New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | June 23, 2005

Nick Gillespie and R.U. Sirius discuss libertarianism, intellectual property, the ideological dispositions of Silicon Valley CEOs, federalism, slavery, and why Reason is such a good magazine.

Comments

|6.23.05 @ 1:06PM|#

I liked the interview. I know that purists can find all sorts of things to take Gillespie to task over, but I liked what he had to say.

And I thought the title was hilarious: Why Can't All Individualists Think Alike?

|6.23.05 @ 1:15PM|#

The link doesn't work Julian, you need to take off the double quote at the end of the URL.

|6.23.05 @ 2:33PM|#

It is impossible for me to take seriously anybody who calls himself R U Serius.

|6.23.05 @ 2:56PM|#

I have to weigh in concerning my enjoyment of the article. Yes, purists will take issue with it, but I think purists already believe Nick is destroying the mag, so what's the diff?

Not sure where else to mention this, so I'll put it here where a discussion of libertarian bona fides is bound to start:

I was driving behind Camelback Mountain here in Phoenix the other morning, and enjoying the extensive canyon system back there. Unfortunately, there were nice homes/mansions built all over place. I was trying to think of what a libertarian "response" to this would be. It made me somewhat sad/upset that these rich folks are allowed to ruin the beauty of the area. At the same time, I understand that if they can afford the property, why shouldn't they be allowed to build their dream home there?

I just couldn't bring everything together in my head. What are other folks thoughts on the matter?

R.U. Sirius|6.23.05 @ 3:12PM|#

>>
It is impossible for me to take seriously anybody who calls himself R U Serius.
>>

I know. The name is the perfect defense against the type of person who can't take seriously anybody who calls himself R U Sirius (sp.)

|6.23.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Mondo 2000 was a great mag., really got my juices flowing in high school -- Life Enhancement Products, well, some of their products are cool, some seem rather dodgy and overpriced...

|6.23.05 @ 3:20PM|#

R.U.
Any relation to Yahoo?

|6.23.05 @ 4:28PM|#

Ah, lowdog, an occasional faire la moue is necessary for those of us who lean towards libertarianism without falling in.

I have driven through some of the most beautiful country in America. On occasion, I will notice a property where the owner has things scattered from Hell to breakfast... cars on blocks, rusting heavy machinery, buildings in disrepair, blue tarp roofing, stuffed furniture on the front lawn. In libertarian parlance, it is a celebration of personal freedom. To me, it looks more like a dump. This is one reason I don't believe in libertarian utopias.

|6.23.05 @ 6:35PM|#

On occasion, I will notice a property where the owner has things...in disrepair, blue tarp roofing, stuffed furniture on the front lawn. In libertarian parlance, it is a celebration of personal freedom. To me, it looks more like a dump.

No, as far as I know, it would just be a dump. But it would be that guy's dump...

|6.24.05 @ 1:17AM|#

I didn't know there was such a thing as a libertarian utopia.

|6.24.05 @ 1:31AM|#

Lowdog,

I'm no libertarian scholar, but how about, you and a bunch of like-minded people who value the natural beauty of a given location (like Camelback Mountain) raise the money to buy it, and keep it in trust. Also make sure that none of it is sold to the stinking rich people.

|6.24.05 @ 1:58AM|#

Libertarianism isn't a religion for me. If I see a problem with no apparent libertarian solution I don't get upset. I figure that there are so many other problems for which a libertarian solution does exist, I'll focus on those.

Here's a thought about Nick's observations on partisan politics. Among other things, he observed that the Dems and Republicans basically implement the same domestic agenda, even if their details differ somewhat (and their rhetoric differs substantially). Oh, sure, there are differences, but at the end of the day they settle on more or less the same agenda.

He also observed that voting and party affiliation seem to be more tribal than practical.

Finally, he observed that the GOP does best in elections when it uses libertarian rhetoric, but the GOP never implements much of that rhetoric.

Here's my theory about why:

A lot of people really dislike the programs that benefit other people, but everybody has their own favorite program that they don't want touched. Hell, look at me, I'm doing a postdoc at NIH. I'm probably as big of a hypocrite as the rest of the public.

Well, the GOP gives them the libertarian rhetoric that reinforces their dislike of other people's benefits, but doesn't deliver any of the cuts that might affect their benefits. Voting GOP is a symbolic act that allows people to feel like they're genuinely resisting the welfare state, without exposing them to the pain that would come from actually rolling it back.

The Dems provide a different service: Some people feel that supporting the welfare and regulatory state makes them virtuous. The Dems provide the rhetorical assurance that their voters are indeed compassionate and virtuous.

So, both parties deliver you the benefits, but one party lets you feel self-reliant, and the other party lets you feel compassionate.

And for those who don't feel sufficiently comforted by the rhetoric of the 2 major parties, there's always the third parties. Voting for them won't actually make the state any bigger or smaller, so the status quo is left intact. But by voting Green you can feel REALLY compassionate ("Look at me, I just voted for single-payer health care!"). By voting LP you can feel REALLY self-reliant ("Look at me, I just voted to abolish the IRS!"). By voting Natural Law you can feel, um, whatever it is that they stand for. And by voting Reform Party you can feel REALLY xenophobic and/or REALLY crazy and/or REALLY muscular ("Jesse the Body").

So, in the end, voting is about making yourself feel good rather than about changing anything. Yet, for some reason, I continue to do it.

|6.24.05 @ 2:03AM|#

I was driving behind Camelback Mountain here in Phoenix the other morning, and enjoying the extensive canyon system back there. Unfortunately, there were nice homes/mansions built all over place. I was trying to think of what a libertarian "response" to this would be.

As much as I love unspoiled nature and think you sound like a perfectly reasonable person, mine is to wonder why I need to give a response.

You're basically unhappy that other people are allowed to build homes somewhere you're rather not see homes. I can't see why it's fair or just for your aesthetic preference to have power over where people get to live and/or how they may live, so I don't see it as a problem to be solved.

|6.24.05 @ 3:00AM|#

I really like the article.

One minor quibble - intellectual property IS about private property. You want invention, innovation and the like to be rewarded, so it continues. Yes, some will go on without reward, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's private property.

thoreau-

So, in the end, voting is about making yourself feel good rather than about changing anything. Yet, for some reason, I continue to do it.

I agree. So what can one do? Get a megaphone and go to the busiest intersection you can find and start reminding everyone that they continue to support an increasingly despotic government that will not stop stifling and eroding everyone's rights and freedoms? Not just being snarky here, some definite thought on what actions could effectively advance libertarian causes needs to be done.

|6.24.05 @ 3:47AM|#

Not just being snarky here, some definite thought on what actions could effectively advance libertarian causes needs to be done.

That's the Big Question, of course. If I knew the answer, well, if I knew the answer then I'd do something about it.

|6.24.05 @ 4:44AM|#

Another thought:

Not only do both parties guarantee that the pork and subsidies and programs and regulations will keep coming, while providing the necessary rhetoric to soothe your soul ("I voted for a smaller government that will never actually come about!" or "I voted to help the less fortunate with programs that don't actually work!"), they also offer two types of payment plans:

Plan #1, Credit Card: A small down payment, modest monthly payments now, large interest payments at some point in the future (hopefully after you've retired). Perfect for those who want instant gratification!

Plan #2, Pain: Pay through the nose now and forever. If you're a naughty boy who needs some punishment, this is the plan for you! Mistress Pelosi will make you pay for your bad conspicuous consumption! And the more money you have, the more guilty you feel about it, the more she'll take from you. You've been a very naughty wage-earner, haven't you?

And don't even get me started on their social agendas:

Enlightenment: Vote for us and we'll make sure that those troglodytes are kept in check! We won't actually do much to expand individual liberty, but we'll help you feel smugly superior to those rural religious folk! What's that? You actually want us to vote against the Patriot Act? Dude, we're not listening, we're busy going on a junket paid for by the corporate lobbyists that we condemn in every speech.

Morality: Vote for us and we'll keep those gay atheists in line! We don't actually do all that much to enforce your medieval world-view on the urban masochists who pay the taxes for your pork (you know, the ones who want Mistress Pelosi to take their money as punishment), but we will make you feel like you've done your part for God and Country, just by voting for us. What's that? You want us to do something about hedonistic behavior? Dude, we're not listening, because we're too busy snorting coke off a stripper's tits in our DC offices after hours.

That's my take on the 2 parties: They deliver more or less the same package (with small differences), and they provide the rhetoric that you need to feel like you've done the right thing.

|6.24.05 @ 5:06AM|#

They deliver more or less the same package (with small differences), and they provide the rhetoric that you need to feel like you've done the right thing.

Agreed.

There has to be a way to come up with meaningful action that can be taken. (Legal and nonviolent.) There has to be precedent for doing what most libertarians want to accomplish. How have other political movements gained support and accomplished their objectives?

|6.24.05 @ 8:43AM|#

I agree with Thoreau that libertarian public policy is not a universal tool to solve every public problem. I think the best response to liberals and conservatives is to admit it. There are places of such unique natural beauty and value that I think it is justified to protect them (e.g., Yellowstone Park). Now, I am sure there are libertarians who decry public ownership of this land. When Old Faithful becomes a feature in a miniature golf course, I'm sure Eric will point out... "Yeah, but it's HIS miniature golf course." Using Eric's standard of "love," I can love my children while selling them for medical experiments... actually, a somewhat tempting thought on a given day.

I think I know why homeowner's associations have become so common. Deep down, most people don't want to live next to some guy exercising his property right to have car parts scattered over the front lawn. This is the same reason we have two idiotic political parties, both giving lip service to freedom while peddling increased government control. Deep down, most people want personal freedom... just not for the guy next door. We give lip service to smaller government but we are the first ones to bitch when our pet public perquisite is not produced promptly. In short, Thoreau (and lowdog), American, like all nations, is full of hypocrites...and that will elicit an occasional sigh of disgust.

|6.24.05 @ 6:35PM|#

Wow, this exchange raises lots of interesting points to think about and discuss.
We all know that Nick is great but it also appears that R.U. Sirius is as intellectually engaged as he was back in the early 90's when he was the most insightful of the cyberpunk gurus.

Nick:

Libertarianism proceeds from the assumption that the state doesn't necessarily get to define social problems. Or that the individual is subordinate to the state. Libertarianism proceeds from the great classical liberal axiom that the individual exists before the state and that the state exists to serve the individual.

Nice! And this limits the proper role of the state to the protection of the rights and property of individuals. And might "nuance" come from making league with different folks on particulars who don't share this view?

R.U. Sirius:

Now, I don't self-define as a libertarian, but thanks to this conversation with Mr. Gillespie I realized that I am libertarian.

I always thought that R.U. Sirius: had libertarian leanings. Also, now if we can only clone Nick-make about two million copies and set them loose, it will just be a matter of time before the country is unbelievably free and prosperous.

|6.25.05 @ 2:05PM|#

Nick:

If you believe, say, that most drugs should be legalized and that freedom of expression is a good thing, then you're pretty libertarian, even if you don't necessarily think that the top marginal income tax rate should always be cut by two percentage points (I'm happy to argue that, by the way).

Well, cutting taxes is a bedrock libertarian value. Taxation and other theft are among the most anti-liberty activities. The only reason to consider not cutting tax rates is if will result in higher deficits and a higher debt with interest which will lead to even higher taxes later on. Of course, tax rate cuts often pay for themselves, vis a vis the government's books, negating this worry. If the political will can be brought to bare to cut spending as well, tax rates should ALWAYS be cut.

|6.25.05 @ 3:12PM|#

Oops...make that: "If the political will can be brought to *bear* to cut spending as well,"