialogue — would that be acceptable?

Thanks again,
sw

Wow. That’s the longest thread I’ve ever bothered to read. And yes, I’d say it was surprising and gratifying to note that it ended up civil, intellectual, and constructive toward the end.

As for the interest in a moderate libertarian position, you might look into the Libertarian Reform Caucus: http://www.reformthelp.org/.

Scarlet, in response to Sigma’s question “given the option between free people or collective government, which one screws the people less?â€? you gave what I think is the correct answer, that “this is a false dichotomy.”

I am not keen on your further sentiments, however, that you ‘have very little trust in “free peopleâ€? as individuals acting outside the bonds of collective government,’ as, ‘[h]uman nature being what it is, individuals who are free of the societal restraints embodied in collective government can all too easily tend toward greed, exploitation, dominance and piracy.’

I’m not entirely sure what you meant. I see two options, both of which I think probably (but maybe not) represent your view.

First, that people make bad choices and laws help prevent too much of that from happening. This as a principle is not something libertarians disagree with, but of course the application of this principle very often comes into conflict with libertarians because libertarians are not interested in restricting victimless choices. The very definition of victimless comes into question, and I would suggest that much “liberal” regulation aimed at preventing

Second, and relatedly, that people as individuals act more morally when making individual input into the collective entity of government compared to other collective entities such as a business relationship. I can’t think of any good reason this should be true. Moreover, the fascism of the mid-20th century seems to demonstrate why faith in government to deliver morality, just because it is the government and therefore somehow by definition must represent what we as a people want, is misplaced. That is, after all, why the Bill of Rights was passed — in recognition of the fact that, although we try in the U.S. to have a government of, by, and for the people, we must recognize the limits of that effort and cannot under any circumstances trust the government with certain powers/roles. (You probably agree in general on that, but differ in application.) I would point out modern China as an example of why the single guiding principle of government cannot be “the good of the people,” because that means whatever people in power want it to mean and leads to total perversion of the government to the same greed and exploitation you seek to use government to prevent; concurrent with this perversion is expansion of governmental power and scope, an expansion that is unassailable because no moral person would obstruct expansion of an entity purportedly dedicated to general welfare. And so the result is a government that claims to ensure the material welfare of all but actually sustains a wide divide of wealth and actively supports mistreatement of the poor by powerful members of society; all this activiety is sustained by a government that tightly controls personal choices of a wide variety, including of course free speech, and which tightly controls information available to the public about how the government actually runs and why it does what it does (i.e. lies, secrets, propoganda). (Oh, and, not by coincidence, sounds a lot like the current American administration, which bases most of its ridiculous decisions on the same justification of “the good of the people.”)

I’d be interested if you have any elaboration on your distrust of individual actions outside of government — which, by the way, is I think one of the reasons libertarians identify more closely with conservatives that liberals more often than liberals would expect (whether this identification with the right is a mistake is another matter). Especially these days, with the death of true conservatism, it may be that liberals are actually just more honest about this idea but that most “conservatives” distrust extra-governmental activity too…

-windmade

As a side comment, you referenced other governmental/societal organizations, including specifically feudalism. I don’t know how much you know about how medieval European feudalism worked, but if you examine continental Europe right now, they’re basically trying to put feudalism back together.

P.S. By pure coincidence I am listening to Rush right now… one song on a playlist of 313…

Ms. Woman,
May I call you Scarlet? Cause that’s kind’ve ironic for a self confessed blue teamster.

As a true believer Libertarian, I would never call upon anyone to answer for the transgressions of another. Alas the guilty have long left this thread, unrepentant of their harsh judgement. Those what prefer prejudice to understanding, are true asshats. Of you, I ask only that you recognize their asshattery, and remember it when next they speak.

Oh, snarkitude and meaningful dialog are of course, not are not mutually exclusive. It’s pretty much a way of life over at Hit and Run. Drop in anytime, all are welcome.

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

Hmm, I failed to finish that paragraph I guess. It should go:

First, that people make bad choices and laws help prevent too much of that from happening. This as a principle is not something libertarians disagree with, but of course the application of this principle very often comes into conflict with libertarians because libertarians are not interested in restricting victimless choices. The very definition of victimless comes into question, and I would suggest that much regulation aimed at preventing misbehavior libertarians see as victimless, such as using dangerous drugs and overeating of unhealthy food, is justified, by both the conservatives and liberals who create such regulation, on the basis of denying individuals any true agency. This very premise is, simply put, undemocratic, among other things.

Ventifact,

Thanks for your post — although I’m not sure that I can address every point.

Basically, I do not trust my fellow humans not to behave like assholes toward other humans if they can get away with it.

I am absolutely, unequivocally unhappy (some might say “unhinged”) with the current state of our own government, which has utterly betrayed the Bill of Rights and the best intentions of the Founders in general.

I utterly abhor the National Security State, I unconditionally oppose the “war on drugs”, I will always vehemently oppose state restrictions on “victimless” personal behavior.

I’d dearly love to see the “American experiment” — as set forth by our Founding Documents — succeed and prove to be the beacon of Enlightenment principles that it was originally intended to be. Alas, we are drifting further and further from those noble roots. Consider, for example, the warnings against maintaining a standing army.

As for China, it does not pretend to be a government “by the People”, it is a government by the Party — whose overriding concern is the maintenance of its own power. The U.S. government was *supposed* to be something completely different — a government based on the consent of the governed.

Our government has been utterly corrupted, but not because its foundation was in error, but through the influence of the moneyed elite whose will to power has ALWAYS been contra-democratic.

As for feudalism, it is corporate feudalism that I fear the most. Where the owners and controllers of wealth dictate the conditions of life for the serfs/wage slaves.

A true democratic government (of, by, and for the People) is the ONLY protection that the masses have against the predations of the wealthy elite.

Unfortunately, what we have now is government of, by, and for the corporations/M.I.C. But I do not see how throwing out what few restraints against the exploitation of people and resources still exist (through governmental regulations and laws) can possibly help free the masses from the predations of the powerful.

sw

Warren,

You may call me whatever you want. I chose my online name many years ago for quite esoteric reasons having nothing to do with politics — in any case, as a woman of a certain age, I well remember when the Left was ALWAYS associated with “RED” — as in “better dead than red”.

The whole “blue state/red state” thing is quite a recent phenomenon, after all. As an middle wave (born 4 years post-WWII) baby-boomer, the Cold War/Red Scare made up the better part of my life until my late 30s. That I find myself on a “blue” team in my mid 50s is merely due to a media contrivance.

I am still heartily derided as a “commie-pinko” by right wingers in any case. A charming throwback to the days of my youth. 😛

As for asshattery, each must be responsible for their own behavior, I am not their judge.

sw

scarletwoman:

I second Warren’s reccomendation to check out H&R. Most regulars are not as radical as I, of course, but the discussion is always superb.

Also, if you’re interested in a more left-libertarian discussion (and judging by your 3:02 AM post I think you might be) I would recommend checking out Kevin Carson’s mutualist blog at:

http://mutualist.blogspot.com

and Roderick Long’s blog at:

http://praxeology.net/unblog.htm

I read them both regularly, and I think you might especially be interested in Kevin Carson’s blog.

Regards,

Matt

Warren,
Apologize for the actions of others….’sadly no…’ 🙂 (that would make me a collectivist, something I’m not). However, I did admit in my second or third post that I was actually embarrassed that the liberals here behaved worse than the libertarians. Dare I say even much worse. Yet, if you fish around the blogosphere a bit you’ll pretty much find that all groups are culpable of childishness, putdowns passing for humor. I didn’t even know the word ‘snarky’ until a few years ago, pretty much about the same time I began reading blogs. Blogs seemed like such a great idea when I first heard about them. A way to democratize journalism, go deeper into the issues, have exchanges with real journalists, discuss and debate articles and ideas with strangers from distant regions and ideological lookouts. But only in the past few months have I really ventured into the deep end of these waters only to discover the pools are not filled with the treasures I had hoped for but with snakes, snapping turtles, and hicks with guns. I started having more respect for genuine journalism again as there seemed an obvious gap between the thoughtfulness in the articles I was reading and the responses on the blogosphere. Some of this is just due to the informality of blogging I suppose. Some of it, to the driving analogy I mentioned earlier – none of us really know who the other is except for the real journalists who write in – and perhaps some of it to the justified rage so many of us feel about what the right wing is now doing to the country. Conflation is not thoughtful criticism. But if you’ve never heard a liberal being confused for a communist you haven’t been listening in to the voices around the country very long. I don’t advocate nationalizing industry. I am not even in favor of hard gun control (I just don’t think someone should be able to own a weapon that could also take out their neighbor’s house) And I think the market is a great tool for discovering new ideas, allowing more choice,etc. But because I advocate safety and health regulations, pollution regulations, safety nets for the disadvantaged, the elderly, the infirm, the unemployed or disabled, social security, thoughtufly applied affirmative action (not quotas ) etc. and because I think that individual liberty occasionally rubs up against communal concerns so that these values must be weighed when the time comes (and I don’t even suggest that they are mostly in conflict; mostly they are not ) I’ve been referred to as a ‘collectivist,’ a ‘communist,’ a ‘thug’, etc.

When you used the term ‘blue stater’ did you mean to suggest you’re a ‘red stater’? I thought you had just suggested that none of you were in support of G.W.? I I hope not anyway. I hope we can at least agree to turn our collective rage against this First Menace in office.

Cain’t nobody answer the questions I asked earlier about the right of the worker to be safe trumping the right of the factory owner to do what he pleases, and other prisoner’s dilemna questions I asked, as well as the problem of free riders when it comes to voluntary charity being supposedly enough to handle social problems? Well, okay, I guess the thread is kind of dying out anyway.

scarletwoman, NobodySpecial,

OK you trust self-serving politicans more than you trust self-serving consumers.

But will you at least acknowlege that libertarians are not consevatives?
And that saying we carry water for Bush is bullshit?

I will not. As I noted above, those who espouse ‘libertarian’ philosophies polled out 57-40 for Bush in 2004. That shows a distinct bias towards conservatism. That’s also doubly damning, since as has been pointed out earlier, Kerry on several points proves to be much less liberal than the classic image of ‘the left’.

As far as ‘carrying water for Bush’, the practical effect of voting for him was endorsing his policies – even the ones you claim to disagree with. In this case, as in many before, the conservative candidate was supported at about a 3:2 ratio among those who did not vote Libertarian. This points out, to me and others, that in the ‘Libertarian’ viewpoint, the economic conservatism trumps the social liberalism – a point borne out by the discussion here and other discussions I’ve had with other self proclaimed ‘Libertarians’, many of whom were supportive of the President even in cases where they should have been much more conflicted. I’m thinking here of the confirmation of Alito as one example, given his track record. Sure, a lot of ‘Libertarians’ are piling on now that his approval rating is below freezing, but damned few were vocally opposed like a Roberts or a Paul.

Oh, and on the ‘self serving pol vs. consumer’ thing.

I do not readily trust either. However, that’s a false choice. What’s been proven by untrammeled free market capitalism is that those who have concentrated wealth have an outsized effect on the government, with the ability to ignore the ‘natural rights’ of others in degrees not seen since the Politburo ran things. Ironically, the Politburo is the best example of self serving pols run amok, except for the fact that they also were the ones with the most concentrated wealth in an imperfect political system. The ‘self serving consumer’ has little to no power in either the economic system of the real-world (as opposed to ideal) free market or the political system of the unelected leader.

Here’s another one I’m guessing some, most or all of you libertarians would not agree with me on. Racial discrimination. I think it’s perfectly just to not allow restaurants, hotels, and hospitals to discriminate based on color. No one should have had to sleep in their cars, take a crap in the woods, go hungry on long highway road trips, or die outside of a hospital. I’m not suggesting that you are not offended by those images either. Just that it’s my impression that you think that the government is out of place in handling discrimination.

If we’re going to discriminate we should discriminate against people for more rational reasons. Like, I don’t know, grown women who keep too many stuffed animals in their cars, or people who make little dresses for cats….

Nobody,

The left is not so clearly the best route for “social liberalism”/civil liberties. Who tends to supports the Second Amendment better? (That would be the right.) And which side is leading the fight to restrict our right to eat, smoke, and associate freely as we choose? (That would be the left.) Or we could discuss affirmative action, a complicated issue but one which for many people seems to be perpetuating a lack of colorblindness, another degradation of civil liberties led by the left.

Actually, though, I think there was a recent Reason article about how the right is really starting to employ identity politics … here it is: http://www.reason.com/links/links050806.shtml. Hey, what do you know, another Reason article that doesn’t kowtow to Bush or the right… hmm, don’t let any of the people from the 1st two thirds of this thread see that — they might have to make some bad puns and then complain that my post wasn’t witty enough to be worth its space on the server.

But as that article and the behavior of the GOP in recent years has shown, the GOP seems to have every intention of shedding as much libertarian liberty from its policies as it can, not least with regards to economics. So, libertarian-leftists, I would be optimistic, because it may soon enough be that libertarians as a group find themselves more sympathetic to the Democrats than Republicans (a shift greatly aided by this administration and congress, I would imagine).

Yeah, agnostic, I bet almost all libertarians would disagree with you on that one, for several reasons. Most important is the fact that you basically see the government as the instrument of morality whenever you have a problem, and you don’t respect people’s rights to their own choice of morality even when that choice causes no infringement on another person’s basic rights. Of course, I suspect that you would define a person’s basic rights in different terms than I would — perhaps you would say people have the right to basic material needs.

Why are the comments suddenly needing to approved by an admin? The discussion has finally turned civil, constructive, and intellectual. Or are 3 posts over a few hours enough to trigger the spamguard?

#

I do not readily trust either. However, that’s a false choice. What’s been proven by untrammeled free market capitalism is that those who have concentrated wealth have an outsized effect on the government, with the ability to ignore the ‘natural rights’ of others in degrees not seen since the Politburo ran things. Ironically, the Politburo is the best example of self serving pols run amok, except for the fact that they also were the ones with the most concentrated wealth in an imperfect political system. The ’self serving consumer’ has little to no power in either the economic system of the real-world (as opposed to ideal) free market or the political system of the unelected leader.

Yes, wealth can majorly affect the way government is run, but a question:

What/where is this example of “free-markets” run as bad as the Soviet politoburo?
I think the consigning of having 1/2 of Europe consigned to a 50 year drab dystopia with millions sent to the gulag is VERY different from Rockerfella and JP Morgan hobnobbing with President McKinley while anarchists can publish rather freely. If you mean some of the “capitalism” practiced in the developing world, in say South America, I can rightly criticize that as mercantilism since not only does much of the developing world has laws that thwart and destroy any buiness instinct and rewards the cronies of the ruling party/class.
In order to better understand your position, I need a concrete example of a major foul-up where capitalism was as/more worse than the communism.

As for big buisnesses creating monopolies and controlling the market, that’s easier said than done. JK Galbraith talked about how Big Motor of Ford and GM were so big and successful that they no longer had to worry about profits, that seems to be a clear example of market domination via monopoly/oligopoly power. However, since Big Motor keeps on making cars no one wants to buy and can’t even pay it’s pensioners, oth are facing collapse while Honda and Toyota are beating the crap out of them on the market.
How did this happen? Big Motor WAS America. It was our symbol of the 20th century industrial prowess and innovation, and now these giants are hemorrhaging by the day.
This is at least one example of the myriad of corporations that were at the top of their field in monopoly/oligopoly power and now are facing/in ruin.
What will keep them alive, however, is the response that, “We can’t let these companies close because too many jobs would be lost/it hurts our economy/it hurts our prestige/etc.” and so they’ll probably get bailed out like Chrysler was in the 80s or the Savings-and-Loan industry in the early 90s.

So, without government intervention of bailouts, many GIANTS OF INDUSTRY! would probably destroy themselves in the market because of their own laziness/hubris/own bad luck.

“Most important is the fact that you basically see the government as the instrument of morality whenever you have a problem, and you don’t respect people’s rights to their own choice of morality even when that choice causes no infringement on another person’s basic rights.”

No, not necessarily. I’m against most laws that criminalize consensual vices such as drug use, prostitution, and gambling. Those choices don’t infringe on my own basic rights and I have no interest in any of those choices. Well, okay, if heroin were available at very very small potency levels that could be interesting. Might be good for headaches. I oppose the anti-smoking laws in restaurants and other private spaces even though I hate smoking. I might prefer that large German men not wear those tiny little string bikini bottoms but I wouldn’t press for any law against that. I don’t own a gun, don’t like hunting, but I’m not against people owning powerful enough weapons to protect themselves against larger attackers. So, no, actually, I have a problem with the nanny state too. But the history of racial discrimination in this country is so long, ugly, and pernicious, that at the very least steps to prevent people from not allowing people to eat, use the toilet, get a decent night’s rest, or go to the hospital seemed long overdue. I don’t if I would classify these as rights, but they definitely are basic human needs.

Another thing, yes, a consumer alone cannot make a huge difference.

However, a large number of actual/potential consumers CAN make a huge difference.
Jesse Jackson alone made Big Motor drop to their knees with his threat of the African-American community boycott.
While he did hold a lot of political heft as a real threa, Jesse Jackson (before his sex scandel) was a rather fearsome opponent via his ability to form boycotts for any company that seemed to show discrimination against African-Americans.

Boycotting is rather difficult, but it can be done and it can be successful.

Yaphet:
Didn’t the big three motor companies in America actually run to the government to protect themselves against smaller companies coming up? So, in fact they did have something of a government inspired monopoly if the movie “Tucker” is correct (great movie by the way, I’d recommend it to the libertarians especially as a choice bit of economic history). One other area I actually agree with libertarians is that what has been thought of as just corporations gone wild is actually often a case of government and corporations acting in concert, scratching each other’s back. And private monopolies or at least one corporation dominating the market is not always a bad thing in terms of prices and services offered to consumers. These are rarely sustained for long periods and usually something comes along later to replace them. With government monopolies or a company that has been granted the control of the market by a government grant or license) that’s more dangerous as no possible competitors are allowed in. All monopolies are of course potentially worrisome but legal ones are the most dangerous.
“Hold that tiger.”

NobodySpecial–

“As I noted above, those who espouse ‘libertarian’ philosophies polled out 57-40 for Bush in 2004. That shows a distinct bias towards conservatism.”

Could you back up this statistic? I’m pretty skeptical. First of all, who was getting polled? Voters? I find it hard to believe that 3% or fewer of voting libertarians voted for the Libertarian or other third parties. Second, if voters were getting polled, that leaves out the substantial number of libertarians who don’t vote. I’ll bet you good money that a majority of libertarians didn’t vote for Bush in 2004.

“That’s also doubly damning, since as has been pointed out earlier, Kerry on several points proves to be much less liberal than the classic image of ‘the left’.”

This doesn’t make sense to me. If Kerry’s not very far left, i.e., he’s not terribly different from Bush (which sounds accurate to me), then how is it “damning” that libertarians would choose Bush over him? Wouldn’t it be more “damning” if libertarians chose the Right when they had a viable Left alternative?

312 comments!!??

Anyone have the cliff notes?

What/where is this example of “free-markets� run as bad as the Soviet politoburo?
I think the consigning of having 1/2 of Europe consigned to a 50 year drab dystopia with millions sent to the gulag is VERY different from Rockerfella and JP Morgan hobnobbing with President McKinley while anarchists can publish rather freely. If you mean some of the “capitalism� practiced in the developing world, in say South America, I can rightly criticize that as mercantilism since not only does much of the developing world has laws that thwart and destroy any buiness instinct and rewards the cronies of the ruling party/class.
In order to better understand your position, I need a concrete example of a major foul-up where capitalism was as/more worse than the communism.

I would have to consider the late 1800’s as the dark side of capitalism. The formation of trusts and the significant capture of wealth by a very few individuals managed to offset tremendous productivity gains, as well as extending horrendous working conditions for labor. In 1882 we saw the creation of the first trust, as well as the Supreme Court claiming that sweatshops were not unconstitutional. 1886 saw the granting of 14th Amendment protections to businesses, as well. One would remember that the government at the time was very much in the Libertarian mold, with an offical policy of ‘laissez-faire’ allowing businesses to work mostly unregulated – which led directly to the economic conditions of the day.

“As I noted above, those who espouse ‘libertarian’ philosophies polled out 57-40 for Bush in 2004. That shows a distinct bias towards conservatism.�

Could you back up this statistic? I’m pretty skeptical. First of all, who was getting polled? Voters? I find it hard to believe that 3% or fewer of voting libertarians voted for the Libertarian or other third parties. Second, if voters were getting polled, that leaves out the substantial number of libertarians who don’t vote. I’ll bet you good money that a majority of libertarians didn’t vote for Bush in 2004.

“That’s also doubly damning, since as has been pointed out earlier, Kerry on several points proves to be much less liberal than the classic image of ‘the left’.�

This doesn’t make sense to me. If Kerry’s not very far left, i.e., he’s not terribly different from Bush (which sounds accurate to me), then how is it “damning� that libertarians would choose Bush over him? Wouldn’t it be more “damning� if libertarians chose the Right when they had a viable Left alternative?

To your first question: Link.

Secondly, if you were to argue that ‘Libertarianism’ was not a conservative political system, one would argue that the choice between a candidate with a more socially liberal bent (considering both Bush and Kerry are claimed to be perceived by Libertarians as big-government pols) would do better if social liberalism was a large component in Libertarian thought. Real world evidence shows that’s not the case.

“I would have to consider the late 1800’s as the dark side of capitalism. The formation of trusts and the significant capture of wealth by a very few individuals managed to offset tremendous productivity gains, as well as extending horrendous working conditions for labor. In 1882 we saw the creation of the first trust, as well as the Supreme Court claiming that sweatshops were not unconstitutional. 1886 saw the granting of 14th Amendment protections to businesses, as well. One would remember that the government at the time was very much in the Libertarian mold, with an offical policy of ‘laissez-faire’ allowing businesses to work mostly unregulated – which led directly to the economic conditions of the day.”

We should remember however, that the big corporations often welcomed government intervention. America in the late 19th century may have been less regulated but was hardly laissez faire. Most of the railroads were built with government money (not to mention the government and the railroads colluded to destroy the plains indians) and were essentially scams. The one exception was the Great Northern which wasn’t as ruthless as the other railroads in chasing off the indians or as corrupt. And the big corporations themselves welcomed anti-trust legislation. The big myth is that America has been laissez faire and a open and free society. Closer to the truth is that it’s been a corporate/state society, with some allowances for personal freedoms.

Having said that, safety regulations and other protections for workers were long overdue in the 19th century. Unfortunately, this also led to the rise of the FDA which probably has done more damage than good. I think the FDA should be restricted to an advisory body, not a legal gatekeeping one. The whole insane drug war, the prohibition against alternative treatments, etc. can be linked back to them, or their antecedents.

NobodySpecial said,

I would have to consider the late 1800’s as the dark side of capitalism. The formation of trusts and the significant capture of wealth by a very few individuals managed to offset tremendous productivity gains, as well as extending horrendous working conditions for labor. In 1882 we saw the creation of the first trust, as well as the Supreme Court claiming that sweatshops were not unconstitutional. 1886 saw the granting of 14th Amendment protections to businesses, as well. One would remember that the government at the time was very much in the Libertarian mold, with an offical policy of ‘laissez-faire’ allowing businesses to work mostly unregulated – which led directly to the economic conditions of the day.

The late 1800’s still pale in comparison to the crimes of the Politoburo when they throw dissidents into the asylums for “insanity”, brutally crush/Russify the minorities, threatened world peace with nukes and general discord of a Communist insurgency, maintained a permanent gulag system with systematic torture, and still had the gall to destroy any ability for entreprenurial success with their terrible economic system. And all this was going under Brezhnev, think about the absolute horror of Stalin and Lennin and the brutality of the late 1800’s pales…

Can I defend the terrible conditions at that time, no and I am thankful that I do not live at that time either.
I think there are many things outside of government that could prevent the worst abuses from happnening today, such as the lightening ability to transmit worker/wage information and to create networks for support. Also, the fact that large numbers of low-skilled/low-educated/low-connected immigrants then and now does depress wages, are are more easily exploited by buisnesses, and that their current wages in the US in the late 1800’s and now are signifigantly higher than back in the motherland (explaining the large remittances then and now) are all signifigant factors when understanding why the conditions then could be so bad.

I would like to debate some more on this issue, but unfortunatley I got my Step 1 exam in a week (I was just using this to release some pressure), so it looks like you’re going to win the debate by default 🙂
Have fun…

agnostic,

You should check out Hit and Run when you get a chance. You won’t agree with or care about some of the posts, but I think you’ll be surprised by how many things you do agree with.

With YouTube links to the Rezillos, Mekons and Joy Division, I completely give the music nod to S,N.

Take care,

mccleary