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
They Listened to Me! Run for Your Lives!
New York Times columnist David Brooks today rightly warns about the economic threat of the coming unified Democratic government, concluding:
What we're going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids. There will be a big increase in spending and deficits. In normal times, moderates could have restrained the zeal on the left. In an economic crisis, not a chance. The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.
What Brooks left out: That four years ago, he was hailing "the death of small-government conservatism" and the repudiation of Gingrichism as the Republicans' great chance "to become the majority party for the next few decades."
|10.14.08 @ 12:30PM|#
The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.
This should be present tense, what with all the bailouts ... though
the end of what passes for divided gov't should accelerate the rush
to statism.
|10.14.08 @ 12:32PM|#
One day I'd love to see someone big call these assholes out for
their contradictions, failed predictions, and downright lies.
Oh well, I can dream. Of Brooks getting kneecapped.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Invading Iraq for no reason and cutting taxes at the same time didn't increase the deficit?
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Geotpf,
You do realize you are posting on a site with primarily anti-war
posters, right?
That this isnt some right wing site?
You should probably just go back to fark.
Other Matt|10.14.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Invading Iraq for no reason and cutting taxes at the same
time didn't increase the deficit?
It did, which is all the more reason to not give the dems both
houses and the presidency. Pelosi's already gearing up for
"investing" in her pet programs regardless of any accrued bailout
costs she just spent. It's going to be very bad. Our only hope is
gridlock.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Theological Terms
The Market = The Lord
Milton Friedman = St. Paul
Chicago School = Fathers of the Church
Ron Paul = Pope Benedict XVI
Libertarian = Faithful member of the True Church
Democrat = Statist
Republican = Heretic
Statist = Atheist
Socialist = Communist
Communist = Satan
Libertopia = Heaven
Sweden = Hell
The State = The root of all evil
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 12:44PM|#
I'm just saying that saying the Democrats are going to increase
the deficit kind of assumes that the Republicans didn't do the same
damned thing.
Look, here are the philosophies of the two parties:
Democrats spend a lot of money, but mostly on things that benefit
the nation, like health care and infrastruture and schools, and
make an attempt to pay for such with taxes.
Republicans spend a lot of money as well, but mostly on stupid shit
like invading countries for no reason, and then refuse to pay for
such spending.
If one is an actual libertarian (instead of a
lower-my-taxes-damnit-arian), and is presented with those two (and
only those two) choices, which is better (or less worse)?
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Our only hope is gridlock.
Im hoping for a previously undiscovered fault to open up and
swallow DC. I think the odds are in my favor.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Geotpf,
I never have only two choices. This is my major themes on this
site. I keep arguing this in circles with our house liberal.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Hail Market,
Full of grace,
Prosperity is with thee.
Blessed art thou among systems,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Capital.
Holy Market,
Mother of Goods,
pray for us consumers now,
and at the hour of our bankruptcy.
Amen.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:46PM|#
make an attempt to pay for such with taxes.
BTW, I have to shoot this down. Where was the $700 billion tax
increase (actually, 800 after pork) attached to the bailout bill?
The Dems made no attempt to pay for that spending with taxes.
|10.14.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Lefiti, it seems to me that a belief in a benevolent and all-powerful state is closer to "religion" than belief in a market (a major characteristic of which is lack of central control).
|10.14.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Lefiti,
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your
newsletter
JP|10.14.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Brooks is a buffoon. He suits the NYT perfectly because he enables the paper to claim it has "balance" among its columnists, while at the same time he only makes the other columnists seem smarter by contrast with his block-headed-ness.
|10.14.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Please ignore Lefiti/Edward/Dan T./whoever he is this month. He just wants attention. He's kind of like a child.
Citizen Nothing|10.14.08 @ 12:53PM|#
I still say it's Gillespie.
No, wait. joe is Gillespie. Maybe Mangu-Ward.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 12:53PM|#
robc | October 14, 2008, 12:45pm | #
Geotpf,
I never have only two choices. This is my major themes on this
site. I keep arguing this in circles with our house
liberal.
As a practical matter, there are only two choices in 99% of
American elections. Now, if you want to change the Republican Party
(or Democratic Party, for that matter) in a more libertarian
direction, the primary is where it's at. Vote for libertarian
leaners over neocon wingnuts in the Republican primary. But in the
general election, 99% of the time, a vote for somebody other than
the Republican or Democrat is a vote to not to vote, to not change
the outcome of the election. Welcome to the real world, enjoy your
stay.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Geotpf,
I have lived 39+ years in my world, I have no interest in joining
your "real" one, thank you very much.
It isnt just about elections, there are all kinds of choices that
can be made - leaving the country, throwing a revolution, arranging
your life so that politics has little to no effect.
Im in favor of two of those 3.
Geotpf|10.14.08 @ 12:57PM|#
robc | October 14, 2008, 12:46pm | #
make an attempt to pay for such with taxes.
BTW, I have to shoot this down. Where was the $700 billion tax
increase (actually, 800 after pork) attached to the bailout bill?
The Dems made no attempt to pay for that spending with
taxes.
Bush would veto any bill with taxes attached to it, of course.
Plus, it would have zero Republican support, so, since the
Democratic support for it wasn't universal, the bill would fail in
the first place (like it did the first time in the House).
|10.14.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Geotpf,
When your goal is not be be hit in the face with a stick, it really
doesn't make much of an impact to argue the superiority of ash over
rock maple.
|10.14.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Democrats raise taxes only on the middle class and above, while Republicans "raise taxes" via inflation on everyone. Of the two, the latter is preferable because everyone should have "skin in the game" whenever government spending is increased.
robc|10.14.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Geotpf,
Bush would veto any bill with taxes attached to it, of course.
Plus, it would have zero Republican support, so, since the
Democratic support for it wasn't universal, the bill would fail in
the first place (like it did the first time in the
House).
So, it would have been an improvement over the piece of trash that
actually passed then?
No wonder the dems didnt do that.
|10.14.08 @ 1:00PM|#
But in the general election, 99% of the time, a vote for
somebody other than the Republican or Democrat is a vote to not to
vote, to not change the outcome of the election.
Vote for the guy who's going to win. Good plan. Got it.
|10.14.08 @ 1:00PM|#
The last time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress
and the White House, they implemented a fiscal program which
restrained spending and reduced the deficit.
The last time they Republicans controlled both houses of Congress
and the White House, they implemented a fiscal program which
ballooned spending and blew up the deficit.
Therefore, we need to be afraid of the Democrats increasing
spending and growing the deficit.
It would take quite a few Nancy Pelosi wish lists to equal a single
Iraq War. I find it at least as likely that President McCain would
start another one of those, than that a President Obama and a
Democratic Congress would pass budgets with record deficits, as the
Republicans did year after year since 2002.
|10.14.08 @ 1:01PM|#
http://wlsam.com/article.asp?id=934062&SPID=17549
Dennis Moore (Obama) lets it out of the bag - "we need to spread
the wealth around". Lacks the "this redistribution of wealth is
trickier than I thought" punch line.
|10.14.08 @ 1:02PM|#
But in the general election, 99% of the time, a vote for
somebody other than the Republican or Democrat is a vote to not to
vote, to not change the outcome of the election.
The odds that you are going to change the outcome of the election
based on your one vote approach impossibility. The idea that you
will means you reside in the fantasy land of which you are so
disdainful.
|10.14.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Lefiti, it seems to me that a belief in a benevolent and
all-powerful state is closer to "religion" than belief in a
market
I've never seen anyone write about there being a benevolent and
all-powerful state. In fact, I see liberals complaining about this
or that aspect of the state all the time, and calling for this or
that activity of the state to be curtailed.
Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect of the
market? Or call for some market activity to be curtailed?
|10.14.08 @ 1:02PM|#
Geotpf,
Dead people have a bigger say in the election than you
do....welcome to the real world.
Your vote doesn't matter even if you do vote for one of the two
parties. When has a state ever swung on one vote in a presidential
election? if it has happened the people never find out about it
because the real power comes in counting the votes...not
voting.
If it is real close (less than 1000 votes)then judges decide.
|10.14.08 @ 1:04PM|#
CN,
Balsa is just a pie-in-the-sky third party and you know it. Grow up
and join the real world.
|10.14.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Or call for some market activity to be curtailed?
Not by force, joe. The fact that you've equivocated two very
different things tell me you still really don't understand.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 1:04PM|#
"Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect of
the market? Or call for some market activity to be
curtailed?"
Brilliant, Joe, you secular skeptic!
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
But I'd be happy to vote for balsa, SF.
Balsa? What are you, one of those nutjob "third wood" people? Dont
you know you can only get hit in the face with two woods - there is
no point in choosing something else. Loser.
|10.14.08 @ 1:05PM|#
oh now I get it. Lefiti = shrike.
anywho, don't feed the trolls, regardless of how much they "laud"
you for being so brilliant.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Angry Optimist
You can't "equivocate" two different things. What's your native
language? Please don't say it's English.
|10.14.08 @ 1:07PM|#
BTW, I have to shoot this down. Where was the $700 billion
tax increase (actually, 800 after pork) attached to the bailout
bill? The Dems made no attempt to pay for that spending with
taxes.
The Democrats wrote in changes to the 3-page, buy-MBSs Paulson bill
that make it much more likely that the government will recover some
or all of the costs of this bill, such as by buying equity shares
instead of just bad debt.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Firefox+Greasemonkey+INCIF == no Lefiti.
Plus I dont screw up my name after a spoof post, becuase INCIF
handles it for me.
How do you people put up with seeing posts from Lefiti, LoneWacko
and etc?
|10.14.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Anyone else notice that when one party has control, they behave
in large part like the other party?
Got to appease those moderate swing voters somehow right?
|10.14.08 @ 1:10PM|#
TAO,
Believe it or not, there is actually a point being made beyond
ZOMG! teh force!
Here, let me walk you through it again, since it clearly went over
your head:
Lefiti, it seems to me that a belief in a benevolent and
all-powerful state is closer to "religion" than belief in a
market
You see that statement that I replied to? See any references to
force is there? Think maybe there's some other point being made,
that I was responding to?
Optimist, I could put together a better 2000 words on the history
and theory of libertarianism than you could at this point. You
really don't need to be condescending to me about what I "don't
get" about it.
Whoa|10.14.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Geotpf,
Your line of thinking about "throwing away your vote" is the very
thing that will prevent ANY changes from occurring. The status quo
has gotten us into this mess, and if any changes are going to
happen anytime in the future, that attitude MUST change. That's the
real world. What we're living in now is some Bizarro World
version...now you'll have to excuse me while I dig around for my
box of red kryptonite.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 1:11PM|#
How do you people put up with seeing posts from Lefiti,
LoneWacko and etc?
Like most fundamentalists, market fundamentalists are very good at
seeing what they want to see.
tarran|10.14.08 @ 1:11PM|#
Wow, we are being lectured on faith by a guy who things that our
lives will be improved if the most powerful group with guns is
permitted to tell people what to make and what to consume.
Until today, I didn't know that there were people whose eye sockets
could accommodate a 2X4.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
For about 5 posts. Then I add them to my list. I never filtered Dan
T, although I think he disappeared before I started using it. But
even so, I wouldnt have filtered him. Provide me with some
entertainment in your trolling. I wish I could filter out the posts
in response to the trolls too.
|10.14.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Yawn.
I thought this was a very simple argument:
I've never seen anyone write about there being a benevolent and
all-powerful state. In fact, I see liberals complaining about this
or that aspect of the state all the time, and calling for this or
that activity of the state to be curtailed.
Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect of the
market? Or call for some market activity to be
curtailed?
but I guess I'll have to dumb it down for the lesser lights:
The people who have the same answer to every question are more
faith-based than the people whose answer depends on the facts of
the case. The people who declare an institution infallible are more
faith-based in regards to that institution than the people who
regularly find fault with the institution they are said to
"worship."
Let's turn it around: I see liberals discuss the benefits of
markets all the time, and talking about different things they do
well. When was the last time you saw a market fundamentalist do the
same in regards to government?
|10.14.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Joe,
I've never seen a government-power- fundamentalist-worshiper come
up with an idea to decrease government power.
have you?
Yet, I have seen classical liberals propose new government programs
to end/replace old attrociously unfair or inefficient government
programs.
All government-power-fundamentalist-worshipers will never admit
that a old failed government program should be ended.
|10.14.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect
of the market? Or call for some market activity to be
curtailed?
I seem to recall a couple of posts about curtailing iffy mortgages
given to people who shouldn't have had them to begin with.
|10.14.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Only if the right people are in charge, tarran.
See, this is another intellectual failure endemic to
libertarianism; they can't think about policy, only people or, at
best, groups.
You can talk until you're blue in the face about this policy versus
that policy, about how doing things in one manner will lead to
different outcomes than doing things in a different manner, but you
just get these blank stares, and the repetition of this cliche
about "the right people." Nobody's said a word about people.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 1:20PM|#
I've provoked an interesting debate about faith-based ideology, so fuck you, Bingo.
|10.14.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Joe,
I've never seen a government-power- fundamentalist-worshiper come
up with an idea to decrease government power
Really?
You've never seen a liberal decry the Patiot Act? You've never
heard of the liberal/left push to protect the rights of the accused
that culminated in the Miranda ruling? You've never seen liberals
complain about censorship? You've never heard of liberals decrying
the drug war?
Alternately, you've never seen a religious-right conservative talk
about lower taxes and smaller government?
You need to expand your reading list.
|10.14.08 @ 1:22PM|#
JW,
I seem to recall a couple of posts about curtailing iffy
mortgages given to people who shouldn't have had them to begin
with. And I seem to recall that the blame for those iffy
mortgages was placed squarely on government intervention, in the
form of mandates and incentives that changed the behavior of
lenders.
tarran|10.14.08 @ 1:23PM|#
"Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect of the market? Or call for some market activity to be curtailed?"
Does Rothbard's bromides against fractional reserve banking count?
Or is Rothbard not a free market fundamentalist? Or is the banking
system too minor a thing to care about?
How about Milton Friedman's support of anti-trust law? Or his
opposition to free markets in money?
joe, sure there are some wild eyed utopians calling themselves
supporters of free markets.
Most of the ones I know are hard-nosed realists, who recognize that
forcing people to alter their behavior at gunpoint tends to produce
very shitty outcomes.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect
of the market? Or call for some market activity to be
curtailed?
Markets have neither aspects nor activities. A market is just a
hypothetical construct used to describe a situation when A is
traded for B.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"Most of the ones I know are hard-nosed realists, who recognize
that forcing people to alter their behavior at gunpoint tends to
produce very shitty outcomes."
I'll bet nobdoy has ever held a gun to your head and forced you to
do anything, you stupid fuck.
|10.14.08 @ 1:25PM|#
And I seem to recall that the blame for those iffy mortgages
was placed squarely on government intervention, in the form of
mandates and incentives that changed the behavior of
lenders.
You are correct, sir. And I do believe that many of those same
people objecting to the first wanted to curtail the second as well.
In fact, if you had curtailed the mandates and incentives, you
wouldn't have had to curtail the market to begin with. Problem
solved before it started.
And yes, I say screw the lenders in this mess too.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:26PM|#
joe,
And I seem to recall that the blame for those iffy mortgages
was placed squarely on government intervention, in the form of
mandates and incentives that changed the behavior of
lenders.
You left out the lenders and borrowers. Plenty of blame to go
around. And it was all directly properly (well, except some of the
CRA stuff).
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:28PM|#
In addition to being a hypothetical construct, a market can neither succeed nor fail, it just exists. If market worship were a religion, it would be Buddhism.
|10.14.08 @ 1:28PM|#
You can talk until you're blue in the face about this policy
versus that policy, about how doing things in one manner will lead
to different outcomes than doing things in a different manner, but
you just get these blank stares, and the repetition of this cliche
about "the right people." Nobody's said a word about
people.
You come to a libertarian site and you're surprised when folks who
find the the concept of the state itslef that implemented the
policies improper on the face of it, don't want to get all caught
up in the intricacies of the fine print? Seriously?
|10.14.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Does Rothbard's bromides against fractional reserve banking
count?
The blame for which, IIRC, was put on the existence and activities
of central banks.
How about Milton Friedman's support of anti-trust
law?
Once again, he supports it only as a response to a problem that he
blames on government - monopolies, like risky loans, arising only
(allegedly) because of government intervention. So no, supporting a
law intended to counteract the effects of the government on the
market doesn't count.
Or his opposition to free markets in money? Too meta.
tarran|10.14.08 @ 1:30PM|#
I'll bet nobdoy has ever held a gun to your head and forced you to do anything, you stupid fuck.
And most of the black people living in the south under Jim Crow
never got kicked out of a whites-only restroom. I'll bet 99.9%
never even tried to cross the threshold of a door marked "whites
only" when they came upon one. Does that mean that they weren't the
victims of segregation - that it was voluntary?
Hibiscus Monkey|10.14.08 @ 1:31PM|#
joe,
"Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect of
the market? Or call for some market activity to be
curtailed?"
Never! That would be market apostasy.
PS: You're begging the question.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:31PM|#
You come to a libertarian site and you're surprised when
folks who find the the concept of the state itslef that implemented
the policies improper on the face of it, don't want to get all
caught up in the intricacies of the fine print?
Seriously?
To add to what JW said, you first need to prove to us using our
premises that the state has the moral authority to undertake these
actions before we are going to discuss the frickin details.
|10.14.08 @ 1:31PM|#
You are correct, sir. And I do believe that many of those
same people objecting to the first wanted to curtail the second as
well. In fact, if you had curtailed the mandates and incentives,
you wouldn't have had to curtail the market to begin with. Problem
solved before it started.
So in other words, JW, this is not a case of libertarians
denouncing the actions of the market, but of the government's
distortion of the market.
|10.14.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Joe,
You just don't recognize that problems with free markets are simply
treated a different way by people who don't get a thrill out of
pushing people around at the barrel of a gun(libertarians).
The market "failed" me today. I paid $1800 for a guy to do some
work in my yard(moving a stone wall around, building a step and
planting some grass. The guy didn't do a very good job and my wfie
is all pissed. The good laandscape guy wasn't available for this
job so I ended up looking for a new guy and he sucked. The guy is a
part time boxer and I honestly think his brain is not all there. I
wish I'd known earlier.
A government-power-fundamentalist-worshiper would lobby for greater
licensing of landscapers, or outlawing boxing or perhaps insist
that I hire only union workers instead of part timers trying to
earn cash on the weekends or perhaps you complain that I should be
forced to not waste my resources on this stupid stuff in the first
place and demand I donate more money to recycling projects.
Instead a volitionist like myself just says, maybe I'll be more
loyal to the good landscaper and wait for him next time.
Whatever failures we see in the markets, we also see that the
government interventions usually magnify the market failures.
Lefiti|10.14.08 @ 1:33PM|#
Tarran
Government ended legal segregation, didn't it? What convoluted
libertarian sophistry explains that?
|10.14.08 @ 1:34PM|#
robc,
.
You left out the lenders and borrowers. Yes, because the
behavior of lenders and borrowers has consistently been attributed
to the effects of the government on the market, and was sharply
contrasted to how they would behave and what options would be open
to them in the absense of that government intervention. So no, this
is not a case of criticism of the market by its worshippers, but of
excuses for why the mean old government made the market fail.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:35PM|#
joe,
Im in a different argument. I was just saying that people were
blaming 3 groups: government, lenders and borrowers. You left 2
groups out.
|10.14.08 @ 1:35PM|#
JW,
No, I am not even slightly surpised. It is not even remotely
surprising to me anymore that that particular intellectual
shortcoming is so widespread.
That's one of the reasons why I find libertarianism to be wholly
inadequate as a political philosophy; because that shortcoming is
not only widespread, but practically mandatory.
|10.14.08 @ 1:36PM|#
So in other words, JW, this is not a case of libertarians
denouncing the actions of the market, but of the government's
distortion of the market.
You can't object to both? I think most of saw the damage being done
by Fannie and Freddie's incentives and begged for them to
stop.
People react rationally to state actions. If you lower taxes or
send out stimulus checks made of magic money, you will find other
things to do with that money other than send the money back.
Hogan|10.14.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Lefiti - obviously government also began and maintained legal segregation, no? And only ended it, a century later, when forced to by civil discontent?
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Oh, and yes, those last 2 groups did behave differently than they would have without government interference. Loose credit allows people who cant get tight credit to use credit. I still blame them for doing it, even if they were only able to do it because of the government.
|10.14.08 @ 1:39PM|#
joe, what is it exactly you're looking for? For libertarians to
say the market does stuff we don't like? Or stuff that deserves to
(forcefully) be curtailed?
Or do you want us to say that there are things government does
well? Hell, any minarchist could reel off a list for you, if that's
what you want.
|10.14.08 @ 1:39PM|#
That's one of the reasons why I find libertarianism to be
wholly inadequate as a political philosophy; because that
shortcoming is not only widespread, but practically
mandatory.
You find it inadequate to address the needs of statist beliefs?
Seriously?
C'mon joe, don't move next to the airport and complain about the
noise.
|10.14.08 @ 1:40PM|#
robc,
To add to what JW said, you first need to prove to us using our
premises that the state has the moral authority to undertake these
actions before we are going to discuss the frickin
details.
Only if I was interested in arguing you out of your First
Principles. I'm not. That would be a useless exercise.
But let's recall, I'm not the one who brought up the matter of
faith in the practical outcomes produced by institutions. I
responded to an argument on that topic raised by an actual
libertarian. So now, suddenly, it's inappropriate for me to discuss
libertarian arguments with a libertarian, on the grounds that I'm
not addressing some other set of libertarian arguments?
Let me leave you with this: if I come on here and actually did make
broad, values-based statements about the use of force by the
government being good and and of itself, and that being the sole
proper foundation for human interactions, every word I wrote about
that process creating good outcomes would be rejected wholesale.
Well, goose, gander, sauce.
Hibiscus Monkey|10.14.08 @ 1:40PM|#
joe et al,
Stop conflating moral and consequential arguments, please.
Consequentially, markets are pretty effective at distributing
scarce recourses. Morally, the government has no right to intervene
in peaceful human activity. The two are separate arguments for a
libertarian state.
|10.14.08 @ 1:42PM|#
"Correct by definition said:
Joe,
I've never seen a government-power- fundamentalist-worshiper come
up with an idea to decrease government power"
Joe said:
Really?
You've never seen a liberal decry the Patiot Act?"
Gabe said:
Joe, can't you see that "correct by definition" was using a loaded
term that by definition only included those who love all government
action?...I think he was mocking the idea that "market
fundamentalist" = "libertarian"....
It takes a special kind of fundamentalism to believe that taking
power from individuals at the point of a gun and giving the power
to some morally questionable politician should be the reflexive
answer to every problem we encounter in the world.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Hell, any minarchist could reel off a list for you, if
that's what you want.
Courts
National Defense
Ugly ass monuments
That was just federal level off the top of my head.
|10.14.08 @ 1:43PM|#
gabe,
As a matter of fact, I understand the values-based argument for
libertarianism quite well, thanks.
I didn't address it, because that wasn't the topic of the comment I
responded to.
BTW, "enjoy pushing people around with guns" is the libertoid
equivalent of "wanting to give crack to babies." A big, red flag
informing you to ignore whatever comes next, as the speaker is too
emotionally wrapped up in his own perception of moral superiority
to have anything thoughtful to add.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:46PM|#
joe,
Only if I was interested in arguing you out of your First
Principles. I'm not. That would be a useless
exercise.
You are the one that regularly complains that we dont distinguish
between good and bad policy. That we oppose the policy, period.
Well, the reason is those first principles. You need to stop
complaining about us not paying attention to details if you arent
going to attempt to first prove the moral authority of th
state.
|10.14.08 @ 1:46PM|#
joe knows the argument about "men with guns"...he just doesn't care to see it that way. It offends his sensibilities.
|10.14.08 @ 1:46PM|#
JW,
You can't object to both? Sure you can. When you attribute
the behavior of actors in the market to the incentives provided by
government, and declare that they would have acted in a harmless,
beneficial manner but for those government interactions, you are
not criticizing both. You are criticizing the government.
By saying "people respond to incentives," you are saying that are
doing what they are supposed to be doing.
tarran|10.14.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Government ended legal segregation, didn't it? What convoluted libertarian sophistry explains that?
I'll explain - and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to
understand.
You asked if ever anyone had pointed a gun at me and forced me to
change my behavior. Now, strictly speaking I've never let things
get to that stage. I have changed my behavior when I've had a cop
with a holstered gun tell me to move my car. I've changed my
behavior when I received a letter from the Toledo city government
threatening me with legal action unless I took certain actions and
sent them a bunch of money.
Oh, and one time, I couldn't buy some supplies for my business at a
particular store, because the owners of the store didn't have the
right tax software for their registers (it was a tax holiday
excluding businesses), and they had received a letter warning them
that if they were caught selling stuff to businesses without
collecting the tax there would be consequences.
Now, in all those cases, I or the people around me altered their
behavior not because there was a gun pointed at our head at that
moment, but because if we did what we wanted to, and were
intransigent about and persisted in our folly despite escalating
warnings from the police eventually we would end up with guns
pointed at our head.
Now, I assume you hate segregation and think that under Jim crow,
black people had it bad. I, in fact, agree with you. Certainly
black people living under Jim Crow were not happy with those laws.
I'm sure they would have liked to pee in any public restroom
catering to males etc. But, the law mandated that separate
restrooms be provided for males based on race.
Now, how many black men tried to enter a whites only restroom on
any given day? I'd bet the answer was close to 0. How many black
people altered their behavior because that law was on the books?
Pretty much all of them. There was no guard physically pointing a
gun at them at that moment, yes. However, people are aware when the
gun is there waiting.
If your implication - that I have never been the victim of coercion
- is correct, then most blacks were never the victims of
segregation.
|10.14.08 @ 1:48PM|#
So now, suddenly, it's inappropriate for me to discuss
libertarian arguments with a libertarian, on the grounds that I'm
not addressing some other set of libertarian arguments?
You were complaining that we don't get the same boner over the
latest additions to the CFR. Address all the libertarian arguments
you want. Just don't get huffy when we don't attach the same degree
of importance to the minutia
|10.14.08 @ 1:49PM|#
The Angry Optimist,
joe, what is it exactly you're looking for?
This is the comment that started all of this:
Lefiti, it seems to me that a belief in a benevolent and
all-powerful state is closer to "religion" than belief in a
market
I'm looking for libertarians to acknowledge that it is they, with
their absolutist, univerally-replicated position on the question of
more-vs-less government, who are acting with a belief in a
benevolent and all-powerful institution, not the people who vary
their position on that question based on the facts of the case.
|10.14.08 @ 1:50PM|#
joe et al,
Stop conflating moral and consequential arguments,
please.
I'm not conflating the two. I am completely ignoring the moral
argument, and addressing only the consequentialist one.
robc|10.14.08 @ 1:50PM|#
joe,
Bum Fights. I can criticize the people who pay bums to fight and
criticize the bums for taking the money and fighting.
Ditto government, lenders and borrowers. They were all wrong.
This is also like drug arguments. If government legalizes herion, I
will still criticize the moron who ODs and dies, even thought the
government said its okay to shoot up heroin.
(In this case, unlike the others, I think the government would be
acting properly, but the point still standings regardless of
whether I agree with the government or not)
|10.14.08 @ 1:51PM|#
By saying "people respond to incentives," you are saying
that are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
No, I'm saying that while the lenders were doing extraordinarily
stupid and short-sighted things re mortgages, they were responding
rationally to market distortions created by guvmint action.
So, yes, you can criticize both.
|10.14.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Gabe,
I saw what he was doing just fine. I just used his comment as a
launching pad.
It takes a special kind of fundamentalism to believe that
taking power from individuals at the point of a gun and giving the
power to some morally questionable politician should be the
reflexive answer to every problem we encounter in the
world.
It would indeed. It would take a special kind of fundamentalism to
believe that the answer to every problem is any one thing. The
point is, you only see that on one side of the aisle.
BTW, MenWithGuns come and kick you out of your home if you don't
pay your rent, too. Your complaint isn't about whether to use
force, but when.
|10.14.08 @ 1:56PM|#
robc,
You need to stop complaining about us not paying attention to
details if you arent going to attempt to first prove the moral
authority of th state.
I will stop complaining about that, when libertarians stop making
consequentialist arguments - for example, that government
intervention cannot produce good outcomes, and it requires a
religious faith in government to believe that it can.
Which is to say, never.
|10.14.08 @ 1:57PM|#
No, I'm saying that while the lenders were doing
extraordinarily stupid and short-sighted things re mortgages, they
were responding rationally to market distortions created by guvmint
action.
How can something the lenders did be both "stupid" and
"rational"?
|10.14.08 @ 1:58PM|#
I'm looking for libertarians to acknowledge that it is they,
with their absolutist, univerally-replicated position on the
question of more-vs-less government, who are acting with a belief
in a benevolent and all-powerful institution, not the people who
vary their position on that question based on the facts of the
case.
Actually, come to think of it, all of the comments about moral vs.
consequentialist arguments amount to exactly that.
|10.14.08 @ 1:59PM|#
I'm looking for libertarians to acknowledge that it is they,
with their absolutist, univerally-replicated position on the
question of more-vs-less government, who are acting with a belief
in a benevolent and all-powerful institution
Very few libertarians think the market is "benevolent or an
all-powerful institution". Our point has been (and probably always
will be) that "altering your viewpoint" when it comes to the moral
issue of force is that utopia is not possible, and, given that,
freedom is preferable to statist control.
I don't think the market is "the answer" to "everything", because I
don't believe in "answers", like they're detached, floating
abstractions. I want people to freely choose the "answers" to their
own questions, so long as they do not interfere with others' right
to do the same. When that interference arises, it is right and
proper for the State to take action.
|10.14.08 @ 2:01PM|#
No, I'm saying that while the lenders were doing
extraordinarily stupid and short-sighted things re mortgages, they
were responding rationally to market distortions created by guvmint
action.
In other words, you're saying that the bad acts occured because of
the government - that if you remove the government from the
equation, those bad acts would not have happened.
SugarFree,
SugarFree | October 14, 2008, 1:56pm | #
Libertarians believe in... what they believe!
Boy, do they ever! Like a religion. My point exactly.
|10.14.08 @ 2:02PM|#
How can something the lenders did be both "stupid" and
"rational"?
Sky diving, bungie jumping, etc, etc.
Lenders responded rationally to the idea that they would have no
bad consequences for their poor lending and thus acted accordingly.
They knew they would be bailed out in some fashion and were correct
in that assumption for the most part.
It was stupid in that everyone else would bear the consequences of
their actions.
I took the stimulus check I received in the spring and spent it,
knowing full well that the money didn't exist in reality and that
we would pay the piper many times over down the road. I suspect
that you would be hard pressed to find someone who sent it
back.
|10.14.08 @ 2:04PM|#
I'm looking for libertarians to acknowledge that it is they,
with their absolutist, univerally-replicated position on the
question of more-vs-less government, who are acting with a belief
in a benevolent and all-powerful institution, not the people who
vary their position on that question based on the facts of the
case.
It is amazing that a "liberal" who has just witnessed 8 amazing
years of abuse of power, liberals who cower in fear of seeign the
ten commandments in a court room..still can't understand why
libertarians when faced with new proposals of any additional
government power automatically look at how the new power can be
abused and if it is determined that the power is likely to be
abused then they do not support the new powers being taken from the
people.
You would think that thoughtful liberals would understand that this
cycnical reflex of libertarians has been proven to be wise...maybe
it wasn't smart for clinton and friends to expand the power of the
executive office? maybe starting a pyramid scheme supported by the
governemnt wasn't a smart idea?
Instead we see fundamentalist statist like Joe who still have
unshattered faith that additional power given to the state are not
likely to be abused AND he has the nerve to say we are acting on
faith!
|10.14.08 @ 2:06PM|#
JW,
Your last comment just refutes your earlier point.
If the "stupidity" was in the consequences of a situation created
by the government, and not in the actions of the individuals
responding to that situation, you are taking all of the blame for
the problem and putting it on the government.
You are not blaming the borrowers and lenders, you are taking the
responsibility away from them, and putting it on the
government.
|10.14.08 @ 2:06PM|#
joe, despite your pretzel-logic, libertarians do not blame every "bad" outcome on the government. Bad things happen; government interference tends to make things worse rather than better.
|10.14.08 @ 2:06PM|#
It was stupid in that everyone else would bear the
consequences of their actions.
I think the word you're looking for in this instance is
selfish, not stupid.
|10.14.08 @ 2:07PM|#
joe,
And you don't believe in what you believe? Spare me. Mad Max wishes
he was half as devoted to the Catholic Church as you are to the
Democratic Party.
robc|10.14.08 @ 2:07PM|#
I will stop complaining about that, when libertarians stop
making consequentialist arguments - for example, that government
intervention cannot produce good outcomes, and it requires a
religious faith in government to believe that it can.
Which is to say, never.
Government cannot* produce MORAL outcomes, because they arent
following moral means. Since I dont make consequentialist
arguments, a good outcome to me is whatever the result of following
moral means is. So all outcomes from moral means are good. All
outcomes from immoral means are bad. Even if the outcomes are the
same. :)
*as a minarchist, there are a few exceptions.
|10.14.08 @ 2:07PM|#
In other words, you're saying that the bad acts occured
because of the government - that if you remove the government from
the equation, those bad acts would not have happened.
Probably, but no psychic am I. That still doesn't change the fact
that libertarians objected to the actions of lenders.
But seriously, what is your beef here? That you aren't getting your
entertainment value fulfilled? I know you're not just finding out
now that libertarianism isn't a philosophy based in pragmatism.
robc|10.14.08 @ 2:08PM|#
Hell, that was a consequentialist argument after all, I just meaure differently.
|10.14.08 @ 2:08PM|#
joe: it can be stupid to get pregnant as a teenager. That teen is responsible. However, looking at the perverse incentives (welfare, in this case) driving individuals in that circumstance is proper, too.
|10.14.08 @ 2:11PM|#
You are not blaming the borrowers and lenders, you are
taking the responsibility away from them, and putting it on the
government.
No, I'm blaming all of them for the mess that we're in.
I can't answer why some lenders exercised restraint and saw what a
bad idea it was to lend so irresponsibly and why others didn't see
a problem with it, but those that chose to lend irresponsibly,
regardless of guvmint distortions, should burn just the same.
|10.14.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Gabe, as much as it might make you feel good to keep using the
phrase "can't understand," that's just not what's going on.
I UNDERSTAND your argument just fine. I just think it's bullshit,
that's all.
I UNDERSTAND just fine why your reaction to the last eight years is
to assume that no other set of policies can lead to different
results - because you have a moral/religious belief about the
rightful role of government which leaves you disinterested in
considering how different government actions, and their
consequences, can be different.
I don't misunderstand that point. That is, in fact, MY point, the
one I've been arguing the entire thread.
See, look here: Instead we see fundamentalist statist like Joe
who still have unshattered faith that additional power given to the
state... I argue against giving additional power to the state
all the time. I argue in favor of rolling back power given to the
state all the time. You just can't get your head around that,
because unlike me, you are a fundamentalist; you divide the world
up into those who proclaim faith in your religion in its entirety
and judge everything based on its conformance to the precepts of
that belief system; and everybody else, who are an undifferentiated
mass of sinners.
|10.14.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Ever see a market fundamentalist complain about any aspect
of the market? Or call for some market activity to be
curtailed?
I think Fannie should not have bought up all those crappy
loans.
Does that count joe?
robc|10.14.08 @ 2:13PM|#
joe,
There is an essay by Bill James (of the Bosox) from the early 90s
about his son and a music box with two switches. Yes, that is a
vague description of where to find it. I suggest you read it. I
think it relates to this whole government/lender/borrower blame
issue. There can be more than one driving force, even if 1 is
dependent on the other.
Actually, the simpler thought is this: without government
interference, borrowers and lenders sometimes make stupid
decisions. With the government involved, it became more common.
Fluffy|10.14.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Hey, I am happy to say that I have no faith in "the market" as
all.
As with all collective nouns, "the market" does not actually exist.
The words "the market" are just the shortest possible way of
saying, "I want to let people spend their own money the way they
want to".
I will stop complaining about that, when libertarians stop
making consequentialist arguments - for example, that government
intervention cannot produce good outcomes, and it requires a
religious faith in government to believe that it can.
Good to whom and for what, joe?
You can't actually separate the moral and utilitarian arguments,
because the premises of utilitarianism are themselves moral
arguments.
To produce a "good" outcome, government intervention would have to
produce a good superior to that produced by allowing each
individual to seek his own good. To show this to be the case, you
have to either invalidate the judgment of each individual regarding
what would be good for him, or you have to argue that producing
good for some group of individuals is more important than producing
good for some other set of individuals.
|10.14.08 @ 2:16PM|#
The Angry Optimist | October 14, 2008, 2:06pm | #
joe, despite your pretzel-logic, libertarians do not blame every
"bad" outcome on the government. Bad things happen; government
interference tends to make things worse rather than
better.
If libertarians limited their statement to tendencies, I'd have a
lot more respect for them. As it is, they often make ridiculous
statements about the delusional, religious faith required to
believe, after seeing the government produce bad outcomes with one
set of policies, that the government could bring about good
outcomes by doing different things.
short, fat bastard|10.14.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I'll bet nobdoy has ever held a gun to your head and forced
you to do anything, you stupid fuck.
There is a lesson to be learned when playing chess, that the threat
of a move is many times more powerful than the move itself.
The bottom line is that if you don't adhere to the rules set out by
elected representives then people with guns come and take you away
to prison. While this may be an appropriate response when an
individual rapes or murders another individual, it is not
appropriate response if an individual decides that he or she has no
moral obligation to help someone on the other side of the country
build a bridge to nowhere.
|10.14.08 @ 2:17PM|#
SugarFree | October 14, 2008, 2:07pm | #
joe,
And you don't believe in what you believe? Spare me. Mad Max wishes
he was half as devoted to the Catholic Church as you are to the
Democratic Party.
I criticize the Democratic Party, and individual Democrats, all the
time.
|10.14.08 @ 2:19PM|#
Joe paraphrased:
"libertarians deserve criticism until they stop saying' that
government intervention cannot produce good outcomes, and it
requires a religious faith in government to believe that it
can.'
I think that many hear are realist. We are quite prepared to accept
minarchist arguments for now.
Most here acknowledge that some sort of minarchist world would need
to exist before the rothbardian anarcho capitalism could have a
chance at being implemented.
The problem is that we are careening wildly out of control towards
the edge of a cliff on a old abandoned railroad straight towards
totalitarianism gulch! We tried to pull the old manual brake and it
broke right off in our hands and we are holding a old rusty metal
bar that is labled "racist newsletters"...the demons that live in
totalitarianisms gulch are so excited that thousands of them have
come out of the gulch and are surrounding us and pouring grease on
the tracks ahead...and then we see Joe and he is telling us that if
we only formed a new governemnt program to outlaw gravity then we'd
be saved.
|10.14.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Government cannot* produce MORAL outcomes, because they
arent following moral means.
Religious faith. My point exactly.
TAO,
joe: it can be stupid to get pregnant as a teenager. That teen
is responsible. However, looking at the perverse incentives
(welfare, in this case) driving individuals in that circumstance is
proper, too.
My problem with libertarians is that they would take this point,
then blame teen pregnancy as a whole on government, then look at a
proposal to teach sex ed, and decide that teaching sex ed can't
reduce teen pregnancy, because welfare (allegedly) increased
it.
And then, when you point out that welfare and sex ed are different,
explain how they work differently, and consider the different
outcomes they are likely to lead to, they give you a conscending
look, and mumble something about guns and heads and how naive you
must be.
|10.14.08 @ 2:21PM|#
"Partisan Hack Denies Being Partisan Hack"
Film at 11.
Whatever, joe. At least you aren't on the wholesale delusional "The
war in Iraq is won and over" Kool-Aid going on in the Hitchens
thread. That's something to like you for.
|10.14.08 @ 2:21PM|#
If libertarians limited their statement to tendencies, I'd
have a lot more respect for them.
Two things:
1) a moral argument is a powerful thing, especially when correct.
Also, as Fluffy pointed out, consequentialism / utilitarianism does
not exist absent an idea of what "good outcomes" look like in the
first place and
2) libertarians use numbers, facts, figures, consequences all
the time. The fact that you miss it is your failing to see the
nuance present; it's not from a lack of nuance, it's your
cherry-picking.
the government could bring about good outcomes by doing
different things.
Define "good", please. And as asked of you before, "good for
whom?".
|10.14.08 @ 2:23PM|#
...and then, when you demonstrate the difference, they'll admit
that they don't really care about teen pregnancy, and just want
lower taxes.
Then stroke their chins and explain the difference between a moral
argument and a consequentialist one, as if they hadn't just made a
consequentialist argument about the government causing more teen
pregnancy.
|10.14.08 @ 2:23PM|#
joshua corning,
I think Fannie should not have bought up all those crappy
loans.
Does that count joe?
No, because you blame the evil government for making them buy up
those loans.
|10.14.08 @ 2:24PM|#
joe - that 2:21 strawman of yours is categorically and
unequivocally the stupidest thing I've seen you write.
My problem with libertarians is that they would take this
point, then blame teen pregnancy as a whole on
government
Uh, no they wouldn't. As evidenced by the fact that I said "the
teen is responsible AND there might be perverse incentives for this
bad choice".
|10.14.08 @ 2:26PM|#
I think the fundamental issue here, joe, is that state actions
are mandatory and "market" actions are largely voluntary.
Sure, I can complain about the guy next door painting his house
purple, but I'm more annoyed by the fact that if your house is
located in a designated historic district, you may have to paint
your house purple.
If I live a couple blocks over, I'm really not going to care about
the guy painting his house purple. Similarly, I'm not going to be
vexed about every outcome by the market that happens to gore the ox
of statists.
|10.14.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Fluffy,
You are assuming a zero-sum game, which has been proven false. The
ability of the government to interrupt Mexican Standoff/arms race
dynamics is an example.
People often make decisions in situations they'd rather not be
in.
|10.14.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Joe,
It seems your assuming that we won't like your new statist plans
without actually teling them to us and perhaps I am being unfair by
assuming you are for the bailout bill passed by congress. Why don't
you tell us your new statist plans and we will not jump to any
conclusions and then let you know if we see reasons why it might be
a bad idea.
When this started it seemed we were focused on the most recent bush
backed plans to nationalize the banks...do you need us to explain
why faith is not needed to be critical of this plan?
short, fat bastard|10.14.08 @ 2:29PM|#
My problem with libertarians is that they would take this
point, then blame teen pregnancy as a whole on government, then
look at a proposal to teach sex ed, and decide that teaching sex ed
can't reduce teen pregnancy, because welfare (allegedly) increased
it.
The libertarian point of view would be to have mother and father
teach daughter not to fuck someone she wasn't ready to raise a baby
with.
Only a progressive would institute a welfare program to relieve
mother, father, and daughter of some of the financial consequences
of fucking someone you aren't willing to raise a baby with.
Then when the welfare program results in surge of unmarried,
teenaged mothers, the progressives want to institute a second
program to teach teenagers how to fuck without making babies (most
of the time if they actually use the methods they are taught except
they don't anyway).
Not that anyone could ever contemplate dismantling the welfare
program that made the situation worse.
|10.14.08 @ 2:29PM|#
The bottom line is that if you don't adhere to the rules set
out by elected representives then people with guns come and take
you away to prison.
My mortgage company sends my a politely-worded threat every
month.
The moral distinction between a tax bill and a mortgage is merely a
difference of opinion.
robc|10.14.08 @ 2:29PM|#
joe,
Religious faith. My point exactly.
That has nothing to do with faith. There are a choice of means
available to us all, some moral some not. Using the choices that
enable government to force others into action is not a moral means.
That isnt about faith at all. It is about principle. Im making no
claim what the outcome would be, just that the outcome can never be
used as a justification for the immoral means.
There could, in theory, be a government program that would make us
all rich, healthy, happy and safe. I oppose it if it uses immoral
means to get there. That isnt an issue of faith, I have no faith
that immoral means will lead to poor results or vice versa.
In those rare instances (as my footnote showed) in which government
is using moral means, then the outcome is moral. Whether good or
bad.
|10.14.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Gabe, this is your problem right here:
and then we see Joe and he is telling us that if we only formed
a new governemnt program to outlaw gravity then we'd be saved.
I've never suggested a program to outlaw gravity. You don't think
that you need to know what the proposal is, or anything about how
it would work, in order to make up your mind that it can't
work.
You just have faith that it can't. I, on the other hand, would need
to see the details to make up my mind.
The former is faith-based, and the latter is not.
robc|10.14.08 @ 2:33PM|#
joe,
The moral distinction between a tax bill and a mortgage is
merely a difference of opinion.
Nope. The latter is entered into via free will and a signed
contract. The former isnt. I never signed the social contract.
|10.14.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Gabe,
It seems your assuming that we won't like your new statist
plans without actually teling them to us
I'm not assuming anything. You have told me that yourself, as have
a number of other commenters.
|10.14.08 @ 2:36PM|#
robc,
Using the choices that enable government to force others into
action is not a moral means.
That is a faith-based statement. It's about First Things. It is
pre-rational, it's a matter of opinion, it's the equivalent of
"Don't Eat Pork."
short, fat bastard|10.14.08 @ 2:36PM|#
My mortgage company sends my a politely-worded threat every
month.
If you ignore that threat long enough, then people with guns will
come to assist you in placing your belongings on the side of the
street.
Of course, you voluntarily made a contract with the mortgage
company. And if you violate your contract the state will help the
mortgage company acquire the asset you used for collateral. I think
most libertarians will tell you this is a valid function of the
state.
Unless you were trying to make some other point there.
Thomas|10.14.08 @ 2:37PM|#
The moral distinction between a tax bill and a mortgage is
merely a difference of opinion.
That's why joe doesn't get this. He can't see the fundamental
difference between the mortgage lender protecting their property
and government theft (i.e. taxation).
|10.14.08 @ 2:37PM|#
robc,
That you consider there to be no obligations to your fellow members
of society as such is a statement of faith, of principle, of First
Things, just as much as my statement that you do have such
obligations.
|10.14.08 @ 2:40PM|#
So, joe, is there *anything* you wouldn't compromise over? Are
you trying to tell us that you are principle free and all decisions
by you are driven by utility?
Inquiring minds want to know about your complete and total lack of
faith.
|10.14.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Sigh.
Once again, and again, and again, and again...I don't misunderstand
that childishly simple point, Thomas. I disagree with it.
I don't share your fundamental principles of morality, at least not
100%. I believe it is worse for a child to not be fed than for your
taxes to be a little higher. I weigh the harm of your being
blahblahblahed by MenWithGuns and the harm of the child not being
fed differently than you do, because I have a different moral
code.
I could write a better 3000 words on libertarianism than you could,
chances are. I could probably do the same for socialism and
monarchism, too.
You can keep telling me I just don't get it. I get it; I just
disagree.
robc|10.14.08 @ 2:41PM|#
joe,
That is a faith-based statement. It's about First Things. It is
pre-rational, it's a matter of opinion, it's the equivalent of
"Don't Eat Pork."
I agree that is it possibly prerational and a matter of opinion.
And maybe the equivalent of "dont eat pork" (which was highly
rational considering the nasty buggers in pork - 4000 years ago
that was a very rational rule). It is not, however, faith based. It
is a judgement of moral and immoral means but is not at all faith
based.
Faith and morality are not the same thing.
Look, Im a christian (as Ive mentioned before), I know which parts
of my religion are faith based and which are morality based. "Thou
shalt not kill" is not faith based, it is morality. "I am the Lord
thy God", is faith based. With regards to government, I am talking
about the former, not the latter.
"Thou shalt not give government power to initiate force against
others."
You may not agree with the principle, but the principle isnt faith
based.
|10.14.08 @ 2:42PM|#
JW,
There are things I wouldn't compromise over.
I just don't hold money in such high regard. I'm pretty flexible
about that.
Thomas|10.14.08 @ 2:43PM|#
That you consider there to be no obligations to your fellow
members of society as such is a statement of faith, of principle,
of First Things, just as much as my statement that you do have such
obligations.
But our belief in self stays out of your way, and allows you to
believe whatever you want.
Wants an argument gets to this point you can't go any further. You
believe that persons have obligations to people, and we believe
that persons have obligations to no one but themselves. These
axioms cannot be broken down any more than that. People have tried,
but it just results in irrational nonsense.
|10.14.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Of course government CAN reduce teen pregnancy. If the first
propaganda campaign doesn't work they can double the budegt and
have a surge campaign. If that doesn't work they can outlaw
teenager sex, if that doesn't work they can go mid-evil on our
arses.
My doubts arise when you say that look this 1% tax reduced teen
pregnancy....the program was a success!
what were the real costs? increased financial hardship couples in
their 20's? is the program over? how will this powerful government
program seek to expand it's mission now?
now that governemnt is involved in teenage pregancy...will we see
the program be defunded if they fail next year?
Asking critical/skeptical questions is the opposite of faith.
short, fat bastard|10.14.08 @ 2:45PM|#
I weigh the harm of your being blahblahblahed by MenWithGuns
and the harm of the child not being fed differently than you do,
because I have a different moral code.
An excellent summary of the progressive mindset.
Citizen Nothing|10.14.08 @ 2:48PM|#
"joe is unpleasant today."
I blame TAO for baiting him. I know where you lurk, TAO. I can hunt
you down and slap you. Or worse, I can force you to read one of
those 2000-word essays on libertarianism joe is always threatening
to write.
|10.14.08 @ 2:49PM|#
There are things I wouldn't compromise over.
Oh, OK then. I'm just confused why you are so put off over people
who wouldn't compromise over things that you would.
That sounds like somebody's problem, but not ours.
|10.14.08 @ 2:52PM|#
OK, robc, fair point. There is a difference between statements
of morality and statements of fact, even when they are both based
on faith. But I maintain that the the latter demonstrates and
intellectual shortcoming.
You can make all the statements about what should be, in order to
be moral, and I will respect that. It's when people make statements
about what is, and what will be, based on faith that I object.
|10.14.08 @ 2:53PM|#
I do think I have obligations to others. However, I am not
arrogant enough to force the obligations I think I have onto
others. It seems that the people who like to think of government
force as a solution to most problems do not really care what others
want or believe. They relish the opportunity to show how moral they
are by forcing others to give to certain causes.
It is odd that Joe is a faithful christian, yet he is here telling
us athiest libertarians how smart he is for relying solely on
reason.
|10.14.08 @ 2:56PM|#
I'm sure there are christian libertarians here...I was just speaking for myself above.
short, fat bastard|10.14.08 @ 2:57PM|#
. . . . because I have a different moral code.
So joe, let's say just for the hell of it, that I have a rather
Calvinist view of life that says that poverty is a sign of sin. It
is, therefore, immoral in my worldview to help those starving
children.
How do you justify using the power of the state force me to feed
those children against my religious beliefs?
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 2:58PM|#
So all outcomes from moral means are good. All outcomes from
immoral means are bad. Even if the outcomes are the same.
:)
It takes a pretty odd mind to conflate means and ends so
completely, but it certainly has a religious flavor.
Good = arrived at by moral means.
Bad = arrived at by immoral means.
Good = comes from the devil
Bad = comes from god
Of course, you have to define good somehow. It seems to involve an
increase in some beneficial aspect of life.
Good could be: more happy, more healthy, more wealthy, more
free/liberty, or some combination of multiple parameters. If good
just means that it came from a moral process, then it loses value
as a concept because it becomes detached from the concept of
benefit.
To be fair to robc, he switches to the word "moral" rather than
sticking with good.
|10.14.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Thomas,
But our belief in self stays out of your way, and allows you to
believe whatever you want.
Your belief in self still leaves room for the government to use
force to stop trespassers and muggers, even if I believe I should
be able to mug and trespass, so it's not that simple. And now your
response is going to be about rights, and people having the right
to not be mugged, but not having the right to food. And THAT,
rather than the question of force, is where we really differ.
Gabe,
Asking critical/skeptical questions is the opposite of
faith. Too often, I see a complete lack of skeptical
questioning, and merely a smug assumption that something the
government does can't work, or that something else must be
responsible when it does work - as well as an uncritical acceptance
of statements about how the government is the cause of any
problem.
JW,
I'm just confused why you are so put off over people who
wouldn't compromise over things that you would. I'm not. As
Thomas says, when you get to the level of First Principles, we can
only agree to disagree.
My problem is with people who make assumptions of fact.
|10.14.08 @ 3:01PM|#
However, I am not arrogant enough to force the obligations I
think I have onto others.
Sure you are. You'd have no problem with forcing people to leave
someone's property.
I just happen to believe that a state of poverty is worse than
having someone on your lawn.
|10.14.08 @ 3:01PM|#
It is odd that Joe is a faithful christian, yet he is here
telling us athiest libertarians how smart he is for relying solely
on reason.
WTF? How many comments have I written now about what I believe, and
my principles being different than yours?
|10.14.08 @ 3:03PM|#
short, fat bastard,
How do you justify using the power of the state force me to
feed those children against my religious beliefs? Easily. The
well-being of people is more important.
I can recognize the Christian Scientist parents have the right to
make bad decisions about their kids' health care...up to a
point.
Citizen Nothing|10.14.08 @ 3:05PM|#
"I'm sure there are christian libertarians here"
Present
"I just don't hold money in such high regard."
Money = my precious time on this earth.
I could be at home enjoying my wife and babies, instead I'm stuck
at this computer until 5 p.m. just to earn a little dough.
So, yeah, I guess I hold money in pretty high regard -- and hold in
much less regard those who think they have some sort of right to
take mine because they believe someone else needs it more.
(Still, should I ever run against joe for public office, I'll be
more than happy to compare my charitable contributions to his.)
robc|10.14.08 @ 3:10PM|#
To be fair to robc, he switches to the word "moral" rather
than sticking with good.
I was using "good" and "bad" in ways that were intentional silly to
drive home the point that I dont care about results, only the moral
means.
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 3:16PM|#
An example of a faith-based statement made by a libertarian in
this thread.
Bad things happen; government interference tends to make things
worse rather than better.
It is a belief.
It is not supported by any objective assessment.
It is not refuted by any objective assessment.
It is a simple, faith-based opinion.
It is, unless I am mistaken, an example of what joe is
saying.
The often repeated assertion that "freer markets perform better" is
another.
There are better objective assessments of this statement (certainly
not definitive). Grossly, there seems not to be a linear
relationship between market performance and degree of freedom. The
relationship seems to be more one where too little or too much
restriction of the market will result in poorer performance.
Be skeptical of this provisional opinion about the truth value of
this relationship...it hasn't been objectively confirmed.
I have faith that it is closer to the truth than the "freer =
better" statement.
Citizen Nothing|10.14.08 @ 3:27PM|#
"The relationship seems to be more one where too little or too
much restriction of the market will result in poorer
performance."
I am skeptical of this opinion.
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 3:31PM|#
TAO,
"tends to make things worse" is standards-based, NM.
What is your standard then?
You have FAITH, based on your standard of "worse," that it is a
TRUE statement.
See the difference?
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
We are now in a position to have a discussion about the evidence
for or against a particular policy. We are both skeptical of the
truth value of "freer= better" or "too much/too little regulation =
bad outcome."
The particular policy can be evaluated on some evidence-based test,
and its performance can help to shape/re-shape or faith-based
opinions.
robc|10.14.08 @ 3:42PM|#
NM,
We are both skeptical of the truth value of "freer=
better"
This is absolutely true, for those who judge by amount of freedom
and not by dollars or some other annoying measurement.
|10.14.08 @ 3:42PM|#
So, yeah, I guess I hold money in pretty high regard -- and
hold in much less regard those who think they have some sort of
right to take mine because they believe someone else needs it
more.
And I don't hold in very high regard those who think the welfare of
human beings should depend on the whims of the fortunate.
robc|10.14.08 @ 3:43PM|#
NM,
"tends to make things worse" is standards-based, NM.
What is your standard then?
past observation? Hence the use of the qualifier "tends".
"Always makes things worse" would be faith based.
|10.14.08 @ 3:44PM|#
short fat bastard,
People are people. I show favoritism towards the needy, but only
because they are needy.
|10.14.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Tends to make things worse, therefore THIS would make things worse is, if not faith-based, some really shoddy logic.
robc|10.14.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Tends to make things worse, therefore THIS would make things
worse is, if not faith-based, some really shoddy logic.
But it is the way to bet.
|10.14.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Joes Code:
Money isn't that important to Joe...so he advocates the government
take our money.
Joe cares more about others while we are selfish. That is why Joe
is in favor of forcing us to give to the governemnt.
While it is true that government has done some bad things(like bomb
Iraq). Only a market fundamentalist would expect the government to
abuse power in the future.
The bailout as proposed by republicans was bad, but I have faith
that the democrats fixed the bill so now it will do good.
Individuals should not protect their private property, because that
is a use of force. However, the government has a right to kill you
in order to get it's share of your income.
short, fat bastard|10.14.08 @ 3:55PM|#
I show favoritism towards the needy, but only because they
are needy.
I applaud your priorities, so long as you keep them to
yourself.
I have different priorities including my parents, my children, my
friends, my neighbors, my co-workers, and so on.
Adding the state to the equation merely wastes money.
bubba|10.14.08 @ 4:52PM|#
As far as I can tell, Liberals never complain about government
power, per se. They complain about who is wielding that
power.
Once their own guy is elected, everything is hunky dorey.
Grant Cindy Sheehan a few points for intellectual honesty. Fat lot
of good that did her. Once she dared attack a Democrat, she was
yesterday's fish wrap.
johnl|10.14.08 @ 5:04PM|#
joe what you are missing is that libertarians are all about policy, not people at all. So when borrowers and lenders conspire to get the borrower over his head, on an industrial scale, libertarians look for what perverse incentives were a matter of policy. So they find Greenspans inflation, FNM, various tax incentives that cause overinvestment in homes, ...
Fluffy|10.14.08 @ 7:05PM|#
So to refute my statement that in order to justify using a
utilitarian approach to measure the good, it's necessary to tell me
that my own evaluation of my own good isn't valid, joe...tells me
that my evaluation of my own good isn't valid.
This is one of those times when the site needs emoticons.
Moving on:
It is a belief.
It is not supported by any objective assessment.
It is not refuted by any objective assessment.
It is a simple, faith-based opinion.
Hayek would present it as an information problem: a central
decision-making authority always will possess less information with
which to make its planning judgments than is possessed by
individual economic actors.
It would in fact be a faith-based statement to say that the state
can never make a good decision, ever. But if the state has an
information handicap to its decision making, the more decisions it
makes, the more likely it is that its efforts will go awry. And
the state rarely makes a single discrete decision; on the
contrary, its planning process will involve making exactly the sort
of ongoing series of decisions that throw its information handicap
into stark relief. [If you are even 5% or 10% more likely to make a
mistake in any one decision, over the course of a series of
decisions your odds of fucking up at least once parabolically
approach 100% very quickly.]
Lefiti\'s inner thoughts|10.14.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Maybe if I make my points in nastier ways, daddy will finally love me!
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 7:22PM|#
TAO,
past observation? Hence the use of the qualifier "tends".
"Always makes things worse" would be faith based.
Incorrect.
You are, it seems, conflating the concept of "faith-based" with the
concept of "absolutism."
You believe your assumption to be true without sufficient evidence
to support its validity.
Your belief is faith-based.
It is not an absolutist belief that government will always make
things worse. Your hedge/qualifier is not a hedge on the degree of
faith you have in your correctness. It is a hedge on the degree of
absolutism contained in that belief.
Fluffy,
Your argument, while more subtle, is still based on an article of
faith. Hayek's information deficit is a hypothesis that can be
refuted, but it has not been confirmed/validated/refuted
objectively in any systematic way to my knowledge.
If you believe his hypothesis prior to that demonstration, and work
from there as if the hypothesis is valid and proven, you are
operating in a faith-based fashion.
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Hypothesis,
A government agency containing thousands of full-time employees
tasked with aggregating information for the purpose of optimizing
decisions of a particular type, will have an information ADVANTAGE
regarding the implications of a particular class of actions on the
system when compared to the individual actors likely to make those
decisions who have fewer information resources and therefore make
decisions based on local information structures available to
them.
I am skeptical regarding the veracity of this statement, but it
seems as likely as Hayek's assertion that the government will be
working at an information deficit compared to the aggregate
knowledge of disparate actors who do not coordinate their
activities.
Neu Mejican|10.14.08 @ 7:50PM|#
To clarify:
The total information aggregated across all market actors is
greater than the information available to the government.
However, of all actors in the market, the government has the most
information about the larger system and, therefore, has an
information advantage when compared with any set of actors involved
in an actual decision.
The question is which "more information" matters when the rubber
hits the road? Is it the uncoordinated information that sums across
disparate actors, or is it the coordinated information of the
largest, most knowledgeable actor?
|10.14.08 @ 8:08PM|#
robc,
But it is the way to bet. It's the way to bet if that's
all the information you have. The people who make money off betting
collect more information than that.
Gabe, I can make my own arguments, thanks. Apparently, you cannot,
and are reduced to rephrasing mine, slightly distorted, in an in
unflattering manner. How sad for you.
Fluffy,
Hayek would present it as an information problem: a central
decision-making authority always will possess less information with
which to make its planning judgments than is possessed by
individual economic actors.
Untrue. A central decision-making authority will have less
information about each individual circumstance than individual
economic actors, but it will have much more information about the
system as a whole. It will also have a greater capacity to act with
sufficient scale to influence the system as a whole and - this is
the most important part - will have an interest in the pursuit of
objectives beyond individual self-interest.
|10.14.08 @ 8:25PM|#
201 comments....what is the record?
That would be the DEA/California
Treasury (WARNING! MIGHT CRASH SLOW BROWSERS), with a whopping
2,102 posts.
Praise be to the Anarchrist.
Fluffy|10.14.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Untrue. A central decision-making authority will have less
information about each individual circumstance than individual
economic actors, but it will have much more information about the
system as a whole.
The system as a whole cannot experience benefit or harm. Only the
individual economic actors can. Therefore the information about
individual circumstance is the more important.
this is the most important part - will have an interest in the
pursuit of objectives beyond individual self-interest.
If it has an interest that is not related to the interest of
individuals, that is a negative and not a positive. How will that
interest be realized, if not by individuals?
The belief that goods can be experienced by something other than
individuals is definitely a faith-based belief, joe. One might call
it a black magic belief.
The question is which "more information" matters when the
rubber hits the road? Is it the uncoordinated information that sums
across disparate actors, or is it the coordinated information of
the largest, most knowledgeable actor? and If you believe
his hypothesis prior to that demonstration, and work from there as
if the hypothesis is valid and proven, you are operating in a
faith-based fashion.
If I take 100 households, each with different foodstuffs currently
in their pantries and refrigerators, made up of individuals with
different tastes and preferences in dining, and with different
skill sets in cooking, it is immediately obvious that these
households will do better preparing their own dinners than they
will do if I attempt to issue cooking directives to them by
phone.
In fact, it's so obvious that it's obvious even if we don't
actually do the experiment of finding 100 such households and
having me call them.
My statement that I can't plan the dinners of these households
better than they can plan them by themselves is not faith-based.
It's reason-based. And that's true whether I personally conduct the
experiment or not.
|10.14.08 @ 8:39PM|#
I see Fluffy's got joe covered here. But I do have to ask: joe, when you say 'the system', of what/whom is the 'system' composed? And when you say "an interest beyond individuals", whose interest are we talking about?
GILMORE|10.14.08 @ 9:09PM|#
We will all look back with fondness on the frugal, small
government ideals and fiscal prudence of the Bush
administration
...
...
...
...wait a minute...
Shouldnt people be thrilled that Bush's economic bailout plan will
bankrupt the federal government? Obama aint gone have no moolah to
play around with, and will be forced to enact responsible,
deficit-reducing plans...
aw fuck.
I think post #1 hit the nail. Doom turtles as far as eye can see.
We have met the enemy and they is us.
|10.14.08 @ 9:19PM|#
The question is which "more information" matters when the
rubber hits the road? Is it the uncoordinated information that sums
across disparate actors, or is it the coordinated information of
the largest, most knowledgeable actor?
In case you haven't seen or read this before, I give you The
Pencil. Which was derived from this
essay.
GILMORE|10.14.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Warren | October 14, 2008, 12:51pm | #
Lefiti,
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your
newsletter
Well done warren.
It reminds me of a tactic I've recently adopted that has been semi
effective.
I start singing this song when people try to proselytize on
subways
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/j/e/jesuslme.htm
I change the chorus to =
Jesus loves the screamers!
Yelling all the time
irritating sinners
until they've lost their minds
once i got a small sing along going and the champion of christ
abandoned his audience to the devil. and some comparative peace and
quiet. I mean, a rush-hour subway level of peace and quiet
|10.14.08 @ 9:37PM|#
It will also have a greater capacity to act with sufficient
scale to influence the system as a whole and - this is the most
important part - will have an interest in the pursuit of objectives
beyond individual self-interest.
Is that inside or outside the Green Zone?
Gimme that nasty, old self-interest any day. It doesn't start wars;
drug, imperial or otherwise.
|10.15.08 @ 7:21AM|#
joe,
There's a fundamental distinction between markets and governments
because governments fundamentally operate by force, and markets
fundamentally operate by voluntary exchange.
Interfering with the use of force generally counts as a good thing
in my book. Interfering with voluntary exchanges generally doesn't.
Unless you're a power-hungry busy-body who thinks it's their job to
tell everyone else how to live.
|10.15.08 @ 8:21AM|#
This whole argument ignores the historical reality that since Reagan took office, spending and deficits have gone up during Republican administrations much more than Democratic. It's really amazing to see the pundits panicking about Obama's effect on government spending after 8 years of Bush.
Neu Mejican|10.15.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Fluffy,
This is probably a dead thread, but I have to respond to
this.
If I take 100 households, each with different foodstuffs
currently in their pantries and refrigerators, made up of
individuals with different tastes and preferences in dining, and
with different skill sets in cooking, it is immediately obvious
that these households will do better preparing their own dinners
than they will do if I attempt to issue cooking directives to them
by phone.
You are, with your logic, demonstrating the underlying principle
that too much regulation is bad. But the level of at which
regulation occurs matters. So, you have built, essentially, a red
herring in terms of the "amount of information" question. Even if
your argument is reasonable and likely would be confirmed with an
experiment, it is unrelated to the question at hand.
It is a form of hyperbole.
Use example from the margins to make a point about the general
case. Problem is, the outliers are not representative of the
general case.
A government does not have enough information to properly plan ever
exchange in an economy.
A government may have enough information to improve outcomes by
regulating certain CLASSES of exchange.
The dinner example is not an analogy to the regulatory activity of
governments, for the most part. There are historical examples of
how moves toward this level of micromanagement will fail. But,
those example only help to define what too much regulation looks
like. They don't help define what optimal conditions look like.
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