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
New Yorker: Edit Bill of Rights to Stimulate Economy
"Federalism," writes The New Yorker's Financial Page columnist James Surowiecki, "often described as one of the great strengths of the American system, has become a serious impediment to reversing the downturn." The Wisdom of Crowds author argues that state balanced-budget rules make for pro-cyclical rather than countercyclical fiscal policy: States cut spending (or, more accurately, slow its rate of increase) just when many other sources of pocket change are also drying up. "In the midst of this downturn, some of the biggest players in the economy--state and local governments together account for about thirteen per cent of G.D.P.--will be doing precisely the wrong thing," Surowiecki says.
We have now seen 18 months of Federal supports, bailouts, loans, nationalizations, used-car purchases and other forms of spending-based stimulus, yet GDP in this period has declined nearly 2 percent. Nevertheless I'll accept for the sake of argument the Keynesian assumption that countercyclical spending actually strengthens the economy. (Keynesians can always argue that things would have been worse if the government had done nothing.)
Instead, let's focus on the constitutional argument. It's true all states but this French-sounding place called Vermont have either constitutional or statutory language requiring balanced budgets. But as this study by the National Conference of State Legislatures explains, those requirements vary widely. Statewide deficit spending is not nearly as constrained as Surowiecki claims. Many states are allowed to carry over budget deficits from year to year, a practice that may obviate the balanced budget requirement itself. U.C. Davis economist Steven M. Sheffrin argues [pdf] that "balanced budget rules matter, but only for the states with the strictest 'no-carry-over' balanced budget provisions."
Partly because states have widely varying levels of balanced-budget strictness, it's also hard to assess how much of a difference countercyclical spending makes. (Study from CalState Northridge [pdf].) But Surowiecki's critique of state autonomy goes beyond balanced budgets to include discretionary spending (which he believes is too charitable to rural areas) and NIMBYism (which may prevent T. Boone Pickens' "wind power grid" swindle from becoming reality). That is, his real complaint isn't with state constitutions but with the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the states any authority at all.
By pretty broad consensus, the 10th Amendment, which reserves non-delegated governmental powers to the states, has been interpreted with increasing narrowness almost since the beginning of the republic. Advocates might be surprised by the claim that state governments have too much leeway. But the biggest obstacle to the "genuinely national government" Surowiecki wants is right there in the Bill of Rights.
If the problem is that state governments can't run up spending the way the Federal government does, however, you need to fix another part of the Constitution: Article 1, Section 10. The difference between Federal and state spending isn't ideological but structural: Washington D.C. can create its own money; Topeka can't. If you want states to spend as drunkenly as the Federal government, just give them the power to coin money and emit bills of credit.
|8.1.09 @ 6:50PM|#
%$%%%*&%&*%%$#%$%$@!!!!!!!
Blood Boiling!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
i'm gonna go count to a million and see if i can calm down...
|8.1.09 @ 7:47PM|#
So a bad economy is enough for this asshole to suggest editing the fucking Constitution? What about a real crisis, would he just suggest ignoring it?
|8.1.09 @ 8:01PM|#
Fahk! I'm keeping my eyes peeled for the first state to sack up and secede already!
Gilbert Martin|8.1.09 @ 8:31PM|#
"Nevertheless I'll accept for the sake of argument the Keynesian
assumption that countercyclical spending actually strengthens the
economy"
I won't - since not a one of the believers in it has ever been able
to prove that it accomplished anything worth so much as once cent
in value anywhere at any time in history.
squarooticus|8.1.09 @ 8:39PM|#
If you want states to spend as drunkenly as the Federal government, just give them the power to coin money and emit bills of credit.
Didn't CA do just that by issuing its recent IOU's?
|8.1.09 @ 9:56PM|#
The Road to Serfdom. Central planning at the expense of local authority. Yea, that's the answer, just like Lenin, Hitler and Mao did. They fixed things real nice. How about lifting the government monopoly on money issuance as Hayek called for?
hmm|8.1.09 @ 10:37PM|#
I'd welcome such an attempt. The backlash would be immense and
we need a good backlash.
The Keynesian argument always boils down to more laws and more
control of the masses by the few.
Even more important, federalism is getting in the way of the creation of a "smart" American power grid.
I love this idea. This isn't just begging to be abused.
The problem is that the places where most of that wind power can be generated tend to be a long way from the places where most of that power would be consumed
We want to put a shit ton of windmills and solar shit on you rural
tards properties.
As a result, a disproportionate amount of the money will be spent in rural areas (which exert disproportionate influence on state governments), leaving cities-which happen to have most of the people and most of the traffic-shortchanged.
But we would rather compensate those in cities with with nice roads
and infrastructure. Of course, this argument is a fallacy since a
large portion of commerce is done OTR which involves all those
dirty rural bastards and their greediness. I guess that fresh
organic lettuce just magically fucking appears on in his local
Whole Foods.
I'm amazed at how often writers today manage to talk out both sides
of their ass and contradict themselves in such short spans.
h-dawg|8.1.09 @ 10:43PM|#
Yes, the problem is definitely that New York and California have not spent enough money.
|8.1.09 @ 11:14PM|#
"What about a real crisis, would he just suggest ignoring
it?"
Never let a crisis go to waste, I think that's the game plan on
that.
|8.2.09 @ 12:28AM|#
yeah article I section 10, which I firmly believe should have
been put in article IV (what was TJ thinking) also says that states
should not accept anything but gold and silver as legal tender. We
aren't following that.
You would expect that with such a system, states would ACCRUE money
from the previous year's taxation and then ONLY spend that money.
Debates in state legislatures would then only be about allocation,
and legislators would have to PLAN ahead and tax higher if they
want to have funds for their pet projects. That would be a
responsible thing to do, But that's not how it works, is it?
|8.2.09 @ 12:33AM|#
This is another (rather extreme) variation of the standard left/liberal line: when the economy is bad, it shows that governments need to spend more money. And of course when the economy is good, it shows that there's a lot of extra money that governments should be spending.
John-David|8.2.09 @ 12:56AM|#
Re: Article 1, Section 10,
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money;
emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver
Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts
Two thoughts:
Can states pay their bills in Federal Reserve Notes under this
section? Also, how about during the boom times, the states put some
of that extra spending into gold, so when the bad times hit, the
can use the higher priced gold to maintain their profligate
ways?
|8.2.09 @ 2:27AM|#
also says that states should not accept anything but gold
and silver as legal tender
No, it doesn't set any restrictions on what states can
accept, it sets a restriction on what states can
compel others to accept.
We can all trade kilowatt-hours or grass clippings if we want, but
legal tender laws force us (unconstitutionally) to accept federal
reserve notes as if they were money.
-jcr
|8.2.09 @ 2:38AM|#
Keynesians can always argue that things would have been
worse if the government had done nothing
Just like the bible thumpers can claim that if your momma dies, you
just didn't pray enough.
-jcr
Art-P.O.G.|8.2.09 @ 3:56AM|#
Shorter Surowiecki: "What could possibly go wrong?"
Also,
Well said PapayaSF.
|8.2.09 @ 4:20AM|#
Washington D.C. can create its own money
Well actually, no, it can't. Washington must use "gold and silver
Coin" as money, since the "States cannot make any Thing but gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", and if Washington
wants to conduct business with "the States", it must pay them, and
accept payment from them, with "gold and silver Coin".
The power to "Coin money" granted to Congress is just that: To
define and make "Coin", not "bills of credit (paper money)".
But we long ago quit using the Constitution, so this debate is
beside the point.
squarooticus|8.2.09 @ 9:21AM|#
But we long ago quit using the Constitution, so this debate is beside the point.
Well said. The degree of nitpicking around here about the wording
of the constitution viz-a-viz government action is as tone-deaf as
cardinals debating the number of angels that can dance on the head
of a pin.
robc|8.2.09 @ 11:07AM|#
what was TJ thinking
"Why am I screwing hot parisian chicks while James Madison and
James Wilson will get all the credit for writing the
Constitution?"
So, he ends up with the chicks and the writing credit?
Hugh Akston|8.2.09 @ 11:26AM|#
If you want states to spend as drunkenly as the Federal
government, just give them the power to coin money and emit bills
of credit.
Also: give them the power to raise their own independent state
militias (it's right there in the 2nd amendment), then the real fun
will begin.
|8.2.09 @ 12:11PM|#
What a shocker; some liberal "thinker" wants to concentrate
limitless power in the hands of a select anointed group of The
Right People Politicians.
Because actual human beings are stupid and unpredictable, and they
don't even know what's good for them.
|8.2.09 @ 12:32PM|#
"Federalism," writes The New Yorker's Financial Page
columnist James Surowiecki, "often described as one of the great
strengths of the American system..."
I have decided that anyone who examines the world around them and
sees everything in terms of "systems" is a threat to me. They're
certainly a threat to my liberty.
This me be unfair of me, even naive. But I've realized that people
who intuitively frame human activities as "systems" are not working
from the same essential premises I am. They don't see free
individuals who happen to be interacting; they see groups,
collections, phenomena. And once you've defined a "system," of
course, it's just a matter of properly organizing and manipulating
it to achieve a desired outcome.
There is no health care "system." There is no market "system."
There is only what somebody else has decided to arbitrarily size
up, name, then regulate.
|8.2.09 @ 12:50PM|#
But Surowiecki's critique of state autonomy goes beyond balanced budgets to include discretionary spending (which he believes is too charitable to rural areas)
States are too generous to rural areas?
Fucking "STATES" are too generous to rural areas?
I guess in James Surowiecki's world agricultural subsidies, Alaska,
and the TVA don't exist. The USPS must be charging more for mail
delivery to Bumfuck, Montana than NYC as well.
hmm|8.2.09 @ 12:59PM|#
I wonder if he would feel the same way if GWB was running the
show. That has become the opening premise of my bunnyhugging
friends BBQ fawning over Obama. No one seems to be for all the
government intervention and control if GWB was in charge, yet they
love the idea with Obama. No one seems to realize he is in office
for at best 8 years and the next guy just might abuse the shit out
of a consolidation of power. Fucking lemmings.
In other news I have two friends that traded in a early 90s SUV and
a spare truck and purchased a newer truck and a new 3 series for
the wife. Who thinks cash for clunkers wasn't for the white middle
class that got Obama into office? The truck was stripped of almost
everything. 2X8 bumpers, single ford escort seat, no bed, no hood,
good fender removed and so on. He plans to sell the rest on Craig's
list to cover some of the cost of the new car. Damn rednecks and
their wily ways.
hmm|8.2.09 @ 1:10PM|#
It could be worse.
Maybe we can use CCTV to find these illegal aliens. I'm sure
someone on the hill can come up with a great idea.
smartass sob|8.2.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Yonemoto | August 2, 2009, 12:28am | #
yeah article I section 10, which I firmly believe should have been put in article IV (what was TJ thinking) also says that states should not accept anything but gold and silver as legal tender.
-------------------------------
what was TJ thinking
"Why am I screwing hot parisian chicks while James Madison and James Wilson will get all the credit for writing the Constitution?"
So, he ends up with the chicks and the writing credit?
If I remember history correctly, Thomas Jefferson did not write the
Constitution. He was not even present at that gathering of
delegates assembled for the stated purpose of revising the Articles
of Confederation; he was away in Europe at the time. He probably
was unaware of the adoption (in secrecy) of a new form of
government presented almost as a fait accompli. I don't know why he
gets credit for it other than the Bill of Rights, which was added
later, was based on the Virginia Constitution. He did have
a bit of a hand in writing that. ;-)
silly rabbit|8.2.09 @ 2:36PM|#
I have two friends that traded in a early 90s SUV and a
spare truck and purchased a newer truck and a new 3 series for the
wife.
Kinda makes sense that their shared wife would qualify as a
clunker, don't it?
|8.2.09 @ 2:46PM|#
So a bad economy is enough for this asshole to suggest
editing the fucking Constitution?
It was enough of a pretext for FDR to ignore it, and we know that
he went on to imprison US citizens for their race.
-jcr
hmm|8.2.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Kinda makes sense that their shared wife would qualify as a
clunker, don't it?
Around here we are just glad she is human and not a sheep.
|8.2.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Ceding our autonomy, giving up liberties, and removing the
shackles on government power will do nothing to improve the
economy. In fact, it'd do the reverse.
Federalism and other checks on federal power were designed
to make government less efficient. Checks and balances and limited
government are the core values of our political system
and, more particularly, of the Constitution. Hasn't history shown
us an adequate number of examples of what horrors can come from
unchecked power? Need we become another lesson of what not to do
for posterity?
|8.2.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Where on the continuum from school boards to the Fed does the iron fist of tyranny slam down? Is fascist oppression a function of the size of a government? Because I can name a lot of local laws that have more of an oppressive effect on individual lives than anything the federal government comes up with.
|8.2.09 @ 4:29PM|#
"We can all trade kilowatt-hours or grass clippings if we
want"
i like this plan! haha!
Pro Liberate - excellent point!
William|8.2.09 @ 4:52PM|#
"Keynesians can always argue that things would have been worse
if the government had done nothing."
Right-wing libertarians can always argue that things would be
better if the market were completely free. If you're a brain-dead
right-wing libertairan true believer, you not only buy the
argument, you make it the center-piece dogma of your
market-fundamentlist religion.
robc|8.2.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Right-wing libertarians can always argue that things would
be better if the market were completely free.
Not the moral libertarians. We dont give a fuck about "better".
robc|8.2.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Tony,
I can name a lot of local laws that have more of an oppressive
effect on individual lives than anything the federal government
comes up with.
Do you know where your mayor lives? Yeah, me too (both of them).
Can you shoot him dead if the need ever arises? Yep, me too.
Can say the same for the President. Well, I know where he lives,
but he is well protected.
The ability to kill the fuckers puts a limit on their
tyranny.
Also, one of the advantages of federalism is the ability to dodge
tyranny by moving. If my city gets too bad or raises taxes too
high, I can move about 2 miles and be outside their control. It it
any surprise that the suburban cities around Detroit are doing
better than Detroit?
Leaving the country is much harder than leaving
city/county/state.
|8.2.09 @ 5:05PM|#
"Right-wing libertarians can always argue that things would
be better if the market were completely free."
Of course they can, and they will. Because here's what you and many
others don't get: We value freedom as an end unto itself. So, yeah,
it's tautological: People who value freedom above all else will
think being "completely free" is "better."
There are utiliarian arguments to be made on behalf of freedom, but
for libertarians, they ultimately are superfluous. Freedom is not
the means to some end; it is the end.
Until you grasp this basic context, you will continue to
misunderstand libertarian arguments while continuing to make
irrelevant ones of your own.
robc|8.2.09 @ 5:07PM|#
CANT say the same for the president.
Thats a big typo.
TYPO for any snoops listening. TYPO.
robc|8.2.09 @ 5:08PM|#
Tom,
I almost followed up with basically your response, that the measure
is freedom. I dont go with my normal response that is even
shorter:
Fuck Utilitarianism.
William|8.2.09 @ 5:10PM|#
In Libertopia, the rich and poor are equally free to sleep under a bridge.
|8.2.09 @ 5:26PM|#
If you're a brain-dead right-wing libertairan true believer,
you not only buy the argument, you make it the center-piece dogma
of your market-fundamentlist religion.
So, if I say, "Crony capitalism is bad," that makes me a
brain-dead right-wing libertairan true believer?
|8.2.09 @ 5:40PM|#
Is fascist oppression a function of the size of a
government?
No. It's obviously a function of global capitalism raping the
planet and enslaving the workers. All right-thinking people know
that.
|8.2.09 @ 5:51PM|#
"In Libertopia, the rich and poor are equally free to sleep
under a bridge."
You don't get to make a claim on me just because you and I each
happen to exist.
Do you understand that? You do not have a claim to my life, no
matter how frightened you are by bridges.
|8.2.09 @ 6:00PM|#
One of the site employees mentioned the other day that william is edward. Ignore accordingly.
William|8.2.09 @ 6:34PM|#
"One of the site employees mentioned the other day that william
is edward. Ignore accordingly."
Right, and ensure that this post has no chance of making it on the
top five for the week. Geez, this isn't Daily Kos, you know.
smartass sob|8.2.09 @ 6:43PM|#
@robc
smartass sob,
Woosh.
That was my point, going way over your head.
Well no, not completely over my head. I got that you knew Jefferson
didn't write the Constitution, but I could see that Yonemoto
obviously didn't. And I kept reading your "hot parisian chicks" as
"hot partisan chicks" (in fact, I did so at least three
times.) So I was trying to elucidate the matter. Perhaps I should
get my eyes checked...or stop spending so much time reading. My
bad.
William|8.2.09 @ 6:45PM|#
"So, if I say, 'Crony capitalism is bad,' that makes me a
brain-dead right-wing libertairan true believer?"
No, it makes you a spouter of banalities. Who thinks crony
capitalism is good? Idiot.
smartass sob|8.2.09 @ 6:50PM|#
No. It's obviously a function of global capitalism raping
the planet and enslaving the workers. All right-thinking people
know that.
I thought it was left-thinking people who knew that.
;-)
MNG|8.2.09 @ 7:01PM|#
robc remark about being able to vote with your feet sounds like
the strongest defense of leaving things at state or local levels.
Additionally, to the extents states can check the national
government from bringing its potentially great powers to bear this
can be a good thing as well as a bad thing (it might prevent quick,
efficient action in stimulating the national economy, but it also
prevents the same if the government decides to put certain groups
in concetration camps).
One drawback to federalism is that various local and state
consensuses usually tend to come in more extreme varieties than
national consensuses, so if you are out of step with that the level
of oppression tends to be worse under the local/state government
than it would be under the national government.
MNG|8.2.09 @ 7:04PM|#
""In Libertopia, the rich and poor are equally free to sleep
under a bridge.""
That's not true, in Libertopia all the bridges are privately owned
and the state simply exists to arrest the poor when they sleep
under some rich guys bridge.
Of course the police can't get to the bridge because of the
Byzantine network of privately owned roads and they are all sick
due to eating food made and sold under caveat emptor, but what can
you do? If they could get to that bridge, then let the
"non-aggression" begin!
William/Edweirdo/Leftitty|8.2.09 @ 7:16PM|#
Libertarainism will be defeated again by brave Captain Kim Jong Un! He shall not allow evul market fundamentalists! He will lead all us believers to true security! Hail the progress of the people!!
Sean Scallon|8.2.09 @ 7:18PM|#
I know what we can do! Let's give the states printing presses and mints!
William|8.2.09 @ 7:24PM|#
Only market economies with varying levels of sate involvment have been sucessful in creating and sustaining propsperity. Completely state-run economomies have been total failures, but completely free markets have never existed. I genuinely wonder what gives right-wing libertarians such faith that completely--or nearly completely--free markets will work. Is it like faith in Jesus and the Second Coming?
robc|8.2.09 @ 7:48PM|#
robc remark about being able to vote with your feet sounds
like the strongest defense of leaving things at state or local
levels.
Stronger than my point about mayors generally being virtually
defenseless?
Huh, I thought "vote with your feet" was at best #2.
|8.2.09 @ 8:23PM|#
"I genuinely wonder what gives right-wing libertarians such
faith that completely--or nearly completely--free markets will
work."
I say I love maple wood. You respond by asking why I "have faith
that maple will work." I say, "What do you mean by 'work'?" Indeed,
I say, "What the hell are you going on about now?"
I mean, how many different ways do you have to be told that your
entire framing is wrong? You're starting from the default of
"What's the best way to design society?" We are starting from the
default of "Individuals are sovereign and should be free."
There are valid ways to challenge libertarians about their
premises. There are valid ways to challenge them about the
consequences of those premises. But you're not doing it.
robc|8.2.09 @ 8:42PM|#
William,
Prove that the premises lead to contradictions using only
libertarian premises and none of your own.
Then be prepared to face the Gödel monster. :)
Spartacus|8.2.09 @ 8:46PM|#
I think one other thing that Surowiecki ignores is that some states have these things called "rainy day funds" that they build up by various mechanisms in good economic times, and tap into them to balance budgets in recessions. Is this really pro-cyclical behavior? It seems to me that building reserves in good times and using them to balance budgets in bad times is not too far from what Keynes actually advocated.
William|8.2.09 @ 8:59PM|#
I think Tom is a true believer who fears straying to far from the catechism.
|8.2.09 @ 9:33PM|#
"I think Tom is a true believer who fears straying to far
from the catechism."
No, the only thing that Tom "believes" is that assholes like you
have no claim to his life.
Actually, he also believes that he has no claim to yours.
Also, Tom thinks you don't know how to argue, and he understands
why the previous poster advised ignoring you.
|8.2.09 @ 10:13PM|#
One drawback to federalism is that various local and state
consensuses usually tend to come in more extreme varieties than
national consensuses, so if you are out of step with that the level
of oppression tends to be worse under the local/state government
than it would be under the national government.
How about my vote counts more at the local level, it's easier for
me to move to a new city or state than a new country, and having
multiple different local policies allows society to experiment with
multiple approaches.
I've never understood why progressive think centralized government
and one-size-fits-all legislation from the federal level is an
positive thing. The only rational explanation is that they want to
expose a uniform ideological dogma on everyone, instead of letting
different places be different.
Hugh Akston|8.2.09 @ 10:21PM|#
One of the site employees mentioned the other day that
william is edward. Ignore accordingly.
He's also Lefiti, for people who might recognize one iteration of
that bag of corn chip-shit and not the other.
|8.2.09 @ 10:41PM|#
Who thinks crony capitalism is good?
Evidently, every asshole in the congress who voted for TARP and tbe
porkulus bill.
-jcr
tarran|8.2.09 @ 11:32PM|#
Tom,
I wouldn't waste too much time on William/Edward/Leftiti/Concerned
Observer.
He shows up here every few months, shouts the same things over and
over again - weird Judaic catechisms at Jacob Sullum, a parody of
the Catholic catechism at everyone else.
When he used the handle edward, he actually used to debate people.
Of course, they'd pwn him mercilessly since he is pretty ignorant
of economics and demonstrates a knowledge of history that a person
attending one of New York City's more average government schools
might come out with. Then he would scream bloody murder and
announce he was quitting the board for good. Since he usually would
start posting again after 15 minutes, people stopped taking him
seriously. So he changed his handle, which worked for a few weeks
until people figured it out and people started mocking him
again.
He got tired of losing debates, so he now just shrieks market
fundamentalist over and over again as if the words are an
incantation that will protect him from evil.
The fact that markets merely describe the peaceful interaction of
people, whereas governmental economic interventions are really
organizations threatening people who take part in these
transactions sails right over his head, and so he gets very
confused when people challenge him in his assumption that pointing
guns at people who are doing nothing wrong is the way to make
society better.
He also threatened to sue Urkobold, which puts him in a very
exclusive group. Only two people have threatened to sue Urkobold:
Edward/William/CO/Leftiti and LoneWacko aka Chris Kelly. I'll let
you draw your own conclusions as to what that says about his
sanity/life-skills. ;)
middleoboe|8.2.09 @ 11:33PM|#
Hail markets,
For you actually work,
Unlike rent seeking cronies,
Or free loading jerks.
Academic phonies,
Holding you in derision
Believe the political means,
Should guide your decisions.
And such is that,
The bureaucrats pontificate
How many beans do we grow this year?
Whoops, no actual means to calculate.
A dead end calculus,
Where ever that may lead
Not growth nor production
Except for a pernicious weed.
Hail markets,
Though it should be said,
So much malevolent esoterica
For a means to buy bread.
Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 12:58AM|#
Well done, tarran. That should be the entry for Lefiti on "a
wiki called Reason". That, and I'd like to add, "Edward loves him
some strawmen".
Also, lol, verry funny, MNG.
Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 1:00AM|#
Huh...probably should've added a third "r" so that didn't look like a typo.
johnny john john|8.3.09 @ 5:23AM|#
The hardcore libertarianism reminds me a lot of communism. Both of them are extremes of the political spectrum. Both of them work really well in theory. Neither of them have been successfully implemented in the world.
Art-P.O.G.|8.3.09 @ 5:56AM|#
The hardcore libertarianism reminds me a lot of communism.
Without the ethical problems but possibly with unseen logistical problems. They're really not much alike at all.
|8.3.09 @ 7:24AM|#
"Neither of them have been successfully implemented in the
world."
Yeah, because nobody has tried to implement hardcore
libertarianism. People have tried to implement communism and we
know why it doesn't work - because people just aren't built that
way.
robc|8.3.09 @ 7:50AM|#
Whenever two people interact without concern over government
regulation, libertarianism is successfully practiced.
See Tom's 12:32 post about systems.
|8.3.09 @ 8:26AM|#
Reaction 1) So Surowiecki doesn't believe in the Wisdom of
Crowds as applied to the states and would rather see the wisdom of
the (federal) expert prevail?
Reaction 2) I think we should applaud Surowiecki for his academic
integrity. It's not often that you see an author, without
prompting, repudiate the thesis that made him famous.
|8.3.09 @ 8:28AM|#
RE Hazel @ 10:31 PM Sunday:
I've never understood why progressive think centralized
government and one-size-fits-all legislation from the federal level
is an positive thing. The only rational explanation is that they
want to expose a uniform ideological dogma on everyone, instead of
letting different places be different.
Yeah, it's almost as if they don't actually believe in diversity or
multiculturalism beyond using them as a cudgel to beat their
opponents with.
|8.3.09 @ 9:55AM|#
MNG,
About that comment about local and state-level tyranny: Yes, that's
a problem, and I don't mind federalism working both ways to some
extent to check that kind of abuse of power, too. Which is one of
the reasons the 14th Amendment and incorporation of (some of) the
Bill of Rights isn't entirely a bad idea.
However, the greater danger does come from the federal government,
due to its size, wealth, and military, so the primary purpose of
federalism is to check the central government. And, of course, it
should be noted that the Framers didn't view the states as needing
checks from that direction except in the ways set out in the
Constitution.
|8.3.09 @ 10:24AM|#
The ability to kill the fuckers puts a limit on their tyranny.
And who appointed you assessor of tyranny and holder of the sacred
gun of justice? Any society in which you are "free" to kill anyone
is no society at all, in my opinion. What a ludicrous argument.
Does this mean state governments are more oppressive than city
governments, federal governments more oppressive still, and the UN
the most oppressive of all? Or does oppression have to do
specifically with what a government is doing to you? If my state
bans my preferred form of sex until the supreme court comes along
and declares that law unconstitutional, which is my oppressor and
which is the guarantor of my freedom? Surely tyranny must be about
specifics and not merely the scope of the particular
government.
|8.3.09 @ 10:45AM|#
The Wisdom of Crowds
I can't see that phrase without thinking of the Demotivators slogan
"None of us is as stupid as all of us."
|8.3.09 @ 10:46AM|#
Of course they can, and they will. Because here's what you and many others don't get: We value freedom as an end unto itself. So, yeah, it's tautological: People who value freedom above all else will think being "completely free" is "better."
There are utiliarian arguments to be made on behalf of freedom, but for libertarians, they ultimately are superfluous. Freedom is not the means to some end; it is the end.
Until you grasp this basic context, you will continue to misunderstand libertarian arguments while continuing to make irrelevant ones of your own.
Liberals would argue they value freedom just as much, but they
define freedom differently, and more realistically in my opinion.
If freedom is the end, what are the means? A world in which we are
"free" of economic regulation is one in which we are slaves to
destructive market cycles, for example, just as being "free" of
taxation to provide basic services leaves most of us slaves to the
whims of nature. Government is supposed to be about defending
freedom. You agree with this with respect to the right to own
property. But there are other rights civilization can and should
offer if it's to be worth anything.
|8.3.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Liberals would argue they value freedom just as much, but
they define freedom differently, and more realistically in my
opinion. If freedom is the end, what are the means?
Freedom is the means and the end. If "freedom" is some goal on the
horizon, and the means to it is state control, guess what you
have?
That's right. Not freedom.
|8.3.09 @ 11:32AM|#
But there are other rights civilization can and should offer
if it's to be worth anything.
Including, first and foremost, the right to be left alone by the
state.
|8.3.09 @ 11:39AM|#
I live in a state with a pretty good fiscal record (Utah.) We've also lagged behind the country in unemployment. Seems these two are connected.
robc|8.3.09 @ 11:55AM|#
But there are other rights civilization can and should offer if
it's to be worth anything.
I used to think leftists confused civilization/society and
government by accident. Now Im pretty sure it is on purpose.
|8.3.09 @ 12:14PM|#
robc,
If government is legitimate then it is established by the will of
people living within a civilization. I don't understand why you
guys always assume government to be more of an unnecessary evil
than a necessary component of civilization.
Geotpf|8.3.09 @ 12:17PM|#
There is a simple solution-have the Federal government give the
states lots of money, perferably with few restrictions as to what
it is for. Much more than the stimulus did-I'm talking
billions.
Of course, I'm a Keynesian, so...
|8.3.09 @ 2:07PM|#
If government is legitimate then it is established by the
will of people living within a civilization.
That's a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for "legitimacy."
See, e.g., Saddam's Iraq and Castro's Cuba.
I don't understand why you guys always assume government to be
more of an unnecessary evil than a necessary component of
civilization.
Perhap's its the State's historic role as the butcher of hundreds
of millions and despoiler of the rest?
|8.3.09 @ 3:11PM|#
A world in which we are "free" of economic regulation is one
in which we are slaves to destructive market cycles, for example,
just as being "free" of taxation to provide basic services leaves
most of us slaves to the whims of nature.
A world in which we are "free" of forced marriages is one where we
are enslaved to our base sexual instincts. Women who are "free" to
work and do what they want with their bodies leave their children
enslaved to abortion and nannies.
See, everyone can play this game.
|8.3.09 @ 3:20PM|#
But there are other rights civilization can and should offer
if it's to be worth anything.
Positive rights inherently conflict with negative rights. You can't
have a right to health care, without having a right to force
someone else to provide it. Which implies that other people do NOT
have a negative right NOT to provide health care to you. They can
be forced.
Do you get it? A system that involves only negative rights is
internally consistent and free of conflict. A system that involves
positive rights is inherently inconsistent and will forever remain
a battle for dominance - as different political factions seek to
assert "rights" that require them to FORCE others to fulfill them.
It is a recipe for perpetual social conflict. The state is always
necessary for whoever is on top to force compliance and extract
earnings from the losers to fulfill the "rights" of the
winners.
|8.3.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Hazel,
So-called negative rights don't mean anything if people do not
possess the living conditions necessary to enjoy those rights.
That's why civilization has advanced to include so-called positive
rights as guarantors of the more basic rights. If I don't have food
or shelter am I really all that concerned with my right to own
property, or am I more concerned with food and shelter, even to the
extent that I will probably interfere with someone else's negative
rights to obtain them? Do you guys not value the idea of social
contract at all?
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