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
Libertarians: Just Petulant Children
As a libertarian, there are many Washington personality types I find grating. But the most insufferable are the Earnest (caps intended). These are people, generally big government conservatives, who don't merely disagree with libertarians, they disagree in arrogant, whispering hushes—quietly scolding, enormously condescending, fatherly I-know-better-than-you lectures.
The "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush administration (see raiding medical marijuana dispensaries, banning assisted suicide, the persecution of pain specialists) has unfortunately ushered in a wave of prominence and influence of earnest types, who are quite fond of using government power, influence, and coercion to mold the collective populace into good citizens, much like a father smacks the behind of a three-year-old for putting his fingers near the electrical outlet, or forces him to share his cookies with his sister.
The Prince of Earnest is NY Times columnist David Brooks, a guy who was once a bit irreverent and whimsical, but whose last few years writing for the most sought-after space in journalism has infected him with a case of earnestness that makes Jedediah Purdy look like Johnny Knoxville.
Brooks' latest paternalistic jab at the unruly libertarians came last week, in a column where he made the Orwellian argument that we should embrace big government because "security leads to freedom," and—I'm not kidding—supported that argument by calmly explaining that "the 'security leads to freedom' paradigm is," after all, "a fundamental principle of child psychology," as if the psychologist-child relationship were in any way an appropriate model for the state-citizen relationship. It's certainly a telling analogy, though.
Brooks goes on to suggest that it wasn't corruption, the arrogance of power, the failed endeavor in Iraq, or the complete detachment from principle that doomed the Republicans last November, it was their slavish devotion to "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" Goldwaterism. Ri-ight.
At Cato's blog, Gene Healy plays the role of unruly teenager, and explains why all that time in the den smoking the pipe (tobacco only, of course) has caused Papa Brooks to lose his grip on reality.
uncle sam|3.31.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Brooks goes on to suggest that it wasn't corruption, the
arrogance of power, the failed endeavor in Iraq, or the complete
detachment from principle that doomed the Republicans last
November, it was their slavish devotion to "extremism in defense of
liberty is no vice" Goldwaterism.
Time for a laugh party.
Could anyone possibly take this guy seriously after making such a
claim?
|3.31.07 @ 12:01PM|#
In principle, I would agree that true freedom is impossible without security (see City Mouse and Country Mouse). Security, though, does not just imply security from external enemies like al-Qaeda, it also implies security from those wearing badges, which the policies Brooks and his ilk support decrease that kind of security.
|3.31.07 @ 12:02PM|#
In principle, I would agree that true freedom is impossible without security (see City Mouse and Country Mouse). Security, though, does not just imply security from external enemies like al-Qaeda, it also implies security from those wearing badges, which the policies supported by Brooks and his ilk decrease.
|3.31.07 @ 12:10PM|#
"as if the psychologist-child relationship were in any way an
appropriate model for the state-citizen relationship."
Just to nit-pick.
The relationship Brooks is using as an analogy is not the
psychologist-child, but the environment-child relationship.
And I think crimethink's comment is too narrow, but on the right
track.
|3.31.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Brooks is a stooge.
Here's a nice summary from the Cato rebuttal of why "negative
liberty" is still the way to go: "Brooks' (and Cowen's?) notion
that the modern world has outgrown the Liberty vs. Power paradigm
is bizarre. Barring some miraculous change in human nature and the
nature of government, that paradigm's as enduringly relevant as
anything gets in politics. There's a reason 'Skepticism about
Power' is the section that opens David Boaz's Libertarian Reader.
That heuristic flows from observable truths about man's nature and
the state's. Distrust of government lies at the heart of
libertarianism and at the heart of the American experiment.
Liberty's future depends on rekindling it."
|3.31.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Freedom does come from security - people who are confident that
there will be no rude surprises of a violent kind can plan ahead
more, and can act on their plans.
Mr Brooks' notion that the government provides security is where he
falls flat on his face. Criminal gangs that extort money by threats
of kidnapping do not provide security, they weaken it. Militias
that act capriciously and threaten those who violate their
bewildering and ever-changing edicts with assault, theft,
kidnapping and even murder do not enhance security.
|3.31.07 @ 12:16PM|#
It's been said a gazillion times, in a gazillion different
forms, but we really need new labels for all this stuff.
"Conservative" and "liberal," "right" and "left" -- they just don't
work anymore. At all. They signify nothing.
I mean, Brooks is on "the right," I suppose, in that he's big on
the idea of security. But he's championing big government, so he
can't really be a "conservative," right? Freedom is a secondary
concern to him, so he's not really "liberal," but he's advocating
intrusive government, so he IS kinda coming from "the left." Using
any of these words just creates a big mess.
We keep trying to make modern politics fit into labels and
definitions established half a century ago. It's not working.
When certain language is an impediment to making sense of the
world, it's certainly going to be harder to make the world make
sense.
|3.31.07 @ 12:34PM|#
It's been said a gazillion times, in a gazillion different
forms, but we really need new labels for all this stuff.
"Conservative" and "liberal," "right" and "left" -- they just don't
work anymore. At all. They signify nothing.
I mean, Brooks is on "the right," I suppose, in that he's big on
the idea of security. But he's championing big government, so he
can't really be a "conservative," right? Freedom is a secondary
concern to him, so he's not really "liberal," but he's advocating
intrusive government, so he IS kinda coming from "the left." Using
any of these words just creates a big mess.
I've always hate this complaint and chalk it up to liberterian sour
grapes; Conservitism doesn't begin and start with "big goverment",
it is only a small part of what makes up conservitism. It also
stands for a strong defense, tough on crime, and the religious
right stuff.
What is consistent, or at least has been cconsistent for the past
30 or so years is the personality of the parties; the Democrats has
always been the "mommy" party and the conservitives have always
been the "daddy" party
|3.31.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Well, I'm libertarian, and my world is definitely full of sour
grapes, but those aren't the reasons for my post.
My complaint is about imprecision in language, and how it keeps us
from conducting our affairs as efficiently as possible. If
"conservative" can mean 10 different things, and if 10 people have
different ideas about what "conservative" means, then it's
unhelpful, maybe even harmful, to call David Brooks a
conservative.
(None of this was meant to be a criticism of Balko, by the way.
Just a general observation...)
|3.31.07 @ 12:53PM|#
I would not take anything David Brooks says at face value. This is a guy who is afraid of freedom. The "National Greatness" agenda that he sought to dream up prior to 9/11 was intended to think up something--anything!--that would force people to devote themselves to something "greater than themselves" instead of just living their lives as they wished. The War on Terror was a godsend to Brooks, giving him his very own fuhrer, but now that the steam is starting to run out of the Bush Administration, poor Dave is getting desperate. Slip the cuffs on me, someone! Anyone! Don't let me be free!
|3.31.07 @ 12:58PM|#
The political environment is a mish-mash of misnamed groups, but
I think it generally breaks up into Right-Authoritarian,
Left-Authoritarian, Left-Libertarian, and Right-Libertarian.
Unfortunately, I think the first two are the most prominent in our
society (and especially in politics) and the last two are rare and
lack any political power (and don't generally desire it).
Then again, I'm not a political scientist, so I'm probably just
full of shit. But I can say, with some confidence, that David
Brooks can be classified -- scientifically -- as a "Bloviating
Asshole".
|3.31.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Small "l" libertarianism, in my mind, differs from those other
political philosophies in that it derives from a view of the world
which is fundamentally optimistic. If you believe people are
tainted through and through with evil, you by necessity want a
strong parental authority to protect you. If you believe people are
fundamentally stupid and helpless, you want a strong parental
authority to protect them.
If, on the other hand, you believe the overwhelming majority of
people are not only fundamentally good, but capable of making their
own decisions regarding what is good for them (and what makes them
happy), and if you further are willing to believe that if you
deserve to be left alone, everybody else does, too, you might be
well on your way to libertarianism.
|3.31.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Once upon a time, people who wanted limitless government and
made trouble around the globe were called Communists. Today, of
course, they're known as conservatives. If that's just semantics,
call me anti-semantic.
--Joseph Sobran
|3.31.07 @ 1:11PM|#
If you believe people are basically good, you don't need a
government. If you believe people are basically evil, you don't
dare have one.
--Somebody
|3.31.07 @ 1:26PM|#
My complaint is about imprecision in language, and how it
keeps us from conducting our affairs as efficiently as possible. If
"conservative" can mean 10 different things, and if 10 people have
different ideas about what "conservative" means, then it's
unhelpful, maybe even harmful, to call David Brooks a
conservative.
Most words have 10 diffrent means and differing interpitations
about what it means. I don't fret it that much mostly because the
changing language of politcal labels isn't going to stop, and if
something is done about it, it'd lead to a kind of annoyingly
pendantic way of talking. ("Up next on the show, we have pro-State,
anti-interventialist David Madeuplastname!")
And again, I think the labels refer to more the personalities of
someone's political viewpoint, and if you look at it that way then
the terms haven't changed that much over the years.
D.A. Ridgely|3.31.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Having, as Mr. Balko notes, obtained "the most sought-after space in journalism" (but remember kids, on a per-word basis, ransom notes pay much better!), Brooks is just angling now for George F. Will's bow-tie collection when Will finally moves on to the ultimate Gated Community. Being the token "conservative" at the Times is like being a capon in the hen house: there's no point in trying to crow, so you might as well try to lay an egg.
|3.31.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Amen, Uncle Sam. It's hilarious some people think Bush has
anything to do with Goldwater, who's no-doubt doing the grave-spin
as we type over someone even considering the nutty idea...
JMR
|3.31.07 @ 2:10PM|#
W. Kristol and Brooks and others should enjoy their moment in
the sun now. These are the declining days of the golden age of
neoconservatism.
In two years, people will pretend not to know them.
If it were a just world, they would be sentenced to a lifetime of
hard labor cleaning prison toilets-with their tongues.
Warmongering fascist idiots...
Jason|3.31.07 @ 2:27PM|#
"Learning to wipe my own ass" was a fundamental paradigm principle of my childhood.
|3.31.07 @ 3:24PM|#
Libertarians are petulant children while people like Brooks, who have no compunctions against initiating government force to coerce folks, are affable adults-only in a bizzaro world.
|3.31.07 @ 3:49PM|#
DA Ridgely,
You aren't seriously comparing Brooks to Will, are you? Will has
been extremely critical of the administration in recent years.
Brian Sorgatz|3.31.07 @ 4:10PM|#
For once, I'll pimp someone else's blog but not my own: the left-wing blogger's equivalent of Brooks' column can be found at Pandagon.net (home of disgraced bloggerette Amanda Marcotte, although she didn't write this one).
|3.31.07 @ 4:30PM|#
I don't think the Brooks-Will comparison is so far off base. It
may not track as far as the current Iraq War goes, but Will has
explicitly remarked that the cultural components of conservatism
are at least as important as the economic side, where the cons and
we libertarians can often agree. [See his Statecraft as
Soulcraft for a full dose of his Burkean Toryism.]
I wonder about Brooks. Maybe there's something about his Canadian
roots that makes an accommodation to statism easier to arrive
at.
Kevin
LarryA|3.31.07 @ 4:59PM|#
In principle, I would agree that true freedom is impossible
without security (see City Mouse and Country Mouse). Security,
though, does not just imply security from external enemies like
al-Qaeda, it also implies security from those wearing badges, which
the policies Brooks and his ilk support decrease that kind of
security.
Freedom can get you security. Security, however, will never get you
freedom.
|3.31.07 @ 5:45PM|#
"Learning to wipe my own ass" was a fundamental paradigm
principle of my childhood.
This is part of the problem with America; there should be a village
to wipe a child's ass. Mr. Brooks, despite his affiliation with the
vast conspiracy, knows this, as do I.
MikeT|3.31.07 @ 7:23PM|#
And as a Christian, I shake my head in disgust at many
conservatives. Human nature is depraved, not virtuous. We need
transparency and law to hold back the excesses of human nature;
discressionary power is in essence all too often the enemy of
transparency and the rule of law.
Funny thing is that the reason that virtue climbs to such heights
under liberty is that depravity has few external controls. People
are forced to confront it on a spiritual level, not be first and
foremost worried about a police officer's gun going to their head.
America was far more moral when a man could legally go to a general
store, buy a case of beer, a gun (without any ID), pick up some
heroin (it was sold over the counter 100 years ago!) and drive home
without anyone meddling.
The chief result of big government has been to insulate people from
the consequences of their actions. One example is that you cannot
reconcile conservative desires to control out of wedlock births and
the welfare state. The latter, takes away much of the danger of the
former. It also enables young men to be derelict in supporting
young women who are left with a baby since "the system" will take
over for them.
D.A. Ridgely|3.31.07 @ 7:30PM|#
crimethink, my comparison went to style, not substance.
MikeT, liberals don't believe in sin, conservatives don't believe
in grace.
|3.31.07 @ 9:10PM|#
"America was far more moral when a man could legally go to a
general store, buy a case of beer, a gun (without any ID), pick up
some heroin (it was sold over the counter 100 years ago!) and drive
home without anyone meddling."
Right, Jim Crow laws and other forms of racism, both legal and
non-legal; lack of women's suffrage and general oppression of
women; complete and utter stigmatization of out-of-wedlock births,
out-of-wedlock sexual relationships, non-heterosexuals,
polyamorists, etc. These were all part of the "far more moral"
society the US used to be 100 short years ago.
The Wine Commonsewer|3.31.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Andy, all that stuff was true to some extent but it was neither all pervasive nor all encompassing. Except that part about women not getting the vote. Soon as they did, they banned alcohol. :-)
M|3.31.07 @ 10:47PM|#
If, on the other hand, you believe the overwhelming majority
of people are not only fundamentally good, but capable of making
their own decisions regarding what is good for them (and what makes
them happy), and if you further are willing to believe that if you
deserve to be left alone, everybody else does, too, you might be
well on your way to libertarianism.
And what makes you stop there on the way to philosophical
anarchism?
GILMORE|4.1.07 @ 2:04AM|#
Jonathan Hohensee | March 31, 2007, 1:26pm | #
And what makes you stop there on the way to philosophical
anarchism?
Which is exactly what King George said to the Founders...
reductio ad absurdum
|4.1.07 @ 3:13AM|#
"The "National Greatness" agenda that he sought to dream up
prior to 9/11 was intended to think up something--anything!--that
would force people to devote themselves to something "greater than
themselves" instead of just living their lives as they
wished."
Exactly. I enjoyed Brook's Bobos in Paradise as well as some of his
columns pre-9/11. He overgeneralized wildly but at least he was
amusing and even occasionally insightful. But I was also a little
troubled by the whiffs of collectivist fascism I picked up in his
prose. He's just in love with the so-called 'heroic virtues' and
'greatest generation blather' to the point where his philosophical
premises are virtually indistinguishable from the fascist. In the
Organization Kid, an interesting look at Princeton, past and
present, you find this glorifying of the manly virtues in violent
sports. I can appreciate that as a healthy way to channel
aggression in men. But of course Brooks elevates this channeling
into an ideal way of life - not a past time - where generations of
young men, in order to attain true chivalric greatness would be
dispatched against their will to be sacrificed in state war
cauldrons.
Yet, looking at Brook's bio, it's quite apparent he never served in
any sort of military conflict and I'd be surprised if he undertook
any more heroic duty then dorm resident hall monitor at the U of
Chicago, which incidentally is not known for its manly sport's
programs.
M|4.1.07 @ 9:49AM|#
reductio ad absurdum
Only if philosophical anarchism is absurd, which I have yet to be
convinced of.
|4.1.07 @ 11:01AM|#
If it's any consolation, the Republicans' arrogant certainty
that those who share their ideology are the only people with access
to the truth or the ability to govern is hardly limited to their
opinion of libertarians.
See the farce of a hirings process at the Coalition Provisional
Authority.
BlogginIowa|4.1.07 @ 11:40AM|#
I have come to prefer the term "authoritarian" to replace both
"conservative" and "liberal," at least in their most extreme forms.
Evangelical Christians and nanny-staters share the term "social
authoritarians" in my personal lexicon, just as "New Dealers" and
reverse income-redistributionists share the term "economic
authoritarian." It helps clarify for me just who my enemies are,
and that they come from several directions.
I'd like to call myself a libertarian, but I have trouble reducing
all human experience to market transactions, and human nature
appears to me to prevent a truly libertarian society from
functioning for very long. I have yet to stumble upon a fitting
term for my own political point of view.
|4.1.07 @ 12:20PM|#
BlogginIowa,
I have come to prefer the term "heirarchist" to replace both
"social conservative" and "libertarian," at least in their most
extreme forms. Fundamentalist Christians and Social Darwinists
share the term "social heirarchists" in my personal lexicon, while
Crony Capitalists and Market Fetishists share the term "economic
heirarchist."
It is always possible to group the world into "you" and "everyone
else," and define the latter group by their lack of adherence to
the principles that you consider fundamental to yourself. The
problem with just leaving it at that are that you miss a lot of
important distinctions, and end up missing what actually makes your
opponents tick.
eb|4.1.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Very well said BlogginIowa.
The problem I have with all the political sides is that they all
see themselves as being on sides. They all see everybody else as
wrong. And a lot see everybody else as "the enemy". How do people
expect a democracy to work if everybody else is an enemy?
I don't know about "petulant child" as a description of
libertarians but taking umbrage at every percieved slight is a bit
childish.
It seems to me the far greater obstacle to libertarians isn't
conservatives that want to invade their lives with jackbooted
thugs. The greatest obstacle Libertarians have is that they come
across as being most effective at being contrarians rather than
actually presenting a compelling political philosophy that can win
over a majority vote.
Of course to do that, reality would have to intervene.
Robert|4.1.07 @ 12:52PM|#
OK, Gene Healy, but someone has to be that politician too. You can't take for granted the existence of the politician working out those good compromises any more than you can the polemicist. Every link in the chain needs to be there, and I see no reason to encourage people to be the polemicist at the end arguing the extreme any more than to be the person filling any of the intermediate and progressively more compromising roles leading up to the ones who actually produce the proximal results.
|4.1.07 @ 4:51PM|#
joe,
So, what fundamental difference in viewpoint distinguishes
progressives and conservatives? I don't mean the laundry list of
differing positions on particular issues; I'm looking for the
principles that motivate those differing positions.
|4.1.07 @ 5:37PM|#
crimethink,
How long an answer do you want?
There are a lot of ways of answering that question, but I'll try to
stick to the ideological basis of each.
Conservatives are heirarchists, believing that it is natural and
good for there to be bosses and underlings, while progressives are
egalitarians, believing that people are naturally equal, and
heirarchies are social artifacts. This different orientations lead
to different philosophies about the legitimate basis for power and
for access to resources.
|4.1.07 @ 6:05PM|#
This leads to progressives supporing more equal distribution of
resources and more democratic decision-making processes; and leads
conservatives to endorse greater inequalities in resources and a
more "golden rule"-based distribution of power.
Of course, these are orientations, not absolutes. Rawls, for
example, endorsed income inequality on practical grounds, while
conservatives in Western society have pretty much made their peace
with universal suffrage, again largely for practical reasons.
thoreau|4.1.07 @ 6:21PM|#
while progressives are egalitarians, believing that people
are naturally equal, and heirarchies are social
artifacts.
Equal in what? Negative rights? Positive rights? Potential?
I firmly agree that everybody is equal with regard to negative
rights, as well as positive rights (although I'd say that the list
of positive rights should be a short one).
In terms of potential? Well, sadly, not everybody has equal
potential. But since there is no systematic way of knowing what
potential a person has, I'd say I'm in favor of equal opportunity
to demonstrate and build on one's potential. Or at least I'm
opposed to artificially restricting opportunity. That's not the
same as wanting to equalize opportunity, because true equalization
is basically impossible, except perhaps in some very destructive
context. (i.e. A tyrannical society in which everybody has zero
opportunity.) And while reducing inequalities of opportunity is
certainly possible in practice, any effort to do so (by whatever
means, coercive or non-coercive or whatever) will eventually run
into the problem of diminishing returns.
So what do you want to do in response to the value of equality?
|4.1.07 @ 7:10PM|#
The problem is, joe, the two drives you attribute to progressives inevitably come in conflict with each other. As thoreau points out, significant inequalities will arise between individuals in any community, even without inequality being forced from outside. To remedy those inequalities requires that an authority force the "haves" to give their excess to the "have-nots". Once that occurs, you've got a hierarchy in place. Maybe not the type of genetic hierarchy some conservatives yearn for, but nonetheless a system wherein some command and others must obey.
|4.1.07 @ 7:14PM|#
And that's leaving aside the question of whether the average progressive politician actually adheres to the progressive ideals joe writes of. Then again, there are plenty of conservative politicians who don't adhere to their ideals, so little difference there.
|4.1.07 @ 7:49PM|#
thoreau,
"Equal in what? Negative rights? Positive rights? Potential?"
"So what do you want to do in response to the value of
equality?"
Depends on the particular progressive individual or progressive
ideology in question. I made a broad statement, because I was asked
a broad question. Different progressive sources would deal with the
questions you ask differently. I was discussion on the level of
"fundamental difference in viewpoint."
|4.1.07 @ 8:00PM|#
crimethink,
I knew you were going to say that. I almost wrote a pompous "this
is the part where you say..." comment about Carol Browner telling
the CEO of Dow Chemical what can come out of his smokestacks.
The solution to that question is that having power over someone is
not the precise equivalent of being above them in a heirarchy. When
some zoning enforcement officer tells Donald Trump he can't build a
certain way, that bureaucrat isn't above him in any sort of
heirarchy - he's just a functionary enforcing the law. The only
thing above Donald Trump, or any other person, is the law. You
know, nation of laws not of men.
And, in progressive ideology, those laws only gain their legitimacy
through the democratic process, so Donald isn't even being trumped
by any particular persons, but by the fact that he came out on the
losing end of a decision made by the people, governing according to
the progressive, democratic, egalitarian system of one person one
vote.
I'm not claiming that progressives are more opposed to vesting
power over others than conservatives - that's a whole different
axis, and progressives and conservatives can be found on each end
of it. What I'm saying is that the progressive vesting of power is
based on democratic, egalitarian principles - government of the
people by the people for the people.
|4.1.07 @ 8:16PM|#
All right, all right, that last bit was cheerleading.
Progressives who believe in vesting power in someone over someone
else 1) recognize that what they are doing is an ideological act of
creating reality, not an act of recognize what Nature or God (or
his nephew, Da Market) hath wrought, and 2) strive to organize this
vesting of power around democratic principles (be they popular
elections for lawmakers in our republic, or workers councils making
business decisions in the theoretical version of the Soviet
Union).
|4.1.07 @ 8:37PM|#
The solution to that question is that having power over
someone is not the precise equivalent of being above them in a
heirarchy.
OK joe, so what exactly is it about the hierarchy that The Donald
benefits from? Is the hierarchy powerless? If so, why obsess about
it?
As to your "creating reality" (funny thing for someone not a
neo-con), Da Market ain't all that different from Da Polis (or are
we only talking about what them enlightened progressives are
doing)? The problem with very democratic
principles is that they result in tyranny of the majority, or less
charitably mob rule. The irony being that often enough the majority
is anything but "progressive". To which the usual left/liberal
retort is that the masses haven't been properly "educated" (or
sensitized to their own best interests) - e.g. Thomas Frank.
|4.1.07 @ 8:39PM|#
This discussion about progressives and conservatives is a good example of why majoritarian democracy is just another name for oppressive government. Progressives and conservatives are the majority, and each group gets some of what they want out of majoritarian democracy. The rest of us--the minority--are left with nothing.
|4.1.07 @ 8:59PM|#
"OK joe, so what exactly is it about the hierarchy that The
Donald benefits from?" Having an enormous amount of money, and
being able to get what he wants by using it. "Is the hierarchy
powerless?" Certainly not. Have you seen some of the things Mr.
Trump has been able to get away with?
Da Market is distinguished from Da Polis in that the polis is
organized according to egalitarian, one person one vote principles,
while the market distributes power unequally.
"The problem with very democratic principles is that they result in
tyranny of the majority, or less charitably mob rule." It can, and
has, but I'd argue that progressive ideology contains a solution to
this problem in its commitment to the principle that everyone is
entitled to full membership in society and to an equitable access
to resources, preventing the minority from being debased.
Conservatism would seem to be the flip side of this coin. The
problem with heirarchism and the maintanence of the structures that
uphold it is that the in group - whether it be a monarch or the
same mob you mention - can tyrannize the underdogs.
'The irony being that often enough the majority is anything but
"progressive".' Different progressivisms deal with this irony in
different ways. Regardless, progressive support for democracy isn't
based on a belief in democracy's ability to settle debates well,
but in a principled belief that a democratic system (however
defined) is a moral requirement.
Anyway, I brought this up not to trumpet the superiority of
progressivism over conservatism, but to point out that there are
fundamental philosophical distinctions that make it problematic to
lump very different belief systems together under lazy headings
like "statist" or "authoritarian."
|4.1.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Anyway, I brought this up not to trumpet the superiority of
progressivism over conservatism, but to point out that there are
fundamental philosophical distinctions that make it problematic to
lump very different belief systems together under lazy headings
like "statist" or "authoritarian."
joe,
For you, a progressive, this makes sense. You want to live in a
progressive society, so the distinction is very relevant for you.
For those that do not want to live in a progressive or a
conservative society, the distinction means little. Conservatives
and progressives are statists or authoritarians to me, and that's
all they need to be. I'm not being lazy; I just don't find the
distinctions between the groups that relevant to my life. The fact
that both groups want to control my life is the most relevant
factor. I've known many progressives and conservatives. In my
experience, both groups are more like each other than they are like
me, so I group them together. What matters to me is the desire to
control others. Progressives and conservatives have this desire; I
don't.
|4.1.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Having an enormous amount of money, and being able to get
what he wants by using it.
But joe, the example you just gave was him not getting what he
wanted despite his wealth. As to what Trump seems to get away with
most is an astounding amount of bad taste.
while the market distributes power unequally
But the market does not force anyone to do any particular thing.
Whatever power is there is hampered by the voluntary aspect of
participation. You will note that when X Corp wants to build a
mall, etc. where some houses are, they usually get the govt to use
eminent domain - and that is govt power, not market power.
...preventing the minority from being debased.
Minority status is not all about economic resources, and if
progressive principles are all that they are cracked up to be, then
something must indeed be wrong with Kansas. [An incredibly ironic
choice of subject for Frank since it was the Topeka Board of
Education that was sued by Brown.]
|4.1.07 @ 9:29PM|#
"OK joe, so what exactly is it about the hierarchy that The
Donald benefits from?" Having an enormous amount of money, and
being able to get what he wants by using it.
And how does he use it, joe? He persuades other people to give him
things by offering them money. Obviously they want the money more
than they want the things they give him, so there's no hierarchy
there, any more than I'm higher in the hierarchy than my car
mechanic.
If you're referring to his shady eminent domain deals and such,
well, he wouldn't be able to do that if the progressive,
democratically-elected governments weren't going along with it,
would he?
Sorry if I spit on the screen, VM.
|4.1.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Well, The Real Bill, if your only interest in people with
political philosophies that differ from yours is in noting that
they are different from you, then lumping the non-libertarian 99%
of the world together under some heading is probably all the
political theory you need.
"But joe, the example you just gave was him not getting what he
wanted despite his wealth." Yes, juris, that's because I was giving
an example of what it would look like for the government to check
the power of those on top of the heirarchy.
"But the market does not force anyone to do any particular thing."
Yes, but "force" and "power" are not the same thing. A boss has
power over his employees, but you would say there is not force
involved. If you don't want Bill O'Reilly pawing at you, you can
always blah blah blah blah blah...Progressives seek to equalize, to
one extent or another, not just the use of force, but power.
"Minority status is not all about economic resources." Of course
not. As a matter of fact, when I was writing that bit, I was
thinking of the Bill of Rights.
|4.1.07 @ 9:43PM|#
crimethink,
"He persuades other people to give him things by offering them
money. Obviously they want the money more than they want the things
they give him, so there's no hierarchy there"
Really? You try to secure for yourself a home, mistress, media
presence, and other resources comparable to the Donald's, and let
me know where you stack up on the heirarchy.
|4.1.07 @ 9:52PM|#
Well, The Real Bill, if your only interest in people with
political philosophies that differ from yours is in noting that
they are different from you, then lumping the non-libertarian 99%
of the world together under some heading is probably all the
political theory you need.
The difference is big, joe. The desire to control others, or the
desire not to do so. I don't even want to force anyone to live in a
libertarian society. Unfortunately, the statists want to force
everyone to live in their preferred society--that's big! It's too
bad that we can't have a devolution of power down to small states,
say 300 or so. People could then vote with their feet much more
easily. I could live in a moderate libertarian state, and you could
live in a progressive state. Sadly, this will probably never happen
because the majority of human beings are control freaks.
|4.1.07 @ 10:01PM|#
Really? You try to secure for yourself a home, mistress,
media presence, and other resources comparable to the Donald's, and
let me know where you stack up on the heirarchy.
joe, are you really that shallow?
Donald's homes are tacky in the extreme. I don't want them.
I love and respect my wife. I don't want a mistress.
Media presence? I would be willing to pay money not to be famous if
I was. Fame is disgusting. I don't want a media presence like the
Donald's.
Other resources? I wouldn't mind his money, but I wouldn't want
much else that he has. I guess I could work harder, but it's not
worth it to me.
Well, that was a bit snarky, but seriously, Donald trump has zero
power over me when compared to the power that Nancy Pelosi (my rep)
has over me. Even if I grant you that Donald is somehow higher in
the heirarchy than I am, it goes something like this:
Nancy Pelosi (Progressive ruler)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Donald Trump (Crony capitalist)
.
.
Me (Peon)
|4.1.07 @ 10:23PM|#
joe, I think we're talking past each other here; you're using
hierarchy to describe differences in wealth, while I'm using it to
describe power relationships. The two are not the same.
While the wealthy can indeed enjoy pleasures that the poor cannot,
by persuading others to give them stuff in exchange for money, they
cannot command anyone to do anything...and to me at least, a
hierarchy is a structure in which high members command and low
members obey.
|4.1.07 @ 10:29PM|#
You try to secure for yourself a home, mistress, media
presence, and other resources comparable to the Donald's, and let
me know where you stack up on the heirarchy.
And in any case, I don't know what a progressive government could
do to knock him down on the hierarchy. Seize his home, censor the
media to ensure he doesn't get too much attention, imprison his
mistress?
|4.1.07 @ 10:39PM|#
Yes, juris, that's because I was giving an example of what
it would look like for the government to check the power of those
on top of the heirarchy.
Oh, okay, I see. If, in other words, govt behaved in the real world
like it does in your fantasy world.
Sheesh and we libertarians are supposed to be out of touch?
A boss has power over his employees, but you would say there is
not force involved.
Only the power I grant him (or her) in order to get a paycheck. I
can hardly say the same about the local, state or federal govts
(and their ability to extract taxes from me).
Of course not. As a matter of fact, when I was writing that
bit, I was thinking of the Bill of Rights.
Strange then that you only talked about material issues.
|4.1.07 @ 10:40PM|#
You try to secure for yourself a home, mistress, media
presence, and other resources comparable to the Donald's
And THERE you have progressivism in a nutshell - pure envy for
those who have more (even if it is more of something you wouldn't
even want).
|4.1.07 @ 10:58PM|#
And THERE you have progressivism in a nutshell - pure envy
for those who have more
That's an uncharitable way of putting it, but it is true that
progressive rhetoric does often mask base envy.
It is equally true, though, that libertarian rhetoric can mask
arrogance and greed; for instance, it would be far more convenient
for someone like the Donald (a truly disgusting creature, imho) to
adopt a libertarian philosophy as opposed to a progressive one,
simply out of self-interest.
|4.1.07 @ 11:05PM|#
Sure Donald Trump has all that stuff. But don't you think that at the end of the day, when his groupies, media contacts, chefs, maids, and mistresses have left, and he lies awake on his double queen bed, in the midst of one of his giant, empty palaces...don't you think he searches deep inside himself for some hint of integrity, some pale trapping of a soul...and cries bitter tears for not finding any?
|4.1.07 @ 11:12PM|#
That's an uncharitable way of putting it
The snark must flow.
Actually, I think someone like the Donald, much like Edwards, fools
more people by preaching liberalism rather than naked
self-interest; i.e. it is in his naked self-interest to conceal
that self-interest rather than wallowing in it.
|4.2.07 @ 2:20AM|#
Actually, I think someone like the Donald, much like
Edwards, fools more people by preaching liberalism rather than
naked self-interest; i.e. it is in his naked self-interest to
conceal that self-interest rather than wallowing in it.
Exactly. Edwards could never live in that mansion if he actually
believed a single word he says, unless he actually gets off on
hypocrisy.
|4.2.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Real Bill,
It's good that you don't want those things, because you don't
actually have the choice to have them if you did. Which is the
point - his status gives him more options, more power to get what
he wants, than you.
crimethink, the idea that money doesn't give one power is a
statement of faith, at odds with the entirety of human history, and
I'm no more going to try to talk you out of it than I would try to
talk an Italian grandmother out of her rosary.
"And in any case, I don't know what a progressive government could
do to knock him down on the hierarchy." That would depend on the
type of progressive ideology we're talking about. Some might
attempt a radical leveling, others just try to structure the
political system to reduce the out-sized influence of the wealthy
on public policy.
|4.2.07 @ 9:51AM|#
Col DuBois, perhaps he does. Or perhaps he lies there giggling about how rich and powerful he is. Ultimately, the progressive mind is going to want to do something about his outsized power, and the conservative mind will formulate reasons why it's ok for him to have that outsized power.
|4.2.07 @ 9:53AM|#
juris,
"And THERE you have progressivism in a nutshell - pure envy for
those who have more..."
No, you deluded sucker - it doesn't matter that Donald Trump can
buy toys. The point is, if he can acquire all of those things that
you cannot, he can acquire other goodies - like Congressmen's
votes, or the goodwill of a mob - that can have an effect on our
lives.
My, you are eager to make intellectual disagreement with you a
moral failure! Typical ideologue.
|4.2.07 @ 10:07AM|#
It is equally true, though, that libertarian rhetoric can
mask arrogance and greed.
I wasn't aware that libertarian rhetoric was a mask for anything.
If anything, it says that my arrogance and my greed are my
business, and none of yours.
Now, if you're looking for agendas being masked, I would suggest
the faux egalitarianism of the progressives, which always seems to
result in the concentration of power in an insular elite.
|4.2.07 @ 10:09AM|#
The point is, if he can acquire all of those things that you
cannot, he can acquire other goodies - like Congressmen's votes, or
the goodwill of a mob - that can have an effect on our
lives.
And the point of libertarianism is that a Congressman's votes and
the goodwill of the mob should have little effect on my life. The
Trumps of the world will always be with us; libertarians at least
want to limit their ability to bother you.
|4.2.07 @ 10:31AM|#
RC Dean,
"The Trumps of the world will always be with us; libertarians at
least want to limit their ability to bother you." So, libertarians,
how's that going? Limited the ability of the Donald Trumps of the
world to bother us yet?
If laws can be changed to give the govenrment less influence over
you life and business, they can be changed to give it more
influence.
If the most wealthy and well connected in society are able to
influence the government, they will do so for their own ends. If
there isn't a government agency dedicated to handing out subsidies
to them, or whatever it is they want, they will use their outsized
influence to create one.
Even the most cursory reading of history demonstrates that the
wealthy and powerful will bring about exactly the form of
government that allows them to exercise power over us, unless their
ability to do so is somehow checked.
|4.2.07 @ 10:56AM|#
joe, I know this will tax you, but please realize that The
Donald has absolutely zero power over my life. Unless you have the
misfortune to be under his employment, I seriously doubt he has any
power over you.
Of course wealth has its privileges, but speaking of moral
judgements you are veering quite near to "money is the root of all
evil".
Anonymous|4.2.07 @ 10:57AM|#
I wasn't aware that libertarian rhetoric was a mask for
anything.
Libertarians do nothing to mask their greed and arrogance in their
rhetoric. As distasteful as this can be, the honesty is refreshing
compared with other -isms who mask their greed (for power, money,
whatever) and arrogance in other terms.
|4.2.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Largely, any outsized power the wealthy have over politicians is derived from their ability to provide things voters want. Often this is jobs to the district.
|4.2.07 @ 11:09AM|#
juris,
"Unless you have the misfortune to be under his employment"...or
own a piece of property he wants, or live in or around New York
City. But kudos to you for acknowledging that he at least has power
over his employees.
'Of course wealth has its privileges, but speaking of moral
judgements you are veering quite near to "money is the root of all
evil".'
It's not a moral judgement. Poor people and middle class people
want to influence the governemnt, too, as a trip to any bi-monthly
zoning board meeting will demonstrate. Extreme differences in
wealth, and the unhindered ability of those with wealth to
influence politics, aren't dangerous because the wealthy are any
less moral than other people, just more powerful.
If my cat were 800 pounds, he'd probably try to eat me like a lion,
but he isn't, so I rub his belly.
|4.2.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Also, I would suggest that regulation of various forms may help keep power the wealthy in line, but increased power to regulate INCREASES the power of the well connected. At some point it becomes better to have direct influence in the government than to make money. My point here is that you aren't fixing the problem so much as relocating it.
Egon|4.2.07 @ 12:50PM|#
As a libertarian, there are many Washington personality
types I find grating.
Problem: Dangling modifier and excess wordage.
Solution: "As a libertarian, I find many Washington personality
types grating."
Surly Curmudgeon|4.2.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -- RAH
|4.2.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Jason L,
What you're describing can certainly happen, just as even the most
liberty-loving, democratic government can become tyrannical (as the
founders of our nation realized). Still once you recognize the need
for government, those problems become challanges to be managed
through a system of restraints, not an excuse to void the
government from doing its job.
|4.2.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Unless you have the misfortune to be under his
employment"...or own a piece of property he wants, or live in or
around New York City.
He would have no power to force you to sell your property if it
weren't for the fact that ____________ wants his money, and does
have that power.
Can you fill in the blank, joe?
|4.2.07 @ 9:28PM|#
...or own a piece of property he wants
Well, as long as the govt won't do his bidding, I can get whatever
price I want from The Donald, or choose not to sell at any price.
But you would empower the govt and then whine that it does things
that benefit the rich. Take away the govt's power to steal my land
for his benefit and the SOB has absolutely no power. Why is that
such a difficult concept for you?
and the unhindered ability of those with wealth to influence
politics
So eliminate the power of the political process to confer
advantages. Since as long as political power can be abused, it will
be abused. Or do you really believe in the fantasy of a political
process that yields flawless results? Someone will 'unduly'
influence the process - be it from wealth or charisma or something
else that you don't have.
|4.3.07 @ 5:55PM|#
"Brooks goes on to suggest that it wasn't corruption, the
arrogance of power, the failed endeavor in Iraq, or the complete
detachment from principle that doomed the Republicans last
November, it was their slavish devotion to "extremism in defense of
liberty is no vice" Goldwaterism. Ri-ight."
I don't know whether to applaud the suggestion that libertarians
are an important block of swing voters or to laugh at the
suggestion that we're capable of bringing down the
Republicans.
...so I'm just gonna keep bitching and moaning about the government
like I always do.
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