Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fat Man In A Hurry
The Weekly Standard's Matt
Continetti has a
must-read profile of Jon Tester, the no-bullshit (some say)
"Libertarian Democrat" gunning to take Conrad Burns' Senate seat in
Montana. Tester, remember, was the guy who said "I don't want to
weaken the PATRIOT Act. I want to repeal it." When Burns turned
that soundbite into an ad, Tester
refused to back down.
If he is elected, he will become the most liberal senator from Montana in decades. He is a true dove. When I asked him when he would support the use of military force overseas, he said, "Last resort. You've exhausted all other options, then you use military force." He wouldn't say much more. Eventually he added that he supported the war in Afghanistan, "You bet." When I asked him about the Patriot Act, which he has said he would like to see repealed, he softened his language. "We ought not to cut the judicial branch out of it," he said. "If it can't meet constitutional muster, it's got to be scrapped." When I asked him who his political hero was, he chose a stock answer for Democrats, saying that Theodore Roosevelt was a "great man" on "a lot of different fronts." But then he paused, and added that he admired Mike Mansfield, the antiwar Democrat who represented Montana in the U.S. Senate from 1953 to 1977.
It is probably Tester's dovishness, in a post-9/11 world, that has prevented him from opening a double-digit lead over Burns in the polls. In the end, though, this race will be decided on how well the embattled incumbent has represented Montana's interests. Tester's positions on national security issues and his sometimes vaporous rhetoric probably won't matter. Some people even find this latter aspect of his political persona endearing.
There's some analysis of the "libertarian Democrat" phenomenon/trope, too. Continetti spoke to Reason about Jack Abramoff back in May.
|10.24.06 @ 10:54AM|#
"When Burns turned that soundbite into an ad, Tester refused to
back down."
Clearly a Republican plant. No real Democrat would act like
that.
'When I asked him when he would support the use of military force
overseas, he said, "Last resort. You've exhausted all other
options, then you use military force."'
This is exactly what George Bush said throughout the debate
surrounding the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The
difference being, Tester isn't lying to your face. Is that what
"true dove" means? When he says he doesn't want to start a war,
he's telling the truth?
"For a state that says it wants to be "left alone"--its legislature
has passed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act--Montana is
eager for as many federal dollars as it can get. On his website,
Burns brags that over the course of his career he has brought more
than $2 billion in federal taxpayer money to the state."
And for his troubles, Burns is getting his tail handed to him in
this election. I don't think Continetti's slam on
Montanans-as-porkers holds up.
"In the end, though, this race will be decided on how well the
embattled incumbent has represented Montana's interests. Tester's
positions on national security issues...probably won't
matter."
Keep telling yourself that people don't hate your war, Weakly
Standard. Maybe it will come true.
Also, the Democrats scheduled a caucus in Nevady before the New
Hampshire primary, not a primary; and "the baritone" isn't an
instrument.
|10.24.06 @ 10:57AM|#
Sorry, I'd take the Democrats for libertarians before I would the Republicans. I don't own a business, so many of the economic liberties are just not that central to me. On the other hand, I want to be able to read what I want, see whatever entertainment I want, and say what I want, which seem to get more respect from the Dems these days. In my state it was a Republican who just introduced the last state bill to ban smoking in clubs. Folks like Pat Robertson call the shots in the GOP nowadays, not Milton Friedman. And speaking of Tester-burns, Burns is no thin reed himself. He's also a mighty corrupt fellow, which is why he'll probably lose (and Confetti knows this).
|10.24.06 @ 11:03AM|#
"the baritone" isn't an instrument.
Yes it is,joe. Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baritone_horn. Don't
mess with an ex band geek.
"Libertarian Democrat" is an oxymoron.
No more so than "Libertarian Republican" these days.
And is it me or does he look like Meat Loaf?
|10.24.06 @ 11:11AM|#
Libertarians have little traction in either political party because libertarian ideas simply don't win elections. Modern Americans have a seemingly endless appetite for telling others what to do. A favorite example is the rise of homeowner's associations. Deep down, most people are willing to sacrifice the personal freedom of painting the shutters any damn color in return for the assurance that the neighbors will never their shutters any damn color but colonial yellow #42 (available only by special order from ABC Paints).
|10.24.06 @ 11:23AM|#
Libertarians have little traction in either political party
because libertarian ideas simply don't win elections.
I though it was the LP regularly fielded candidates who were
obviously crazy. The current exception of course being Loretta Nall
from Alabama running on the Hooters platform.
Still, libertarial ideas have had a lot of traction, especially
amongst folks looking for an alternative to being a Republican
without becoming a Democrat (or vice versa). Hence the attraction
to being a "Libertarian Democrat."
|10.24.06 @ 11:41AM|#
as another ex-band geek, I second madpad on the baritone. And don't get all technical and say it is a "baritone horn". No one calls it that.
|10.24.06 @ 11:52AM|#
The baritone is indeed an instrument--as my fellow band geeks
have pointed out. I mean people don't use "piano-forte" anymore
either.
The main question is why anyone would take the time to try and nit
pick on such an important topic.
I love having joe around, but man, dude, I think you need to get
out more. Your need to prove people wrong is becoming a problem.
And coming from me that's saying something. It's like Keith
Richards telling you your drinking is getting outta hand. We may
need to stage an intervention ;^)
|10.24.06 @ 12:11PM|#
I'm a little forgiving of those who brag about how much you
bring to your state in pork, err "programs" (just a little).
Consider it state vs state "gitback" - for all that f!@king money
we've spent for a hole in Boston, for example. Rather see my
congressman gobble it up before Byrd or Stevens gets to it.
That said, if there was ever a (mythical) Congressman who ran on
"I'll stop bringing pork first" - they've got my vote.
(interesting on all the band geeks here - myself included - wonder
what that says)
|10.24.06 @ 12:20PM|#
Sorry, I'd take the Democrats for libertarians before I
would the Republicans. I don't own a business, so many of the
economic liberties are just not that central to me.
Without economic liberty, you are nothing more than a serf. A serf
who can view porn without harassment, I guess.
|10.24.06 @ 12:29PM|#
C'mon, Mad, it's not so much that Libertarian candidates are
crazy. Americans love crazy-as-a-shit-house rat politicians. They
just don't seem to like arrogant, abrasive candidates who live in
strange Randian otherworlds.
If libertarian ideas have traction, why the success of all the
"defense of marriage" ballot initiatives? Why the failure to end
the failed War on Drugs? Why the erosion of personal liberties of
the War on Terror? Why the spate of local smoking bans? Are we
becoming any more free to gamble, drink or whore?
I think most people like the idea of freedom for themselves, but
they are deeply uncomfortable with the asshole down the street
having the same freedom, particularly since we all know if given
half a chance the bastard would paint his shutters puce.
|10.24.06 @ 1:00PM|#
Good points all, Jose. But while they have in no way reached a
tipping poiint, you can't deny the fact that you're even hearing
the word "libertarian" bandied about with greater frequency these
days indicates some ascendancy.
Your right with the "shutters" example of course. But Libertarian
ideals can exist on a continuum urging folks toward
less government over more. They can also - and
may very well - see greater acceptance over time.
|10.24.06 @ 1:05PM|#
Without economic liberty, you are nothing more than a serf.
A serf who can view porn without harassment, I guess.
I've had this discussion with friends about prioritizing economic
versus social liberties. It's a shame to have to choose, and maybe
we never should choose. To horribly simplify, if they take away my
right to speak, but leave me my money, can I buy free speech? or if
they take away my money, but leave me the right to complain about
it, can I moan enough to convince them to give it back?
I am not to proud to say that I think I would rather be left with
the right to complain. The idea of trying to buy my 1st Amendment
rights sounds repugnant. It is not a choice I want to make.
|10.24.06 @ 1:19PM|#
The problem with the "Democrats = social liberals, Republicans =
economic liberals" dynamic is that both parties have been far too
willing to abandon it.
The drug war has Democrat fingerprints all over it as do the
campaigns to save the kiddies from the evils of video games.
Meanwhile, the current set of Republicans just love tariffs and
subisidies while spending like drunken sailors on education and
health care.
There's not that many candidates you need to check up on for every
election, and the internet makes it easy. Don't vote Republican or
Democrat, vote for the guy who best approximates your views.
Sometimes it's only the loosest of approximations, but them's the
breaks. You can always move to Ron Paul or Jeff Flake's district if
it really bothers you that much.
|10.24.06 @ 1:26PM|#
On the other hand, I want to be able to read what I want,
see whatever entertainment I want, and say what I want, which seem
to get more respect from the Dems these days.
Just exactly what have the Repubs barred you from seeing or
saying?
If anything, its the Republican appointees to various regulatory
bodies(the FEC, the FCC) who are more likely to defend freedom the
of speech.
Lets also not forget that most recently it was Hillary Clinton
inveighing against Those Awful Video Games (tm), much in the spirit
of her former comrade in firstness Tipper Gore, and lets also not
forget that the biggest proponent of campaign speech control is a
Dem (Feingold) and its biggest opponent is a Repub
(McConnell).
God knows the Repubs have their civil liberties problems these
days, but I still trust them more than I do Dems on both the First
and Second Amendments.
In my state it was a Republican who just introduced the last
state bill to ban smoking in clubs.
Well, in both the cities that I have lived in during the past
several years (Madison, WI and Dallas, TX), it was Democrats who
actually imposed such bans.
|10.24.06 @ 1:29PM|#
There is nothing remotely libertarian about objecting to the
rules of homeowners' associations, and more than there is anything
libertarian about opposing sexual harrassment in the workplace.
Capitalist libertarians are the first ones on the barricades,
protecting the rights of obnoxious bosses and of enforcers of
contracts, to shit all over the people that The Market (TM) has
placed under their authority.
Libertarians believe strongly in freedom from the government. That
is not remotely the same thing as freedom period.
It's just a differenty system for determining who gets to shit on
you - one that works earnestly to remove any democratic
accountability from the process.
thoreau|10.24.06 @ 1:31PM|#
One thing to consider about economic vs. social/political
freedom is that without the social/political freedoms the people
agitating for economic reform can be muzzled pretty easily.
I'm not trying to advocate that anybody reverse priorities, just
recognize that freedoms are not easily disentangled, and that they
can complement each other, or the erosion of one can lead to the
erosion of another.
|10.24.06 @ 1:41PM|#
Well, in both the cities that I have lived in during the
past several years (Madison, WI and Dallas, TX), it was Democrats
who actually imposed such bans.
Same herein Salt Lake City. You'd think the Mormon Church would be
the one pushing a smoking ban, but it's actually the brainchild of
hard-Left anti-Mormon Mayor (and former smoker) Rocky
Anderson.
I think the "former smoker" part is significant. Alot of former
smokers are on a Sacred Quest to ensure that no one enjoys smoking,
so that they don't have to be reminded that they once enjoyed it,
too.
|10.24.06 @ 1:53PM|#
Capitalist libertarians are the first ones on the
barricades, protecting the rights of obnoxious bosses and of
enforcers of contracts, to shit all over the people that The Market
(TM) has placed under their authority
Well, thank god the volitionless lumpen have people like you to
make sure they can continue to spend hours at work on the phone
talking about their kid's basketball games while touching up their
nails, continue to sign contracts which they wish to be able to
break without penalty, and continue to expect the rewards possible
to risk-takers without actually taking any risks.
|10.24.06 @ 2:15PM|#
I keep thinking that joe's obstinate blindness to the difference between the state and a private business will someday lose the power to astonish me.
|10.24.06 @ 2:36PM|#
Stepping outside of the Joe World View (tm) for a moment, the
rise of uber restrictive homeowner's association is a legitimate
topic of conversation for libertarians. I agree that deed
restrictions and covenants are a private contract. Of interest to
me (as one who leans towards libertarian thinking) is the
underlying mentality that creates such contracts.
The same people who cruise the neighborhood looking for
improperly-painted shutters are those most inclined to use the
power of government to infringe on all sorts of personal freedoms.
Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of wanting to use the
state to help us "for our own good." Some people with the Joe World
View (tm) are willing to coerce citizens to engage (or avoid) in
some behaviors. Conservatives are equally willing to coerce the
same citizens to engage in (or avoid) other behaviors.
The public value of tolerance has been greatly diminished in modern
America. The value of conformity (wear a pink ribbon, recycle,
etc.) is ascendent. Somewhere deep in America's puritanical roots
is this notion that coercion is acceptable, even praiseworthy, when
done for a higher purpose.
The ethos of the rural west was, "Leave me alone and I'll leave you
alone." I expect this was because there were not many people in the
west and many of the people came west to be left the Hell alone.
There are echoes of this in places like Montana today, but only
echoes. Americans want the west to be neat, clean and orderly... no
rusting hulks, sagging barns or wandering farm animals.
Pity.
|10.24.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Bee, RC,
If you want to argue that being pushed around by a private party is
different than being pushed around by the government, have at it.
I'm quite aware of the philosophical underpinnings of
libertarianism, thank you very much.
Just don't pretend that doing so makes you a great opponent of
people being pushed around.
General opposition to people pushing other people around may be "a
legitimate topic for libertarians," but so, apparently, H.P.
Lovecraft.
Neither one bears much relation to libertarian philosophy.
thoreau|10.24.06 @ 3:01PM|#
Jose-
The most interesting thing to me about the Homeowner's Association,
after making all necessary disclaimers about private contracts and
pointing out that they exist in a regulated market, and whatever
else I have to say, is that people want to live in an arrangement
where they and their neighbors are tightly regulated.
This is what many people (not all, but many) choose in a
(relatively) free market, including people with enough income that
they have a variety of living options.
What hope does a free-for-all proposal have in the political arena
when it's seen as undesirable even by many people in the
(relatively) free market?
|10.24.06 @ 3:07PM|#
Well, thank god the volitionless lumpen have people like you
to make sure they can continue...to sign contracts which they wish
to be able to break without penalty...
Dude...there are plenty of high-powered, productive business people
that fit that description too. Maybe we could address the volumes
of lawsuits against insurance companies for starters.
Just because they're big and someone at some time took a risk to
start the business doesn't instantly make them right, credible,
honest or worthy of any kind of respect.
|10.24.06 @ 3:15PM|#
Economic vs political freedom. If I had to choose between them, I'd take the cash. A person with money can buy his way out of trouble faster than a poor person can talk his way out. But I think thoreau is right that the two freedoms are entangled and cannot be easily seperated.
|10.24.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Of course you are all forgetting about the 2nd Amendment. Maybe you can shoot your way out of trouble.
|10.24.06 @ 3:25PM|#
Ah, yes, Thoreau, I am puzzled why the first and abiding instinct of a free society is to limit freedom.
|10.24.06 @ 3:30PM|#
Hey, Bee, I'd love to hear what the folks you call "the volitionless lumpen" have to say about you as a boss.
|10.24.06 @ 3:47PM|#
thoreau,
"I dunno, H.P. Lovecraft is quite popular with some
libertarians."
Yes, so is not being pushed around by people you've signed a
contract with, that gives them the right to push you around - ie,
the homeowners/condo association. Neither one has very much to do
with the belief that you should be able to enter into contracts,
and be bound by law to respect their conditions.
Buckshot, "Economic vs political freedom. If I had to choose
between them, I'd take the cash. A person with money can buy his
way out of trouble faster than a poor person can talk his way out."
The problem with this reasoning is that "economic freedom,"
libertarian style, does not equal having the money to buy your way
out of trouble.
Back to you, Bee. If you can manage to hold your hankie over your
nose long enough, please ask the next five "lumpen" you encounter
whether their boss pushes them around.
|10.24.06 @ 4:06PM|#
"...it's a Conservative Republican senator who's already got his
paw pretty deep in the cookie jar..."
Which is precisely my point; the "progressives" in the People's
Republic of Gallatin County have made an unholy pact with their
demon, Burns, and now are beginning to suspect that they need his
seniority and proven cookie-snatching prowess more than they need
the fleeting gratification of his defeat by a (D) politician.
If I were the sort of person who actually voted, I would most
certainly vote for Tester- his comment about the Patriot Act was
more than enough to win me over.
|10.24.06 @ 4:52PM|#
Well, Joe, I don't find it surprising that I have to explain the
difference between real law and "paper law" to you.
Most people can't live in the average community without
occasionally violating some local ordinance... let's say in a fit
of excitment you put your recyclables on the curbside more than 24
hours in advance of pickup. In most places, the folks enforcing the
law generally understand that there's a helluva lot that can be
filed under "de minimus non curat lex." Homeowner Association
boards, however, inevitably attract the sort of manic busybodies
that do not understand the fine distinction between upholding the
covenants and gratuitous ball busting.
On the whole, I think contracts are pretty nifty. I'm also enough
of a realist to know that contracts can be the racing-striped
vehicle for all sorts of nonsense. And if you want a tie-in to
libertarian political philosophy, I give you this. One of my main
criticisms of libertarian thinking is the simplistic "paper"
application of theory that disregards real world experience.
Mike Laursen|10.24.06 @ 4:54PM|#
Libertarians believe strongly in freedom from the
government. That is not remotely the same thing as freedom
period.
I agree. In fact, this impure libertarian thinks we could have
government that goes beyond the minarchist or anarchist ideals that
are often put forth, even doing things like providing a safety net,
regulating pollution, making sure that nobody gets screwed by a
contract they didn't fully understand, etc. and still be a far cry
from the huge, intrusive government we have now.
A legitimate government would take the edge off the abusive things
that could happen to people in a purely anarchic society. The
trick, the art of the thing, is to distribute power so that we
don't have any institution with too large a concentration of power
over us: government, corporations, churches, family, etc.
|10.24.06 @ 5:00PM|#
If I were the sort of person who actually voted, I would
most certainly vote for Tester- his comment about the Patriot Act
was more than enough to win me over.
His comment was just that...words. If you will notice from the
quote in the post, he's already backing away from them.
I find it amusing how libertarians nowadays will swoon for antiwar
Democrats like Tester, seemingly oblivious to the fact that if
Senator Tester ever gets the chance to vote on the PATRIOT Act,
he'll probably vote yes, after making a few face-saving harrumphs
for local consumption.
It kinda reminds me of how pimply high school nerds get all
twitterpated when the cheerleader bats her eyes and asks for help
with her calculus. The idea that they're being played like a
Gameboy never enters their head.
|10.24.06 @ 5:04PM|#
No, no, I *don't* think people are volitionless lumpen. I am
*disagreeing* with a mindset that treats people as unable to handle
bad bosses, adjustable rate mortgages, and the other challenges
blown their way by the cold winds of capitalism.
ie, what I think is 180 degrees from the way you've read it.
Except for the chick behind me who spends hours each day on the
phone with her friends talking about her kids, pondering bankruptcy
so she doesn't have to pay off her car loan, or fussing excitedly
about the guy on the other side of the floor who has been flirting
with her (her tops leave little to the imagination). She can twist
in the wind for all I care.
Dude...there are plenty of high-powered, productive business
people that fit that description too. Maybe we could address the
volumes of lawsuits against insurance companies for starters
Now, why would you think I'd let them off the hook? To the
barricades, persons who enter into contracts in good faith!
|10.24.06 @ 5:11PM|#
joe:
I figured someone would nail me for that one. I didn't use
reasoning, I was just trying to be clever. One point for you.
thoreau|10.24.06 @ 5:34PM|#
Jose-
Has anybody ever done an article for Reason on homeowner's
associations and the fascinating social implications? Leaving aside
the fact that they are private organization bound by contracts,
yadda yadda yadda, a large number of people choose to live under
very strict rules when they could just as easily choose a less
regulated neighborhood.
We can debate about whether the law should or should not do
anything about the insane enforcement of the most nitpicky clauses
of a contract, and wade through all the standard libertarian
debates. I'm more fascinated by the fact that people with enough
money to live elsewhere instead choose to live in such a restricted
community.
|10.24.06 @ 5:35PM|#
"It kinda reminds me of how pimply high school nerds get all
twitterpated when the cheerleader bats her eyes and asks for help
with her calculus."
If its calculus, the cheerleader must be Asian, otherwise it would
be help her with single digit multiplication and triple digit
addition.
"twitterpated" is that like masterbation with your pants on?
|10.24.06 @ 5:40PM|#
"His comment was just that...words. If you will notice from the
quote in the post, he's already backing away from them."
I am unregistered nonvoter because I hold politicians in utter
contempt. I deem them to be merely a subspecies of career criminal:
congenital liars and sociopaths. Occasionally I succumb to the
forlorn hope that I might be pleasantly surprised. If he wins,
we'll at least be rid of an incumbent.
|10.24.06 @ 5:47PM|#
Jose,
You didn't so much "explain" something to me, as repeat the point I
was making; to wit, in the real world, the people you enter into
contracts with tend to push you around even more than the
government, regarless of the theoretical possibility of leaving the
contractual relationship.
Captin Holly,
"I find it amusing how libertarians nowadays will swoon for antiwar
Democrats like Tester, seemingly oblivious to the fact that if
Senator Tester ever gets the chance to vote on the PATRIOT Act,
he'll probably vote yes, after making a few face-saving harrumphs
for local consumption."
I find it amusing that the people who were so loudly proclaiming
that Democrats were virtually a different species from Republicans
for the past five years have suddenly started to insist that there
is no difference in their approaches to war and security.
Bee, tell you what: I'll stop attributing "mindsets" to you, when
you stop doing it to me. Can we enter into that contract?
thoreau, from what I've seen, most of the people who buy into
communities with homeowners' associations are in regions - like
Florida - in which the overwhelming majority of the available
housing stock consists of homes subject to the rules of homeowners
associations. It not so much a choice between an association with
tight rules vs. an un-regulated home, but of a homeowners'
association with tight rules vs. no home at all.
In other words, the "choice" to not buy into a homeowners
association is theoretical, like so much of the "choice" that
libertarians postulate exists in people's economic lives.
|10.24.06 @ 5:56PM|#
joe,
You need to get out more. Check out the new(er) construction in the
suburbs outside any major city. You will find Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) all over the country. Not all subdivisions are
built with very "tight rules," and some are not built as PUDs at
all, or you can choose to buy an older home that does not belong to
a PUD. It is a choice in some parts of the country.
thoreau|10.24.06 @ 6:05PM|#
joe-
Why is it that some regions have so many homeowners associations?
Is it a matter of regulations (perhaps indirect)? I'm sure that
some here would like to insist on that and then leave it at that.
And maybe they're right. That would satisfy all ideological
objections.
But Florida is also considered a desirable place to live by many,
so maybe with greater demand consumers are willing to accept more
restrictions? That would drag us into the usual arguments over
whether market outcomes should be accepted rather than adjusted by
regulations. We've gone over those fights enough.
Another thing to consider is that, regardless of how it came about,
you have an organization where people have paid in with their own
money, they all have a stake in the situation, they rely on private
organizations and arbiters and contracts and all that rather than
government regs...and this is how they behave. However it came to
be, this is what it is, it fits many of the assumptions of the
ideal libertarian model, and yet human nature shows a remarkably
ugly side in it.
Forget about whether the law should do anything about the
situation, the fact is that when people are placed in a scenario
which fits so many of the elements of an ideal libertarian model, a
highly regulated society comes about.
I find that both disturbing and fascinating on a number of levels,
and it provides a lot of food for thought.
|10.24.06 @ 6:10PM|#
Now, why would you think I'd let them off the hook? To the
barricades, persons who enter into contracts in good
faith!
My point, Bee, was that the obnoxious practices you pointed out
aren't just committed by "volitionless lumpen" (great phrase,
btw...mind if I borrow it?) but also by the very risk-takers you
spoke so wistfully of.
Sincerely sorry, however, that your work puts you daily in close
proximity with an idiot. But then there are plenty of idiots out
there. And I'm closer than I'd like to be to a few myself.
|10.24.06 @ 6:13PM|#
Bee, tell you what: I'll stop attributing "mindsets" to you,
when you stop doing it to me. Can we enter into that
contract?
Smmmmmooooch! I don't think I can do that though. Cuz I think I'm
right. Also, you are perfectly free to assign mindsets to me. I
would not want to deny myself your corrective influence when my
posts are variously interpretable.
|10.24.06 @ 6:33PM|#
Sincerely sorry, however, that your work puts you daily in
close proximity with an idiot. But then there are plenty of idiots
out there. And I'm closer than I'd like to be to a few
myself.
Holy Cow. She just confided to me that she is leaving, to take a
job where she can slip away during the day to spend time with her
kids. (!) I have suffered her half-hearted attention to work for
two years in absolute silence. Today, *today*, I bitch about her
obliquely on HnR, and she announces her departure. Spooky.
|10.24.06 @ 6:40PM|#
thoreau,
Mutually agreed upon order is "remarkably ugly"? Maybe you are
referring to the anal-retentiveness of some folks? Once a group
gets together and creates rules, mustn't they enforce them fairly?
The larger the group is, doesn't that mean that the rules cannot be
bent for one for this will mean they can be bent for everyone,
thereby negating the rules? Since these are voluntary associations,
I see no ugliness.
I, personally, would go nuts living in a PUD. Aside from not being
the sort who likes suburban sprawl (I'm not anti-sprawl. I mean to
say that I would find it soul-killing. Let the sheep live where
& how they want. Baa!), I don't want Mrs Kravitz telling me
what kind of garden to grow in my front yard.
|10.24.06 @ 6:56PM|#
And is it me or does he look like Meat Loaf?
Comment by: madpad at October 24, 2006 11:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------
He looks like Dennis Quaid if he spent a little (okay, a lot) more
time at the buffet.
|10.24.06 @ 7:06PM|#
highnumber,
I know all of that. You didn't address my point.
thoreau,
The type of homeowners associations we're talking about are largely
a phenomenon of places undergoing rapid growth, where the existing
municipal services are unlikely to be able to accommodate the
booming population, so people establish quasi-governmental
homeowners associations to handle what the government handles in
more-built-out areas.
Now, our government has some pretty hefty restrictions on what it
can and cannot do. Private contracts, on the other hand, can be as
restrictive as the parties want.
|10.24.06 @ 7:10PM|#
joe,
In other words, the "choice" to not buy into a homeowners
association is theoretical, like so much of the "choice" that
libertarians postulate exists in people's economic
lives.
I told you that it is not "theoretical." PUDs exist all over the
place, and people can choose to move into more PUDs with more
relaxed rules or stricter rules. I did address your point.
So there!
|10.24.06 @ 7:40PM|#
The type of homeowners associations we're talking about are
largely a phenomenon of places undergoing rapid growth, where the
existing municipal services are unlikely to be able to accommodate
the booming population, so people establish quasi-governmental
homeowners associations to handle what the government handles in
more-built-out areas.
That is not at all the case. Like I wrote above, most subdivsions
today are built as PUDs, which means, essentially, that there is a
homeowners' association (HOA). These HOAs all have covenants. Often
the homeowners are not allowed to park boats or RVs in the driveway
for more than a day, have to take holiday decorations down within a
certain time period, and their mailbox can't be brick or something
like that. Other, usually much more expensive, PUDs will have more
restrictive covenants. These don't have anything to do with local
gov't services. In more rural areas, this can be seen, but that has
nothing to do with making sure that the exterior of the home is
painted in an acceptable manner. The people who bought in a PUD
must have seen some qualities they liked. The HOA is responsible
for maintaining those qualities. Again, it's not my scene, but if
people want that for themselves, FSM bless 'em.
Do you feel that their rules are oppressive? Don't buy there.
Private contracts, on the other hand, can be as restrictive as
the parties want.
That is a good point.
|10.24.06 @ 8:50PM|#
highnumber,
OK, in places where there are restrictive homeowners assns,
unrestrictive homeowners assns, and homes that are not a part of
any assn, there is a choice.
But my point is that in the markets seeing the largest growth in
PUDs - like south Florida, for example - consumers are pretty much
locked into a highly-restrictive homeowners association if they
want to own a home, and it is inaccurate to describe them as
"choosing" to live in one.
|10.24.06 @ 10:36PM|#
I think you can be both a libertarian and a Democrat. However, you can't be a libertarian and have Teddy Roosevelt as your hero.
thoreau|10.25.06 @ 12:46AM|#
Mutually agreed upon order is "remarkably ugly"?
Poor choice of words, but it is interesting that neighborhoods
governed by private contracts are often more heavily regulated
(albeit in a contractual manner) than neighborhoods governed by
City Hall.
I'm not here to deny the right of the home owners to voluntarily
enter into contracts yadda yadda yadda, I'm just observing that a
significant number of people with the means to choose among living
options chose heavily regulated neighborhoods, and the neighbors
have proven to be more over-bearing (at least in some respects)
than cops.
Now, you could say that in some areas there's no other choice,
since every neighborhood has a Homeowners Association. True, but if
there are multiple companies establishing these neighborhoods then
you'd think competition would provide more flexibility.
Bottom line: I'm fascinated by the demonstrated fact that a
significant fraction of people with the means to live where they
want have chosen to enter into arrangements that bear all the
trappings of libertarianism (private roads, contractual
arrangements, all that good stuff) yet are tightly regulated,
frequently with the enforcement assistance of obnoxious
assholes.
I think there's a lesson in there, and not necessarily a cheerful
one. Some people fear that libertarianism will bring about chaos,
while libertarians actually hope that we'll get at least a small
taste of chaos. Alas, a libertarian society might turn out to still
be tightly regulated with obnoxious assholes leading the
charge.
This is why I'm fundamentally an incrementalist libertarian rather
than an ideological one. I'm firmly convinced that on most or all
of today's political issues the best incremental solution would
involve less government rather than more. But I'm not convinced of
what shape the IDEAL society would take. I have strong opinions on
what a BETTER society would be, but no opinion about what the BEST
society would be.
|10.25.06 @ 12:50AM|#
I like Conrad Burns. He seems like he goes home and drinks half a bottle of whiskey every night and could care less what happens in the world. Incompetent and indifferent, that's the kind of politicians libertarians should want.
|10.25.06 @ 10:25AM|#
Well, Joe, there was a huge surge in housing growth post WWII,
but the trend of homeowner's associations did not occur until much
later. As noted, HOAs generally exist within planned unit
developments... and PUDs are a regulatory scheme developed by
planners to allow greater housing density in exchange for common
open space. Planners have now discovered the benefits of
"neo-traditional" neighborhoods, i.e., the type of neighborhood
that developed absent PUD regulations. So it goes.
Many PUDs and HOAs exist within established municipalities where
the municipal laws concerning land use and property are far more
lax than HOA covenants. Most municipal governments do not give a
rat's ass about what color you paint the shutters... unless you
live under the tyranny of a historic preservation district
(ironically areas which developed organically without controls like
historic preservation boards). Like Thoreau, I think the HOA trend
suggests that while people may talk a decent libertarian game, most
folks are more than willing to impose all sorts of asinine
restrictions on the neighbors (and themselves)... via government
regulations or private contract. Perhaps this is nostalgia, but I
think Americans used to be more willing to look at puce shutters on
a neighbor's house and say, "Yeah, they are damned ugly but it is
his house and he has a right to paint it any damn color he wants."
Perhaps in part due to the environmental movement, I think more
folks now feel they have rights that extend well beyond the
property line.
It is hard to imagine libertarian thought exerting any influence on
either major American political party in a land of HOAs.
thoreau|10.25.06 @ 10:45AM|#
Exactly, Jose. People can say what they want about the private
nature of the HOA and all that, and these sorts of communities may
not be uniformly popular, but the fact remains that there is
obviously a large market niche for a tightly regulated
neighborhood.
There's a lesson in that. Maybe not a pleasant one.
|10.25.06 @ 11:00AM|#
thoureau & Jose,
I think that these arrangements bear out anarcho-capitalists'
theories. Obnoxious assholes do exist, and the absence of gov't
does not preclude their existence. At least in these situations
they don't have a gun pointed at your head.
I understand that neither of you consider yourself to be a "pure"
libertarian. Neither do I. I don't mind controls emanating from
very local sources when one has the option to disengage with very
little hassle. I have, in the past, referred to my ideal form of
gov't as a loose confederation of city-states. After some thought,
I believe anarcho-capitalism is pretty close.
But I still love the Constitution and give big ups to our founding
fathers, so I am not ready to give up on the U.S. of A.
|10.25.06 @ 11:20AM|#
Jose,
"Well, Joe, there was a huge surge in housing growth post WWII, but
the trend of homeowner's associations did not occur until much
later."
Yes, but with a couple of significant differences. First, there was
a much more expansive government back then - much of that housing
growth was government-subsidized, in fact - so the existing
governments were more willing to accept the additional
responsibility of growth. Second, the post WWII growth was more
concentrated around large, older cities, often in established small
towns that grew into suburbs. It was still thought that most people
would continue to commute to the city center. Today, more of the
growth is in "cityless suburbs" like Florida and Arizona. Once
again, the absense of a robust govenrment eager for the growth is
the key factor.
"Planners have now discovered the benefits of "neo-traditional"
neighborhoods, i.e., the type of neighborhood that developed absent
PUD regulations." Actually, the two aren't really related. Many
neo-trad developments ARE PUDs, in the sense of having restrictive
homeowners associations, like Celebration, Florida.
|10.25.06 @ 11:38AM|#
I think the point, High, is that while you and a handful of
others may want a free society, when push comes to shove, most
Americans do not. Americans romanticize the West, modern and past.
While it may be fun to watch "Deadwood," few people are willing to
tolerate gunplay on Main Street or lawn mowing before 9 a.m. on
Saturdays.
Frankly, Americans don't even seem to feel particularly worried or
guilty about limiting freedoms. They certainly are not overly
concerned about the abuses at Gitmo or the secret police tactics
conducted under the guise of the War on Terror. From what I
observe, libertarians are mostly shouting at the rain.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245