Tyler Cowen's counsel of libertarian despair (discussed in my previous post), and other similar works by fearful libertarians (e.g. - this slightly less pessimistic contribution to the same symposium by Brink Lindsey) are, in my view heavily influenced by two important fallacies that lead many libertarians to be more pessimistic than is warranted.
I. The All or Nothing Fallacy.
One is the "all or nothing" fallacy, which leads many to conclude that because libertarians can't completely eliminate excessive government, that means that we can't achieve anything worthwhile by trying to cut it back incrementally. For example, as I argued in my previous post, Tyler provides good reasons for believing that complete victory is impossible, but almost no argument against the possibility of partial success. Of course, the inability to achieve complete success is not unique to libertarianism. Our liberal, conservative, and socialist rivals have the same problem. Liberals are far from achieving their goal of creating a European-size welfare state in the US, and have little prospect of succeeding in the near future; social conservatives are probably even farther away from fully imposing "traditional values" on society and that goal keeps on slipping even further away. Some liberals and conservatives have given up because of all or nothing thinking, but most recognize that partial success is still worth striving for. We should do likewise.
The all or nothing fallacy is not unique to libertarians. You see it also in the views of those 1960s radicals who believed that nothing short of complete social revolution was worth striving for. But for reasons that I can't fully explain, I think that libertarian activists are, on average, more susceptible to this error than liberals or conservatives.
II. Overstating the Importance of Recent Events.
The second fallacy is overstating the importance of the most recent events. Psychologists call this the "availability heuristic." We overvalue the significance of recent data because they tend to be uppermost in our minds and of course get more coverage in the media. Thus, many libertarians despair because Bush's "big government" conservatism has enlarged the state, while the Democrats have turned away from Bill Clinton's moderate, partly libertarian agenda. However, it is possible to point to equally bleak short periods in the past that were even worse, yet proved not to be a harbinger of the future. Between 1965 and 1975, for example, we saw 1) the rise of the Great Society, 2) government's mishandling of the Vietnam War, 3) Nixon's big government conservatism (even more thoroughgoing than Bush's, complete with price controls and a proposal for nationalized health care), 4) the growing popularity of socialist and communist ideology in much of the world, and 5) the beginning of the oil crisis, with its accompanying perverse government interventions. Yet libertarians would have been wrong to give up in 1975 merely because the most recent trends were against them. Indeed, the next twenty years saw substantial movement in a libertarian direction both in the US, and in many other parts of the world. And we would be equally wrong to give up because of today's less extreme adverse trends. Because of our successes in the 1980s and 90s, we - unlike the libertarians of 1975 - have grown used to the idea that we are destined to win, and thereby more likely to be deeply disappointed when we suffer setbacks. This reaction is understandable, but wrongheaded.
That is not to say that libertarianism does not face serious challenges or that libertarians haven't sometimes shot themselves in the foot, as with the waste of time and resources poured into the Libertarian Party. It does not even prove that we have not entered a period where the libertarian cause has, for some reason, become hopeless. However, we are not justified in despairing merely because we have failed to win a complete victory or because we have suffered several years of political setbacks. Those who counsel despair need much stronger evidence than that to prove their point.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Two Fallacies that Cause (Excessive) Libertarian Despair:
- Does Libertarian Success Just Produce More Government, and Should We Give Up Trying to Shrink It?
There are some obvious figures one can use - size of federal budget as percent of GDP or per capita, but while GDP will certainly be affected by regulations like price controls, the size of the federal budget as a percent is not a good indicator of how many kinds of price control are in effect. They will also certainly not provide evidence of social regulation (smoking bans, national ID cards, gun control, etc).
I suppose we might consider a reduction in (a) the ratio of government employees to total population or (b) government budget in proportion to total GDP, as a victory. No idea if those terms are met.
How to measure total regulation is a harder question, although I think it is obvious that many things today are regulated that were not 5-10-20 years ago, and apart from airline prices, telephone competition, and a few other things, not many things are less regulated than they once were.
I think the human dynamic is simple: people go into government work who believe in more governmental control, and the elected politicians market themselves by "we will pass more laws" -- that's their product, as it were -- and not by "if elected, I will do as little as possible." I know during my time at Interior one (conservative, GOP) legal appointee remarked that he didn't care for govenment work and wouldn't want to hire someone who did. The problem is -- then you ensure you hire only people who will leave ASAP.
There has been some success with creating bureaucracies to thwart other bureaucracies. The Council on Environmental Quality creates the NEPA regs, which hinder other agencies' agenda. At interior, representing Fish and Wildlife Service, under the Endangered Species Act, we regularly screwed up other agencies' agendas ... and loved every minute of it. How 'bout creating an agency which has a comparable agenda of adhering to the constitution, limiting power, and making sure other agencies do the same? It need not have an "action forcing" statute or agenda, but simply an analytical one (such as NEPA).
In the recent past, until my late wife’s illness took me from the D.C. area, I was a long-term Sponsor (smaller size) of Cato from shortly after it arrived in D.C; and, I will be again. I have also been a long-term supporter of FEE. At 82+, there has been a lot of exposure to changes in the relationships within this social order we call the U.S. or “America.” Enough credentials.
Still, I can not claim to be a Libertarian in the same vein of philosophic, economic, political or social conviction of those proud of their respective intellectual tattoos for those elements in our human interactions. Nevertheless, I have deep respect for and empathy with “libertarians” of every persuasion. By and large they are never collectivists.
But, from recent history, and these essays, as well as some of the commentary, I sense some possible misperceptions on the issues involving governments (pl.). Intense efforts are expended on the issue of the functions of governments, on limiting those functions, and limiting the effects of those functions. However, with the possible exception of Public Choice Theory, libertarians have not concentrated adequately on how and why governments function as they do in their operations. There are similarities to treating the symptoms rather than seeking the causes of the disease or disorder. With an aggressive examination, and ultimate better understanding of that how and why, all those “disciplines” of the libertarians might form a meaningful confluence.
I hope all have read or will read Mr. Cowen's piece.
What he is singing is the siren song of "sufficient" liberty, balanced off by a "progress" that produces things and services (conditions) of increasing material desirability.
Given the impediments to complete individual freedom naturally existing within social orders,creating and accepting expansions of other constructs that leave us "sufficient" liberty will lead to defining sufficiency down.
You cannot shame the media because that's their business model. You have to shame the audience for this crap.
Otherwise every public debate is edited by the needs of the soap opera template, and nothing else can be said.
I suggest ridicule. It's only 40% of women anyway. A minority, but a big enough one to pay the bills in the news biz, unfortunately.
Why aren't libertarians more vocal in opposition to these ugly criminal justice developments?
The trouble with that approach is that conflicting regulations make even more trouble for businesses and individuals that have to thread their way through the bureaucracy.
Of course, it is possible that we just haven't done it right, or haven't done it hard enough. Some of Frank Herbert's early SF novels (such as The Dosadi Experiment, IIRC) were about a government agency called The Bureau of Sabotage, whose function was to sabotage all the others. It was as likely to use stinkbombs as legal proceedings.
Of course, the obvious problem with a real-life BuSab is that if the head is chosen by the same politicians that it is supposed to oppose, it will become totally ineffective at opposing them. After all, we already have agencies called "courts" that are supposed to protect our rights, and their record is pretty spotty (Texas appeals courts packed with former prosecutors that see nothing wrong with a defense attorney sleeping in court during a murder trial, five Supreme Court justices that think that a plant grown at home for personal use can be regulated as interstate commerce, etc.). Herbert's solution was a very different procedure for selecting the BuSab head: a BuSab agent could gain promotion to head by sabotaging the current head. Yet that could be subverted by only hiring incompetent agents...
I agree that Cowan's defection is due to the "all or nothing" fallacy. Not so sure about the "recent events" fallacy.
The real problem is not that we have to twist the arms of politicians and regulators more effectively as much as it is that we need the grassroots mindset to be on the same page.
Someone above commented on the "soap opera vote." That goes to this issue. Overall, most people bemoan the freedoms they don't have but would cherish. But they're busy on their treadmills of mortgage, tax, inflated prices, bling and work work work. And they've been inculcated to a mindset of "you don't know enough to think this is wrong." Trained helplessness.
They really aren't thinking "what is good government?" unless it's on a specific issue and with their self-serving point of view.
Beyond that, most people are merely programmed by mediocre, vacuous news, their sense of "connection" to a political bias due to family, friends or focus on one or two issues that "force" them to vote for a party (and its insipid candidate) that is "the only one of the two that cares about my issue and that could get elected," public education (which all too often only teaches them to be good little automaton droids for industry), and whatever else comes together to form their "gut instincts."
I think the internet has done a lot to improve on this, and has tremendous potential to do much more. At this stage, many are only going to sites where the "preacher" is on their page. This doesn't preclude libertarian sites, but sometimes I see libertarians talking primarily to other deep-in-the-stuff libertarians, rather than using a "big tent" approach and talking about freedom as a moral philosophy.
I see nearly no one discussing the point directly that freedom has to be for everyone or else it's just privilege for the current "elite"--which is anathematic to the principles of the founding U.S. culture, and to the overall meaning and value of freedom. It's time to make our tents more generally inviting to the "average reader." Actually, I see this blog as a better example of this latter.
Getting back to Hardy... To my mind, one of the most nettlesome bodies of "law" in this country is the administrative agency pile. Threading through the morass is more than even a highly competent attorney can do and be reasonably sure of the outcomes, in many cases.
Moreover, these agencies, with their "rules" with the force of law (then they're really laws, and "rules" is a euphemism that makes, in the sophist mind, their actions legal) and their enforcements and courts, are a renegade concept in U.S. law.
A few years ago, Kopel wrote an excellent review of this matter. The main point I took away from the article was that these agencies are not answerable to Congress, but to the Executive, which puts their law-making into an unconstitutional state, whereas Congress was to be the sole law-making body. Executive orders fall into this as well, in many (if not most) cases, in my opinion.
I think an excellent angle of attack is to reduce these agencies to an advisory function, eliminating their rule-making, enforcement and case trying arms (send 'em to the border instead of hiring new ICE agents), and create a law that requires Congress to review each body of administrative law in a systematic manner, with an eye to eliminating the junk, clarifying what they will actually pass into law, etc.
I also think (oh, I'm sure this is heretical) that the U.S. A.G. should be enforcing the Constitution as one of his primary duties. The Constitution is, after all, the overruling law of the land, and any law that runs contrary to it is illegal and should be done away. The courts should recognize the standing of the A.G. to do just that.
This would also put the courts into the unique position of having to get back in touch with the Constitution.
I also think that we need to be aggressive about judical misconduct. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment "on good behavior." If a Justice sees fit to ignore his or her charter (the Cosntitution or other legal law) as the standard of judgment, I think that is an issue of bad behavior. Perhaps not on one or two issues, but on an overall performance over, say, a three year running tally. If a Justice comes to the attention of the Senate as a renegade, then it could investigate up to three years of his or her activity for evidence of this kind of misconduct.
Lower court judges should be even more vulnerable to this kind of correction.
Some law and pre-law instructors even tell their students, "this is what the law says, and this [opposite] is how it is actually done in procedure." This should never be necessary to teach, because it should never be the case. Courts that don't make procedure and decision match legal law are renegade.
I also think, once again as Kopel pointed up, that stare decisis is not the absolute it's been made out to be. If a prior decision, no matter where it's made, is renegade to the Constitution, the judge that ignores the ruling should be a hero, not a villain. I'm sure this attitude irks higher court officials to the nines, but frankly, I don't care; the country has the Constitution as the standard, not Persons in the position of Judge.
The internet and our other light-speed communications have already created the ability to change thinking and culture on a mass scale very quickly. I honestly think that with a "big tent" approach to communicating the libertarian message, we can reach enough people to create the critical mass for these kinds of change in record time, as the printing press did in its time.
Cowan underestimates this capability. So do many or perhaps even most others of those who doubt the marketability of the libertarian message of freedom to do ANYTHING YOU WANT as long is it doesn't damage another, tied only to that accountability for your impacts.
I see lies and counter-lies every time I look at media. I see so many "proofs" that aren't proofs being floated everywhere. I think we're in the Three Days of the Condor, where we don't know who is a political friend, and friends often are simply not. And sometimes enemies are not, too. It's confusing times, interesting times.
The "big tent" approach does away with a lot of the confusion, since it isn't issue-by-issue, but principle with examples. It doesn't focus exclusively on "against," but rather on "for." One of the greatest truths in life, I think, was in a fortune cookie I recently got: What you are against weakens you; what you are for strengthens you.
By being "for" freedom, we bring that ideal into focus, and the things that go contrary to it are eventually squeezed out. It is an offensive strategy, as opposed to the defensive, "we shouldn't be doing this; we shouldn't be doing that."
I can't help but suspect at some deep, dark, conspiracy-theory level of socially-unacceptable thought, that the Cowans of the world are actually plants by (or sell-outs to) those who want to keep things as they are: mercantilistic, with freedom for the privileged and servitude for the rest of us.
I'm sure I'll be pilloried for those last thoughts, and perhaps I deserve it, but I can't help it, folks. I'm not asserting it, but my curious, integrative mind has to wonder...
The notion that "big government" has won the minds and hearts of the American people overlooks polls showing that Americans regularly rank Congress as among the least trusted institutions in the land, and politicians as generally untrustworthy. It also overlooks our starting point--a Constitution whose over-the-top liberalism and constraint of governmental power was underappreciated by the common citizen.
As long as the U.S. was the destination of choice for the best and brightest from around the world, our politicians could get away with siphoning off freedom and money for their own purposes. The day our government faces the need to compete for talent and capital, it will begin showing more constraint. We clearly see that in the new-found willingness of Germany to reduce their taxes and for the French to consider labor market reforms, or Communist China's economic liberalization against all "public choice" predictions. We're seeing it here, too, with the scaling back of laws that hamper our global competitiveness, such as the elimination of Glass-Steagal and our sudden reconsideration of Sarbanes-Oxley.
IMO, one underlying obstacle to a more nimble reaction to foreign competition is the general economic illiteracy of our fellow citizens. We teach our youngsters the virtues of freedom of the press to the point that the average American will defend even those of opposing viewpoints the right to speak their mind. Thus, our free press is fairly secure. But no one in grade school is taught how prices emerge from supply and demand. The only ‘economics’ I’ve seen taught to my kids is a version of Marxian conspiracy theories used to explain historical events. Social studies teachers call this “providing a context” for understanding how our world works. It would help to change this, but the world will force this on us eventually, whether our teachers want it or not.
There does seem to be a need (see, Boaz) to grasp the distinctions amongst individuals (1)who have attitudes that are tagged as Libertarian (a general outlook on life and relationships); (2) whose reactions to specific events or conditions are comparable to those in (1), but have no such general outlook; and, (3) who are actively seeking to achieve the conditions (as objectives) favored by those in (1).
The category that most nearly compares to a "constituency" is (3). The commonality of interests, being so highly individualized, is unlike simpler elements within the polity, absent crystalizing events (e.g., eminent domain).
Can you cite an example? I agreed with much of your post up until this point, when the same old "teachers are commies" meme reared its head.
For me, your perceived fallacies are not the underlying problem, but the perception that they don't lay out a successful process for social integration.
I'd appreciate pointers to succinct descriptions.
the biggest example of the "teachers are commies" meme is the history teacher talking about the great depression (and yes, this happens all the time). They explain that the economy collapsed because the economy was growing too fast. Every recession is explained this way. Government action is never blamed for these downturns. Tax rates are completely ignored in any economic explanation. I remember going home and asking my dad what actually caused the downturns, because the teacher didn't actually know any explanation other than the marxist ones.
Those points aside, what supposedly happens "all the time" did not happen for me, since I was taught (in a public high school) about post-WWI debts, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and the resultant breakdown in international trade as spurring the Great Depression. I would not simplify these under the term "government action," though some could be described that way, and I certainly never heard that "the economy was growing too fast." So, my anecdote against your anecdote.
I used, like many, to think I was a little bit libertarian, till I argued with a few libertarians and found that there was no such thing. A few things I noticed in these arguments. 1. There was no social, legal or other issue to which they did not have a libertarian answer. 2. There was no government program beyond minimal legal enforcement and minimal national defense which they did not label tyranny. 3. There was no degree of compromise with other political worldviews, no matter how slight, they did not deem an appeasement of tyranny. “Practical" and "pragmatism" seem to some libertarians to be bad words. Talk about all-or-nothing.
Libertarianism is not complete and some government programs are fine for the time being. If libertarians could cope with the idea that it is one of a number of practical, empirical, social science principles that can be brought to the question of governing, they'd own (wrong wd?) the political system. But the closest any of them will come is something like the Cato Institute.
Too harsh?
I used, like many, to think I was a little bit libertarian, till I argued with a few libertarians and found that they believed there was no such thing. A few things I noticed in these arguments. 1. There was no social, legal or other issue to which they did not have a libertarian answer. 2. There was no government program beyond minimal legal enforcement and minimal national defense which they did not label tyranny. 3. There was no degree of compromise with other political viewpoints, no matter how slight, they did not deem wrong. On that last point, "practical" and "pragmatism" seem to some libertarians to be bad words, like "appeasement" or "sophistry." Talk about all-or-nothing.
Libertarianism is not complete and some government programs are fine for the time being. If libertarians could cope with the idea that it is one of a number of practical, empirical, social science principles that can be brought to the question of governing, they'd own (wrong wd?) the political system. But the closest any of them will come is something like the Cato Institute.
Too harsh?
Surely the level of economic literacy of the population is for the population to decide, no? Surely our schools should teach neither freedom of the press nor economic liberty because "we" shouldn't have schools. People ought to be arranging for their own children's education how they please and allowed the choice of what their children learn. I'm speaking a little tongue in cheek here, not being a libertarian, but it would seem to be a slight hindrance that this particular governing philosophy has to act under that it cannot use social institutions, at least none not entirely private, to spread itself.
I suppose because not everyone understands the philosophical underpinnings of freedom, there would have to be a "transitional" period, during which public school students could learn about libertarian philosophy. After a generation or two the state schools could then be gradually disestablished as part of the hoped for "withering away" of the state.
How do Libertarians structure necessary social interaction? How do they describe the underlying framework of society required for peaceful problem resolution?
For me, your perceived fallacies are not the underlying problem, but the perception that they don't lay out a successful process for social integration.
I'd appreciate pointers to succinct descriptions.
What you're asking is pretty general and difficult to find succinctly in one place, so I'll take a stab at it:
Re - Necessary social interaction: I'm not sure what you mean here. People would form families and participate in clubs, churches, groups, charities, athletics, etc. just like now. If that doesn't answer your question please elaborate on what you mean.
Re - Peaceful problem resolution: Libertarians believe in a system of laws and courts to facilitate peaceful problem resolution, enforce contracts, etc. Some would like to eventually privatize this, similar to private arbtration and mediation services, but in any case there is support for a means of peaceful problem resolution, whether provided by the government as a core function, or eventually privatized. Contrary to what some people claim, libertarians aren't pushing for a lawless new free-for-all dark age.
If privatized, how would this be different from just taking the "Government" sign off a court building and putting up the "Business" one? Aside from a purely ideological motive, which can't really be interrogated, I just don't see the point, but I am open to knowing why people think this way. Is there any reason that a privatized court/arbitration system is inherently better?
It is a purely ideological motive. If you are trying to minimize government, you are trying to minimize government. It then becomes a question of how it works, not why it is better. The existence of a government institution, when it is possible to have a non-governmental alternative, is just plain bad to libertarians. It is a moral philosophy more than a theory of good government.
Libertarianism is BOTH a moral philosophy and a theory of good government.
The moral philosophy aspect is simple: a ban on the initiation (not every use) of force; every human interaction is voluntary.
Whatever name a crime has, for it to be a crime in the libertarian lexicon, it involves the enslavement of another by use of force. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be a crime.
So, you can do, buy, sell anything you want until you step across the line and restrict someone's freedom of movement, take their life or their health or their energy or their time without previously agreed compensation, or take or damage their property without prior agreed compensation... also known as violating their rights.
Thus, the social interaction in a libertarian culture. "Rights" literally comes from the very concept of "rights of way."
The libertarian theory of government:
There is one excuse for government: a collective means to assure that the people have a forum and coordinating body in time of need of collective action.
Within this role, the government remains the servant. Beyond this role, there is no government.
This makes for a free people. Free people are happy people, which means they're not giving their government the boot. Free people also are friendlier to one another than people who feel forced to support their neighbor's goofy pet projects because the neighbor got the government to fund it. And thus they're more likely to work together in a "social compact" when a need arises.
I suspect I've already gone on too long, so I'm going to click off now. But I think the point is demonstrated: there is indeed a theory of good government--as well as a moral philosophy--within the libertarian circle.
role.
Thanks for your effort. You've begun to help me. Most representations of Libertarianism I've read tend to spiral into moral relativism that steps around defining an agreed framework for social interaction. An implied concession needs to be made when any one person would interact with any other. Libertarians need to show they appreciate those concessions and try to express the few that exist.
It would be a great service to the rest of us who, frankly, are having the same trouble from the other side of the issue. On that other side, people have difficulty defining the minimum requirements of society, too. It's as if everyone can talk about the pile of a carpet, while they ignore the warp and weft necessary to hold it together.
No wonder people can't see what, if anything threatens society and, therefore, what, if anything, is worth fighting for,
Theoretically, I could intervene as a parent and suggest an alternate curriculum for their history dept., or I could find a more capitalist-friendly school. But neither of these is easy in the New York area or, as I have read about Seattle recently, probably in any coastal city of the US. My other son goes to a boarding school which he says is much better in terms of straight history, but the administration is still "ridiculously" lefty. Besides, I can provide an antidote for my own kids, and the rest of their curricula are fine. Even the Soviets provided excellent math and science training to their young.
Re: Okun's comment, "Surely the level of economic literacy of the population is for the population to decide, no?"--I'll take that as a facetious comment on two levels. First, you must be joking that "the population" can decide anything in a forum such as this. Second, I think that most posters and commenters here are not like the straw man you set up, though many commenters surely are.
Yes, I believe that all schooling should be private for the admittedly ironic reason that I think all kids should have the choice of attending schools like the ones my kids go to. But my concern about the 'economics' being taught in today's history classes is just my opinion about something hurting our economic literacy. Neither my argument nor the evidence I could provide is dispositive. The typical curriculum at the turn of the last century was highly religious and laissez-faire--a Progressive's nightmare--and we see what good that did us.
To me, this is a moral philosophy applied to government, rather than a practical, empirical principle of governance.
An illustration of what I mean by the distinction. Practical libertarianish argument: The post office is inefficient and historically no longer necessary; we ought to open up mail delivery to the private sector as it will tend to do a better job. Moral philosophy: The post office's monopoly on regular mail is tyrrany, because it bars non-enslaving consensual private commerce. Practical concession: Racial covenants, though purely a matter of private contract, are wrong and should be banned for reasons libertarianism doesn't have a lot to say about. Moral philosophy: The ban on racial covenants in property contracts is tyranny, because it bars free private commercial dispositions of property. [That last ironic because I've never encountered a racist libertarian. Doubt there are many out there.]
I guess what I'm saying is libertarianism works as a useful critique in a complicated world and doesn't work as a complete philosophy, and the two undercut each other.
A facetious comment, meant to erect a straw man libertarian argument and let it fall over. I don't know the population of commenters here very well, so I'm sorry if I've overdone it.
But there is a question in there. How does libertarianism treat the process of socialization? Can it?
If one is really interested in creating an effective libertarial power base, one must come up with an effective way to overcome this libertarian paradox.
I think that perhaps you're seeing the mass of trees and simply don't recognize it as the forest.
That is, the theory of government is exactly the freedom-oriented social morality as applied to collective action--guiding it and restricting it.
That guidance and restriction? The principle of rights of way. The rights described by Locke: life, liberty, property.
How much more theory do we need, when government is so limited?
Practical concessions that (some) libertarians make are that some level and type of taxation, though operationally defined as robbery (involuntary donation under threat of force), is necessary in order to operate the functions of government that assure that personal accountability is maintained.
This includes legislative, administrative and executive functions.
Of course, the devil is in the details--and maybe that's what you're keying to. Depending how completely the particular libertarian holds to "philosophical consistency," you'll run from principled anarchy to those of us who will concede all the way out to the idea that certain infrastructure (major thoroughfares, dams, etc.) can and perhaps should be developed and operated by a hired, collectivising structure--aka government.
Beyond that, once one establishes an "acceptable" level of these points, the only thing left is management theory (a collectivistic concept itself. Rand missed this point, I think. Anarco libertarians don't.)--how these organizations are led and directed.
If that doesn't cover your need to see a theory, perhaps you could describe the kind of theory you're wanting.
That's one way of describing it, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the failure is that it has yet to be expressed in a compelling fashion. Compelling in the sense that it forces both conservatives and liberals to recognize practical shortcomings in what they have previously believed.
Kidimond, you give an example of what I'm talking about. To advocate the less government the better is simply not compelling. All these political movements fail to explain the culturally independent minimum implied agreement required for two people to associate in society.
The two essentials that lead to the desire to establish processes of interaction are the humble realization that one can be wrong and the appreciation others are in the same boat. Do conservatives, liberals, libertarians, or others build those into social fabric? Point me to where they have.
Not only can it be done, it must be done, before knowledge extends too much power into the hands of zealots unprepared for it and society disappears altogether.
There's a mission for you... or you can settle for conservative, liberal, and libertarian despair.
One of the weaknesses in modern culture is that, running across something we find vulgar, we want to make laws about it--use government force to stop it. Somehow, as a culture, we just think we have some business minding another's business--aesthetics, salvation, economics, "best practices," etc.
Of course, some of our religions teach us that we're supposed to do just that--I mean, many misinterpret God's rather negative response to Cain's question ("What, I'm supposa be my brother's keeper??") as a "yes" answer. God didn't like the question because it was just a smartass, deceptive CYA response to God (and it answered a question with a question--yikes!). :>
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, perhaps the simplest characterization of the libertarian "morality" is, "mind your own business."
When you set foot into the world of minding another's business without solid, REAL rights-based cause, that's when the "fabric of society" gets its rips. You attack someone on this basis, minor personality conficts turn into feuds, and when the chips are down and your community needs to band together, you find that "Smith won't participate if Jones is involved."
I personally agree that cock fighting, dog fighting and other such activities are despicable. If I could convince those who like it that they shouldn't do it, I would. I also recognize that someone who participates in cock fights is probably someone I'm not keen to be around.
I suspect that in your example, the Libertarian Party has entered the political fray. I think that's a mistake.
The LP should focus on bigger issues where it can get the MYOB message out effectively instead of making all libertarians look like we don't mind disgusting entertainment.
The LP could do more by attacking corporate welfare and the monopolies and undue influences certain professional organizations and businesses (AMA, ABA, marginally NAR, Federal Reserve/banking, AICPA, etc.) wield, while also emphasizing businesses' and individuals' freedom to generally do as they see fit, short of rights violations, negligence and contractual breach.
Big business will never support the LP, because they know that the LP won't support taxing people or creating a big corporate-gvernment alliance (aka "fascism," "mercantilism," "command and control") and therefore an elite status for corporate bigwigs. Thus, this is a good place to strike.
It's good because it will hit home with the public. And if it goes on to detail the character and impact of these alliances, "Joe Public" will begin to get the idea that he's been had. More important, he'll start to understand HOW it's been done and how it can be fixed. This will create pressure within the parties and possibly also in favor of third parties.
Leadership is, in part, management of dissatisfaction.
Thinking about this, perhaps this is what someone above was talking about when they said the LP is a worthless expenditure--it goes around appearing to actually support socially unacceptable things and doesn't do a good job of managing dissatisfaction with real, meaningful problems that, if changed, would give our society reasonably quick quantum improvements.
You're not a fan of chaos theory, are you?
Does everything have to be laid out how people are to deal with one another? The libertarian message is, "YOU figure it out, as best you can do for yourself, as long as you don't mess up the same opportunity for anyone else."
The practical aspect of this is that it allows everyone to self-determine, which adds to societal cohesion and peace.
This is what's implied in "That government is best which governs least." And Jefferson, Paine and Mason, with their profound understanding of history, put that across in a hundred different ways.
It's my belief that anyone who profoundly understands history will be able to see that coercion breeds resistance, rebellion, social breakdown and doom for the nation as such. The only coercions that do not (on a general, societal level) is contract enforcement and defense against violation.
And when it comes to collective action, there needs to be substantial agreement among the members of the would-be collective that there is a need and that the action proposed is the right action.
Children need to be led by the hand. That's what parents are for. When a person becomes an adult, that need becomes his own responsibility; to expect others to do it at their own expense (i.e., without compensation) is its own form of tyranny.
Since the constraint on exercise of power through governments is a fairly consistent preference of most persons of "libertarian" inclinations, another form of cohesion might be useful and effective.
Perhaps what might better serve is a "Libertarian Coalition."
Thus, that coalition like others that exist (with other objectives for our society) could have a more effective determining force both on the functions of governments and on the operations of governments in executing those functions.
[chuckle] Your delightful example illustrates my point exactly. Thanks. Sort of "I knows it when I sees it."
I don't buy it. People have the opportunity, if they can see the self-interest in it, to manufacture communication with each other the better to recognize the minimal circumstances where their individual self-interests align.
Keeping those mutual but shared self-interests minimal is libertarian. However, not to consider manufacturing a minimal set at all would be self-defeating for the individual and not in the individual's best interest. What a conundrum: To go it alone might undermine the individual libertarianism was supposed to protect. For libertarianis to succeed they might have to go against libertarian principles.
At the very least libertarians have to face their duty to define objectively where, if at all, they should join with others and how. Or they can take their ball and go home, leaving others to play a different game.
If privatized, how would this be different from just taking the "Government" sign off a court building and putting up the "Business" one? Aside from a purely ideological motive, which can't really be interrogated, I just don't see the point, but I am open to knowing why people think this way. Is there any reason that a privatized court/arbitration system is inherently better?
The payoff comes from lowering taxes. You are more free if you keep $.85 or more of every dollar than if you only get to keep $.60 or less. And good things happen when the money is left in the hands of the rightful owners - the economy grows, demand for employment grows, unemployment declines, everyone's standard of living is raised through innovation and productivity gains, etc. We really don't see what we miss in the economy because of high taxes - and the US has relatively low ones compared to much of the world. Bastiat's essay on "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen" addresses this, it's worth the read if you have the time:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#taxes
(Sorry for the cut and paste link, but I kept getting an error trying to hypertext it. The section on Taxes is most relevant to this discussion, but much of the whole essay is just as relevant.)
And the concept really isn't that foreign. Think about a private tort action - Party X sues Party Y. The only government part of that proceeding is the judge and the court building. Party X has a private attorney and Party Y has a private attorney. If you had the right rules and controls in place you could fairly and cheaply privatize much of the present legal system.
It is a purely ideological motive. If you are trying to minimize government, you are trying to minimize government. It then becomes a question of how it works, not why it is better. The existence of a government institution, when it is possible to have a non-governmental alternative, is just plain bad to libertarians. It is a moral philosophy more than a theory of good government.
See my response to Ship Erect just above. It's not ideology for ideology's sake. The goal is to leave the tax dollars in the hands of the people, thus strengthening the economy and letting all the good that comes from that happen. In that way it is both a moral philosophy and a theory of good limited government.
Practical concession: Racial covenants, though purely a matter of private contract, are wrong and should be banned for reasons libertarianism doesn't have a lot to say about. Moral philosophy: The ban on racial covenants in property contracts is tyranny, because it bars free private commercial dispositions of property. [That last ironic because I've never encountered a racist libertarian. Doubt there are many out there.]
From what I see there are two ways to approach this from a libertarian perspective. The first is that libertarians believe in some laws and that many would not object to keeping the current laws that forbid racial covenants on the books. You hear libertarians arguing for throwing out many laws, I haven't heard anyone argue for throwing out those. The other is that the market would work and eventually weed out those businesses and organizations still trying to use racial covenants. I tend to think that the term "free market" implies fair and non-discrimnatory markets, so I would support the former.
I guess what I'm saying is libertarianism works as a useful critique in a complicated world and doesn't work as a complete philosophy, and the two undercut each other.
Well you claim to not know much about libertarianism but then claim that is isn't a complete philosophy. That's pretty contradictory. But I admit there are areas that need more examination and thought and that there are many areas that libertarians disagree amongst themselves on.
How does libertarianism treat the process of socialization?
Much as socialization is handled now - from the family, school, church, clubs, groups, athletics, etc. Perhaps with more school choice. The bulk of this is handled organically as it is now. This would be the same under libertarianism.
I'm puzzled because you aren't the first person to ask this. Is the concern that there will be libertarian re-education camps? That would be something to see:
"Here are some reading materials. We think they are pretty interesting and useful. You can read them if you like. Or not. The front gate is over there, you can leave whenever you want. That is all."
But what drives "Libertarians" to seek power? The desire to give it back? Basically, a key defining characteristic of "libertarians" is a marked lack of a desire to tell others what to do. As a result, they are not a driven to seek power and, consequently, do not attain it often....
If one is really interested in creating an effective libertarial power base, one must come up with an effective way to overcome this libertarian paradox.
That is something to be addressed. One would think that being the one political group that doesn't want to take everyone's money and do boneheaded things with it would be an advantage. Same with being the one political group that doesn't want to take your rights and micromanage your life. Perhaps much more effective education and communication would be the best chance to accomplish something.
Keeping those mutual but shared self-interests minimal is libertarian. However, not to consider manufacturing a minimal set at all would be self-defeating for the individual and not in the individual's best interest. What a conundrum: To go it alone might undermine the individual libertarianism was supposed to protect. For libertarianis to succeed they might have to go against libertarian principles....At the very least libertarians have to face their duty to define objectively where, if at all, they should join with others and how. Or they can take their ball and go home, leaving others to play a different game.
Libertarianism isn't individualism for individualism's sake. It's about the ability to choose where, when, and how you associate with others. Which is pretty much how things happen now. About the only difference would be libertarian policies would tend to result in more choice of schools.
As far as "shared self-interest" goes, libertarians believe that everyone's rights should be honored, so they tend to have a "shared self-interest" with everyone. Is that what you were getting at?
Not really since a distinction that makes no difference isn't a distinction.
I was trying to nudge toward an examination of the the necessary underpinnings of society. In other words, libertarians aren't anarchists. They value association. furthermore, of all political persuasions, they are sensitive to excessive governmental intervention.
When I press liberals and conservatives to consider what are the minimal requirements of society they seem unable to see the question as significant. Yet it should be, because understanding that constitutes the initial friend-or-foe detector people should use for their own preservation.
I was trying to nudge toward an examination of the the necessary underpinnings of society. In other words, libertarians aren't anarchists. They value association. furthermore, of all political persuasions, they are sensitive to excessive governmental intervention.
I believe anarchists value association too. And contrary to common belief they believe in a system of laws for peaceful dispute resolution too. They just believe that those functions should be done by private entities, not the government.
When I press liberals and conservatives to consider what are the minimal requirements of society they seem unable to see the question as significant. Yet it should be, because understanding that constitutes the initial friend-or-foe detector people should use for their own preservation.
Well I think it depends on how you approach the issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to approach society from a statist perspective - the government is the necessary scaffold on which society is built. People without a formal state are therefore not a society.
I, and I believe most libertarians, approach the issue from an organic perspective. When a group of people come together they organically form a society through trade, association, and interaction. Society exists without government. Although eventually formalized ways or rules for controlling interaction also spring up organically and tend to become government. As a libertarian I believe the best way to organize this is to start with the idea that each person has a core set of rights that are inviolable and then proceed from there to the minimum level of government necessary to stop and punish force and fraud, protect property rights, enforce legitimate contracts, and provide for defense of the territory and property of the group.
Actually, I deduce the minimal requirements of society beginning with none and then, from recollecting personal experience, determine that association with others can be a healthy check on my own (mis-) understanding of the world. Only after establishing that benefit does one consider constructing groundrules.
The initial and rudimentary thought experiment establishes the value of doubt and reciprocity. People who have no doubt in the accuracy of their mental map of reality and who do not believe in reciprocity -- that one lives life as acutely as others live theirs -- are dangerous because they prefer to live the law of the jungle rather than manufacture a workable society.
So basic a concept seems far from the minds of liberals and conservatives and I wondered aloud if it was also far from the minds of libertarians.
Thanks for your feedback.