The Rainbow Connection

Something I stumbled across that I thought I should share -- President Bush, speaking at a March 9 joint press conference with Romanian President Traian Basescu:

President Bush. […] I'll never forget my trip to Bucharest--it was the rainbow speech. [Laughter] It was a mystical experience for me. It was one of the most amazing moments of my Presidency, to be speaking in the square, the very square where Ceausescu gave his last speech. And the rainbow that I saw in the midst of the rainstorm ended right behind the balcony, from my point of view. It's a clear signal that, as far as I was concerned, that freedom is powerful and----

President Basescu. It meant the signal of destiny, Mr. President.

President Bush. Well, we'll see.

Comments

[tom]

?

[thoreau]

It was one of the most amazing moments of my Presidency, to be speaking in the square, the very square where Ceausescu gave his last speech.

If anybody else said that it was amazing for him to speak in the same place where Ceausescu spoke his last words, the Secret Service would be all over it.

[Some Green Frog]

The lovers, the dreamers, and he?

[Ruthless]

Is Jesse Jackson over there yet?

Who pays that man's travel expenses?
Drug Lords?
Or just THE Lord?

[joe]

I actually get embarrassed for him sometimes, when he's speaking in public. Usually I just laugh at him, but on occasions like this, there's an almost melancholy edge to his ignorance.

It's like one of those commercials where the guy calls up the call center to find out how funny his situation is, say, when the cop questioning him has ink on his face.

[Sandy]

So is it the sign that his destiny is to end his homophobia by coming out of the closet, finally? I think he made a step in that direction with the Saudi prince.

[Ruthless]

Sandy,
We can't have Dubya coming out of the closet.
We'd have one libertarian, Laura, left behind.

??
Behind?

[CAT_Violations]

Ruthless-

Please support your contention that Laura is a libertarian.

[Toxic]

Oh come on. I guess it's kind of ambiguous, but I think he meant: wow, look how I, leader of the free world (whatever you think of that, he thinks it) am speaking where once a communist tyrant ruled, and I could never go. Freedom is on the march. Implying that he wants to be like Ceausescu is simply cheap.

[Matt Welch]

Toxic -- I was more keyed into the whole "mystical experience," "clear signal" vibe.

[George W. Bush]

It was a mystical experience for me. It was one of the most amazing moments

And the rainbow that I saw... It's a clear signal

What can I say? They grow some damn good weed in Romania!

[Todd Fletcher]

"I actually get embarrassed for him sometimes, when he's speaking in public. Usually I just laugh at him, but on occasions like this, there's an almost melancholy edge to his ignorance."

I'd say the same thing about you, joe.

[Ruthless]

CAT Violations,
I assumed everyone knew my schtick by now:
librarian and libertarian are interchangeable.
Thanks for a careful reading, anyhoody.

[Eric II]

What can I say? They grow some damn good weed in Romania!

Imposter. The real Bush would've called the place Romanania, or perhaps Moldova.

[Jon H]

" that freedom is powerful and..."

...and GAY. I think he was going to say freedom is powerful and GAY.

You know anti-gay conservatives get pissed off about all the rainbow crap.

[independent worm]

Well, we'll see.

Ya gotta hand it to him, the man can ad-lib.

[Dylan]

It's like one of those commercials where the guy calls up the call center to find out how funny his situation is, say, when the cop questioning him has ink on his face.

I have no idea what this means.

[Dave]

How about Hit and Run just posts the word "Bush" once a day and then we can get the same intelligent commentary as above. I didn't get the point of that post at all, and I doubt it really even mattered to most of the posters here what the intention was, so let's just say "Bush" once a day, open up a discussion thread, and then everybody can get whatever they want off their chest.

[Larry Flynt]

Sounds good to me, Dave. I like to think about bush every day.

[Eric the .5b]

Bush is a bit rambly (but, er, Kerry would be worse), but he comes off as rather more mentally-integrated in that odd exchange.

[Eric the .5b]

Oof. Another one:

Is this evidence of Intelligent Secret Design?

[Eric the .5b]

Oops, wrong thread...

[Ken Layne]

What do you expect from an occultist nut? Rainbows and beheadings! The baphomet is on the March!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Matt, total bullshit post on your part. Take a vacation.

[jf]

Douglas Fletcher hits the nail on the head.

[wellfellow]

Can you believe the ignorance?!?! The guy actually appreciated a rainbow! What an idiot. I'm glad we're so cynical.

And Dylan, I'm with you. What the crap did that mean?

[joe]

I guess they only have those ads locally - I thought they were national. Nevermind.

I just Bush isn't so "mentally integrated" that Barney starts telling him to kill people.

[wellfellow]

-offtopic-

Joe, what's that an ad for? I've lived in Boston for awhile and I don't recall seeing it. Although, I was one of those people everyone thought was pretentious because I didn't watch tv, when in reality I couldn't afford cable so I had a tv with one channel and a broken antennae...

[crimethink]

The rainbow is also the sign of God's covenant with Noah, not that I think Bush would have been quick-thinking enough to mention it...

[Number 6]

Joe-They have those ads here as well.(Kansas City) As I remember, they're for one of the cable networks. TBS, maybe?

[joe]

Might be a cable network - it's one of those very modern ads that's so good on its own that you forget what the ad is for.

Yeah, I think the tag line has something to do with "We know comedy."

[gaius marius]

"mystical experience"

to take a step away from bush=stupid for a moment:

this is perfectly consistent with the man's outlook. he is not a realist; he is an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool idealist. he doesn't believe in material considerations and prudence (to borrow a word from a relative of his); he believes in destiny and the force of the will, be it of persons or nations. he doesn't believe in body counts; he believes in struggling to achieve noble ends. he regularly diminishes costs and logistics to emphasize inner morality and spirituality.

if this were a comment in isolation, it could be said not to mean anything at all. but mr welch knows what many people know -- that this comment is part of a pattern that defines the man's outlook. he is not an empiricist, and flights of fancy into mystical destinies are fundamental to how he sees the world.

[crimethink]

Wow. A gaius post without any mention of the words "individual", "social", or "community".

Impostor. 😉

[DavePotts]

I think Gaius just crystallized for me the very reason I have such a problem with W. I've never been able to give it such concise language as Mr. Marius, but it's got much less to do with what side of the fence he falls on regarding any given issue, and much more to do with where he lies on the realism/idealism scale. Fervent idealism of any sort is a frightening quality to have in a leader. Thanks, G.

[wellfellow]

Crimethink,

No, it's him, he just used "techne" again in another post. 😉

[Isaac Bartram]

I concur with DavePotts that gaius marius has nailed it (with uncharacteristic brevity). 🙂

I was going to remark in response to gaius marius that, unfortunately, Bush enthusiasts would probably consider gaius' comment complimentary. What I find frightening, they find admirable.

[gaius marius]

hey -- a man has to have a style! 🙂

[thoreau]

gaius-

For once, I completely agree with you.

Isaac-

I agree: To Bush's fans, his idealism isn't a bug, it's a feature.

And normally I'd kind of agree with that: It's good to have some idealism. But if all you have is ideals and you refuse to balance those ideals with consequences, well, that's a problem.

So here's my question: Bush is all ideals and no practicality, and he wins 51%. The LP is all ideals and no practicality, and they get 0.51% (if that). WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!

[gaius marius]

For once, I completely agree with you.

lol -- now if i could only, mr thoreau, get you to accept that this introverson, away from the empirical objective and into the spiritual self, has been the dominant trend of western society since 1750 -- and that the unresolved advance of individual idealism drives our ongoing social decay -- we'd be getting somewhere. 🙂

[gaius marius]

fwiw, mr thoreau, i think that 50.49% difference comes in the single word consequences. the lp preaches individual culpability. no decadent self-centered idealist wants to hear that.

[thoreau]

gaius-

The one thing you'll never get me to accept is the notion that society has become more introspective and spiritual since 1750!

[thoreau]

the lp preaches individual culpability. no decadent self-centered idealist wants to hear that.

We just cross-posted. Are you admitting that libertarians are big on personal responsibility?

See, we don't just want to do what we want and never face consequences. Our whole notion is that if we aren't hurting anybody else we should be able to do what we want and accept any consequences, rather than foisting them on somebody else.

Liberty without personal responsibility is indeed a gastly thing, mr. gaius marius. But liberty with personal responsibility is a very respectable notion, and I believe there's a certain amount of tradition in support of that notion.

[Sandy]

Bush is all ideals and no practicality, and he wins 51%. The LP is all ideals and no practicality, and they get 0.51% (if that). WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's 'cuz the LP doesn't have "ideals" that consist in large part of validating the prejudices of superstitious folk. For example, if only they were to take up the cause of celebrity horoscopes and how it's someone else's fault that women are...big boned, they'd see a big increase in support among Oprah-watchers.

[thoreau]

Sandy-

But the LP blames everything on the government! For instance, the LP could argue that agricultural policy is the reason why people are...big-boned.

[matty]

"Bush is all ideals and no practicality"

This may be true, but he's got some brutally practical men working for him. Some vague memories of European history courses remind me that this is how kingship used to work. While the king's concerns were always represented as being more divine than political (replace the divine right of kings with the divine mission of the United States in born again theology) his ministers took responsibility for the dirty work (Cheney as Richelieu, Rove as Machiavelli) which had the effect of shielding the king and royal authority in general from the people's wrath (before the French Revolution, "Vive Le Roi!" was not an uncommon cry of people engaged in revolt against the government). This is why saying, "Well, Bush is sincere, Bush is honest", when defending the mendacity and criminality of the current administration has proven such an effective strategy. People want to believe that America is good, America is godly and Bush is very good at helping them out.

[independent worm]

he is an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool idealist. he doesn't believe in material considerations and prudence (to borrow a word from a relative of his); he believes in destiny and the force of the will, be it of persons or nations. he doesn't believe in body counts; he believes in struggling to achieve noble ends. he regularly diminishes costs and logistics to emphasize inner morality and spirituality

Bullshit. That man believes in making money for his campaign donors and his business cronies. And that's about it.

He just plain lies about being a Christian to please the voters. He only "became Christian" when he realized he'd never get elected to anything in Texas without it. I've never seen a more blatant fake Christian outside of maybe those tv evangelist millionaires. The chief god in the Bush household is power. And faux religion is the papier mache that covers over it.

The reason he speaks in "idealistic" generalities is simply that the details are beyond him. He's shown time and again that he just doesn't have the acumen to publicly discuss policy with specificity. Generalities are all he's got, so he and his handlers have tried to fashion a makeshift virtue from the shambles of this glaring necessity.

As far as minimizing the "costs and logistics" of things to "emphasize inner morality and spirituality" that's about as close to a flat reiteration of the Bush spin as you can get:

ROVE: Look, just dodge any question about how many American lives are being lost in Iraq; get off the topic of taxpayer expense as quick as you can; stay on message; keep telling them this is about Jesus and freedom and liberty and democracy and mom and Apple Pie!

[gaius marius]

Are you admitting that libertarians are big on personal responsibility?

i think, mr thoreau, that the libertatians have -- misguidedly -- come to the sadly ironic and somewhat delusional belief that the rejection of responsibility constitutes taking responsibility.

to split some important hairs, culpability is a different thing; one who is culpable shoulders the consequences.

responsibility is a social contract (as indicated by its root, 'response'). there is no such thing, empirically speaking, as personal responsibility. it may occur as an imaginary mechanism within the head of a libertarian, but there's no interaction with the outside world on that count. to say, then, that libertarians are idealists to consider themselves 'responsible' is to understate the point. they've taken the fundamental social contract and voided the counterparty.

one can be culpable for one's own actions without being held responsible to or for anyone -- indeed, that's the libertarian ethic. what libertarianism stands stalwartly against is being culpable as a matter of responsibility -- to shoulder consequences that are not the product of one's own choices.

libertarianism is, then, of course, wildly antisocial -- society being that association by which groups agree to share risk and reward together. but there it is.

and that is as inward, as self-centered, as introspective and individualistic as a philosophy can be. i would argue that libertarianism (which was then named anarchism) was seen as evil by civilization as recently as a century ago. now it has a political party. that's a powerful statement on how far we've gone in that direction, imo, mr thoreau.

[gaius marius]

That man believes in making money for his campaign donors and his business cronies.

i think you underestimate the destructive capacity of the man and his kind, mr worm. i would cite sy hersh, who has a very well-informed opinion on these men: "This isn?t mendacity," Hersh said. "It?s what he believes to be the truth, which is what?s scary. He believes he?s doing the right thing."

one can argue that their means are machiavellian -- i entirely agree. ledeen is a machiavelli scholar, after all.

but the ends they are in search of are not machiavelli's. machiavelli desired to revive classical ethics of government as a means of ending the chaos of renaissance city-state politics by imitating the roman empire -- an eminently empirical (and humanist) end.

the neoconservative end isn't empirical at all -- which is why we get wars on concepts, like terrorism or drugs, and not states; and wars without objectives, like taking an oilfield.

you can imply mendacity, if you like -- but i think you do so at your peril. there is a certain amount of methodological overlap; one can seek to encircle russia, for example, toward the end of either preserving material hegemony or fighting one's conception of tyranny. bush is, i think, firmly in the latter camp. indeed, preserving material hegemony is itself an end in the service of that greater moral end, in his mind.

that's a quantum leap from kissingerian realism, and it can justify all kinds of costly and retarding horrors that realism can't.

[Ken Shultz]

"i think, mr thoreau, that the libertatians have -- misguidedly -- come to the sadly ironic and somewhat delusional belief that the rejection of responsibility constitutes taking responsibility."

This may seem an odd response to someone like thoreau who, I understand, volunteers in his spare time. Indeed, I know other libertarians who do volunteer work and give generously.

...Just because libertarians don't believe in government mandated responsibilities doesn't mean that libertarians shirk such responsibilities.

P.S. Though I'll admit I've had trouble talking to libertarians about our responsibilities. ...They seem to assume that social responsibility means government programs, or maybe they think that if the public thinks they have social responsibilites, they'll turn to the government for a solution.

[crimethink]

responsibility is a social contract (as indicated by its root, 'response'). there is no such thing, empirically speaking, as personal responsibility.

On the contrary, personal responsibility -- that is, responsibility to oneself -- is deeply engaged with the outside world, since interaction with it is necessary for even the barest measure of survival. For example, a man shipwrecked alone on an island, who does nothing but sit on the beach and curse his luck can be said to bear responsibility for his own starvation and lack of rescue, despite the fact that he has no connection to any sort of society at that point.

[db]

to shoulder consequences that are not the product of one's own choices.

libertarianism is, then, of course, wildly antisocial -- society being that association by which groups agree to share risk and reward together. but there it is.

You've got to be kidding...one of the basic tenets of libertarianism is that interference in the affairs of others without their express invitation is improper. What better way to promote good social health than to live according to a code that implicity places the sovereignty, privacy, and property of other people on a level with one's own?

As to the sharing of risk in society, why should one be subject to the consequences of poor decisions made by a group of others? Because it's good to be part of a group? Probably the most destructive force in the history of humankind has been cooperation.

The other edge of that sword is that cooperation is possibly the most constructive force in history as well.

[Matt Welch]

Douglas Fletcher -- "Total bullshit" to point out, without further comment, an unusual passage in a presidential press conference? O-k-a-y.... I will, however, take you up on your fine suggestion.

[maestro]

"P.S. Though I'll admit I've had trouble talking to libertarians about our responsibilities. ...They seem to assume that social responsibility means government programs, or maybe they think that if the public thinks they have social responsibilites, they'll turn to the government for a solution."

Mr. Schultz:

Could you give me an example of "social responsibilities"?

It would seem to me that "society" as a concept cannot have a responsibility, similar to how a corporation cannot have a soul. For society to have a responsibility, it must be made up of individual responsibilities of the people in the society.

[Ken Shultz]

"Could you give me an example of "social responsibilities"?

Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, teaching children to read, write, do math, etc., fighting racism, healing the sick, environmental concerns, providing for the handicapped--you get the idea?

Forcing people to address these things by way of government coercion (or any other kind) is wrong, wrong, wrong for a whole list of reasons, but that doesn't mean that Libertarianism is incompatible with addressing these issues. (Libertarianism isn't incompatible with Christianity either.)

...Indeed, the Libertarian solutions to these problems seem the most effective and least morally obnoxious to me.

[wellfellow]

Gaius,

It seems to me that you never make the distinction between what one ought to do and what one should be forced to do. One may be in 100% agreement that social institutions, like churches, volunteer groups, etc, should exist to promote the social responsibility you talk about, however, how does mandating that achieve anything other than creating an arbitrary power structure where some individuals lord over others against their will.

What is the value of good deeds if only done at gunpoint? I would think that it would breed nothing but resentment.

Now, you may argue that said resentment is a product of the hyper-individualist emancipation philosophy I've been bred on, however I would argue that that philosophy evolved out of the need to not be oppressed.

[thoreau]

You know, those who want to can get into philosophical disputes over the responsibilities of society (if any) and the responsibilities of individuals, etc.

Here in the real world, the welfare state devastated American inner cities, and private charities and schools do very good jobs (for the most part) at delivering social services while keeping overhead low.

Philosophy is nice, but data is better.

[wellfellow]

Thoreau,

Perhaps if the data contradicts the philosophy, the philosophy is no good. So then it's not even nice.

[Ken Shultz]

"It seems to me that you never make the distinction between what one ought to do and what one should be forced to do."

Hear, hear!

I often find myself in agreement with G. by mentally making that distinction myself, but I don't recall seeing G. make the distinction specifically.

...But then, having defended him, I've been a little afraid to press.

Still, If I had to guess, while I suspect he's probably not be a big fan of gay marriage, etc., I'd bet that he's not too far off from what most of us think in regards to public policy.

[joe]

"What is the value of good deeds if only done at gunpoint?"

The outcomes. WIC doesn't exist to save taxpayers' souls. It exists so kids from poor families can get enough to eat.

The "forced charity doesn't make the taxpayer virtuous" argument is true, but also irrelevant.

[gaius marius]

against their will.

oop -- touched a nerve. 😉

mr wellfellow, et al, i think that you underestimate man's social capacity by observing the times in which we live. as antithetical as it may be to the libertarian ideology, slaves can and often have loved their chains. is the manifestation of emancipated individual will really the holy of holies? i think the history of civilizations says otherwise -- that in fact our worship of individual emancipation is rather an ephemeral and destructive phase.

I would argue that that philosophy evolved out of the need to not be oppressed.

i would argue this too -- depending on how you might define "need". self-awareness -- first the belief in that desire as a need, then the belief that any limitation is oppression -- increased over the course of the successful development of western society as it has for many others (hellenic, syriac, indic, etc).

that doesn't make the philosophy of the self right... or good... or tenable... or constructive... or sustainable. it makes it this phase of our civilizational development, and that is all. as it happens, in all previous examples cited, the emergence of the cult of the self was shortly followed by chaos, reactionary empire and collapse. that's all i'm saying.

Indeed, I know other libertarians who do volunteer work and give generously.

i don't mean to impinge, mr schultz, upon the morality of any libertarian. i would simply point out that this is not de facto responsibility. it is a choice made by the individual to interact in a way his/her moral view deems "right", along lines and limitations of his/her choosing.

that is a far cry from a mandatory obligation, which is more properly responsibility (such as most people -- but tellingly, a diminishing percentage -- see caring for their own children). indeed, making "the distinction between what one ought to do and what one should be forced to do" is paramount to understanding why society is deteriorating. few libertarians concede on any point that their being forced to do something is in the best interests of either society or themselves -- that is, what one ought to do -- even though it plainly frequently is.

a healthy society is one made up of people who conclude that what they ought to do and what they are forced to do are one and the same -- a belief which is helped immensely a rule of traditional law respected on all sides. of course people are free to act within that framework; but transgression of what is mandated is unthinkable and indeed deeply undesirable. when large numbers become too self-indulgent and arrogant to believe that -- as mr db stated so succinctly, Probably the most destructive force in the history of humankind has been cooperation -- then regardless of the "validity" of their grievances, the society is in deep trouble.

[gaius marius]

"forced charity doesn't make the taxpayer virtuous"

the kantian argument of morality -- that only moral intentions are truly moral. it removed the standard of decency from the empirical world to the inner ideal world, and began this whole flight to the ideal.

[gaius marius]

the welfare state devastated American inner cities

i think you might do well to research the history of five points and hell's kitchen, mr thoreau.

private charities and schools do very good jobs (for the most part) at delivering social services while keeping overhead low.

hull house was hardly feeding chicago's destitute. chicago wasn't much removed from calcutta in those days.

i fear to say, mr thoreau, that you might be revising the economic history of the country to fit your ideas.

[saw-whet]

You're killin' me here, guys.

[Stevo Darkly]

I think libertarians recognize, or ought to, that the government gets in the way of social responsibility. When coercion is used too often to force people to do the right thing -- to deny them even the option of doing otherwise -- it erodes people's own inner sense of social responsibility.

In Our Enemy, the State, Alfred J. Nock described how growing "State power" was eroding and displacing spontaneous, uncoerced "social power." Writing during the reign of FDR, he said:
---------
It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable and gets itself accepted. When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it.

Every positive intervention that the State makes upon industry and commerce has a similar effect. When the State intervenes to fix wages or prices, or to prescribe the conditions of competition, it virtually tells the enterpriser that he is not exercising social power in the right way, and therefore it proposes to confiscate his power and exercise it according to the State's own judgment of what is best. Hence the enterpriser's instinct is to let the State look after the consequences. As a simple illustration of this, a manufacturer of a highly specialized type of textiles was saying to me the other day that he had kept his mill going at a loss for five years because he did not want to turn his workpeople on the street in such hard times, but now that the State had stepped in to tell him how he must run his business, the State might jolly well take the responsibility.
-------------
(Our Enemy, the State is a long essay/short book, and it can be found in its entirety in several places on the WWW.)

[wellfellow]

" healthy society is one made up of people who conclude that what they ought to do and what they are forced to do are one and the same"

But that's just it, Gaius, no one agrees on what we ought to do. What happens, then, is that a few people in power devise laws forcing people to do things contrary to what they may believe they ought to do. Touched a nerve indeed. 🙂 My belief in what I ought to do may be quite different than yours. I'll thank you to let me decide for myself, as I would let you. Perhaps, like Thoreau, I think those mandatory policies are more destructive than harmful. Furthermore, I happen to think that the short term benefits of mandated social responsibility hide the less tangible damage they cause. We could argue that all day, but my point is, what you think we ought to do is your opinion.

[joe]

"When coercion is used too often to force people to do the right thing -- to deny them even the option of doing otherwise -- it erodes people's own inner sense of social responsibility."

That must explain why people were donating just as much to public television and radio in the 1950s as they are today, and why support for segregation and mixed race marriages is completely unchanged from the pre-Civil Rights era.

Because government action only degrades people's moral sensibilities, and never sharpens them.

[wellfellow]

Joe, causation/correlation?

[joe]

wellfellow, causation/correlation? yourself.

Might it be at least worth considering that the period when "the Great Society was destroying inner cities" was also the period when government-induced redlining, blockbusting, and suburbanization was systematically starving those areas of capital for public and private efforts?

Nope, in that case, correlation=causation.

[wellfellow]

Joe, what makes you think I'd disagree with your last comment?

I don't think, though, that your last comment was anything like your 3:09 example. Your last comment talks about cause and effect, the first talks about a less tangible cultural shift that I think is a stretch to imagine caused merely by government force.

[gaius marius]

described how growing "State power" was eroding and displacing spontaneous, uncoerced "social power."

i wouldn't disagree, mr darkly -- but this happened because a lot of people wanted it this way -- individuals sought to emancipate themselves from the obligations of social power. the rise of state power is a paradoxical manifestation of individualism.

no one agrees on what we ought to do

and i agree, mr wellfellow -- the above paradox has split this society, probably permanently, between two camps of freedom-seekers -- one mortally convinced that state power frees them, the other that state power enslaves them.

if no solution is found to build a general consensus, this unresolved question will be part and parcel to the dissolution of the west -- a challenge without a response.

I'll thank you to let me decide for myself, as I would let you

i would, mr wellfellow, but doasyoulikes do not make up a sustainable civilization. perhaps you're content to let civility slip away quietly, but i'm not. it may go, but i'll be loud about it.

[blg]

gaius (09:53 am):

I think that what you said should immortalized in some way. I have to say that I've not ever heard a more succinct and accurate description of the good reverend president. My hat's off to you, good sir!

[thoreau]

joe-

No doubt the welfare state was not the only bad policy harming inner cities.

gaius-

Until I can arm myself with more facts I'm going to temporarily concede the ground on welfare and charity.

On education, for the record, I'm not convinced that abolishing public education overnight will have great effects. I don't really have an alternative idea either. For that matter, I don't really have a strong stance on what to do about k-12 education. It's an issue where I have observations but admit to having no proposals beyond some common sense ones about cutting waste and ending bullshit like "zero tolerance" and whatnot (and since that's all that's likely to happen anyway in the near future, I'm spared any philosophical dilemmas about what course of action to support).

Here's what I do know:

In Milwaukee, back when I was in Catholic school in the mid 80's to early 90's, the Catholic grade schools spent half as much per student (including tuition and donations to parishes) as the public schools and kicked ass on a wide range of academic comparisons. There was much less overhead and red tape. I admit that I'm not aware of studies specifically comparing kids from comparable backgrounds, so take that for what it's worth, but that 50% price tag for a product that's comparable or better in many significant ways (but not necessarily all, pending more data) is something that you can't ignore.

Oh, I do have one firm policy stance on public education: I am absolutely, unequivocally, 100% against school vouchers. They sound like a nice idea, but I am deathy afraid of what the bureaucrats might do to the Catholic schools in the long run. And lest anybody is wondering, public mandates concerning what's taught in sex ed are the least of my worries. I'm more worried about red tape, general inefficiency, and a breakdown of discipline.

[joe]

thoreau,

I don't think it's very useful to talk about what "the welfare state" did to "inner cities." Some policies may have had some effects on some areas, while other policies had other effects on other areas.

Talking at the level of generality that lies behind that statement takes the conversation out of the reality-based realm you want to work in, and into statements of faith.

[thoreau]

joe-

Agreed, hence I withdrew some arguments pending more data.

But didn't you get the memo? "reality" is for losers! The people who create their own realities, those are the winners! 😉

[joe]

Well, maybe they'll let me study those new realities, if I'm really lucky.

I, for one, welcome our new reality-defying masters.

[rob]

This has to be one of the most fascinating threads I've read on HNR in quite a while. And to think it all started off with a throw-away line about "Bush Sees A Rainbow."

On the subject of Bush is an idealist separated from reality, I think his response of "Well, we'll see" makes him look pretty firmly ensconced in reality. Noting that he saw a rainbow while speaking (as US President) from the vantage of former bastion of tyranny doesn't strike me as a strange thing to say. It's almost Reagan-esque.

As for the opposite, which is that he's the opposite of an idealist, a mendacious scumbag who is only out for his buddies in the oil biz... I don't think this is true. But I've also given up on trying to pigeon-hole the guy. He's all over the board on policy. But I do think that he believes he's doing what's best for the country and that this does not equate to corruption and cronyism. (Just my opinion - which includes the caveat that I think there are plenty of bone-headed decisions to complain about in the administration of every President to date.)

On the subject of what this thread has come to be about - the core of libertarianism - it strikes me that there aren't a lot of people here who are wholeheartedly libertarian. Not that this is a bad thing, it just surprises me that there don't seem to be any purists scoffing at the middle-roaders here.

I also think that I'd like to sit down and discuss (over a beer, of course!) Western Civ with GM, and state and theology with thoreau.

I might not agree with them all the time, but the conversation would be fasinating. (Ok, maybe not for them, but I'd enjoy it which is what's important to me...)

the reason for disagreement is that I tend to be bullish on the future of the U.S., while just about everyone else seems to think that it's going to Hell in a handbasket. I frankly see no proof in this theory, but reading the posts here makes up for the drought of intelligent conversation I've been facing recently.

[Stevo Darkly]

joe, I don't think the examples you cited are fully representative of the entire situation.

Also, what does "support for segregation and mixed race marriages is completely unchanged" mean? What people say in response to a poll or a vote? That's cheap. Or personal action and resources actually expended by supporters?

How to explain that voluntarism and donations to charity rose when taxes were lowered during the 1980s? This implies people give less when more is taken from them by the State, and vice versa.

Nock was simply saying that when the State takes over a social function, people have less incentive to do so as private individuals, especially when they are being taxed to pay the State to do it. Why pay double?

[rob]

In other (shorter) words, thanks for the thought-provoking conversation folks.

[Stevo Darkly]

{Nock] described how growing "State power" was eroding and displacing spontaneous, uncoerced "social power."

i wouldn't disagree, mr darkly -- but this happened because a lot of people wanted it this way -- individuals sought to emancipate themselves from the obligations of social power. the rise of state power is a paradoxical manifestation of individualism.

Maybe some people wanted to emancipate themselves from their social obligations, but without increased government power they would only have been able to make this decision for themselves -- and reap the consequences of being seen by others as stingy and hard-hearted (peer pressure and reputation being manifestations of social power). But having a powerful government gave them the power to make this a decision for everyone. This had the effect of discouraging generosity as individual action, as Nock describes.

Libertarian individualism is not atomism. There is a difference between what you do because you want to be seen as a nice, generous, good person to know, and what you do to stay out of jail.

[rob]

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime ? Pol Pot or others ? that had no concern for human beings," the senator said June 14.

David - So this quote is entirely out of context?

[rob]

Woops. Wrong thread.

[Eric II]

In Milwaukee, back when I was in Catholic school in the mid 80's to early 90's, the Catholic grade schools spent half as much per student (including tuition and donations to parishes) as the public schools and kicked ass on a wide range of academic comparisons.

My experiences at a Catholic school in South Jersey, which also spent about half as much per student than most public schools in the area, were a lot different. Classes tended to be somewhat crowded, the average test scores were slightly below the state average, and I can think of only three teachers who I felt knew their subject matter well enough to teach at an Honors or AP level. In addition, the school apparently didn't have a good rep among college admissions boards - only one student in my graduating class of 240 got accepted by an Ivy League school, and only one at that.

And on top of all that, you had to deal with all the standard religious bullshit that public schools are mercifully free of. If it wasn't for the fact that my school district was tied to the second-worst-rated public high school in the state, the Catholic school would've been never been considered.

[Ken Shultz]

"it is a choice made by the individual to interact in a way his/her moral view deems "right", along lines and limitations of his/her choosing."

Why isn't the limitation that an individual cannot infringe on another person's rights sufficient?

Perhaps I'm starting to see where we part company? I'm concerned about society's institutions because I see them as an extremely important relay by which values are taught and transmitted. You seem to share that with me, but what seems to drive your concern is the belief that society's institutions should enforce as well as teach what is right--do I have that correct?

Recently there was a thread dominated by someone who argued, essentially, that there is no rational distinction between an aggressive or defensive war. Indeed, he stated that there was no rational argument against the Iraq war, as if morality and reason were somehow incompatible.

Perhaps you consider such people a symptom of the corruption of our institutions as I do? Shouldn't the fear that not enough individuals will choose what is right be the very source of our concern for society's institutions?

"the rise of state power is a paradoxical manifestation of individualism."

Please elaborate.

Is it not the case that, when governments have tried to use society's institutions to enforce, rather than simply teach, morality, that they have failed to do either? East Germany before the fall of the wall was no beacon of decency. Is China, even now, a place where the poor can depend on justice?

I referenced "The Grand Inquisitor" in another thread today. In it, as I recall, the Inquisitor explains to Christ that people will throw their freedom away for greed and apparent protection. Is this the paradox to which you're referring?

...Because among the more important values I see our institutions teaching and transmitting is the idea that, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It's the idea that as an individual, I can escape the sliding scale between greed and fear; it's the idea that as an individual, I can live by my own choices.

[CAT_Violations]

Wellfellow-

What is the value of good deeds if only done at gunpoint? I would think that it would breed nothing but resentment.

A great point that ought to be bronzed. And it is both a correct and relevant argument. Especially since on many occasions the person holding the gun has more than the person being robbed. In that case it is oppression and theft, since the person holding the gun could be doing the charity himself, with money that he actually earned. Such "charity" serves several purposes - it (a) maintains the economic dominance of the person doing the stealing and their compatriots - against the actual economic good of the community (limited investment, competition, choice, innovation); (b) it keeps the people he is stealing from dependent and busy trying to pick up the pieces; (c) serves to settle scores with anyone he doesn't like; and (d) provides good PR (for those who don't realize the truth) and supports his inner fantasies that he's a "good" guy.

This is similar to Hilary Clinton's "we're going to take something from you for the common good" while she's making $6 million in speaking engagements. I wonder if she thinks your "needs" are the same as her "needs". (Swank house, NYC apartment, 7-figure income, etc.)

And note that this kind of tyranny isn't limited to the "haves". What if a town full of postal workers decide that no one "needs" more than what they make and the surplus should be given to charity? How much growth and innovation is going to occur? How much incentive is there? What makes them so "special" as to decide for everyone?

Gaius-

I wanted to ask you a couple things about your views.

You seem to have a very negative view of individualism, viewing it as a "society corroder". But what happens when "society" is wrong - oppressive, racist, ignorant, greedy, wasteful, prejudiced, hypocritical, etc.? When is individualism justified? At what point should it be expressed?

You seem to have a lot of regard for being a "good" person, how does this square with your remarks about slaves "loving their bonds" (paraphrased)? Are you saying that everyone is entitled to a subsistence living from society, even if a substantial portion are being used as slaves of the rest?

Also, you seem to be an advocate of a certain amount of societally mandated charitable works. But at the same time I think in the past you have said that reliance on societal charity allows the individual to shirk their societal responsibilities. (My apologies if I have this confused, if so please clarifiy.) How do you square the two?

[joe]

Stevo,

There are more mixed-marriages, and a much larger segment of the population approves of mixed marriages. That's what that means.

There is no correlation between the the tax cuts of the 80s and charitable giving. The numbers are all over the place from year to year. I recall being in college when a smug conservative roomie of mine pulled out a reference book to shove in my face while trying to make that point, saw the graph, furrowed his brow, and said "Nevermind."

"Why pay double?" You aren't paying double. There's plenty of charity left to do, despite the paper-thin welfare state that remains.

[gaius marius]

It's almost Reagan-esque.

precisely my point, mr rob. he was another man posessed of visions that were entirely internalized and morality-based. reagan has little use for data, and dreamt big dreams.

that many find that appealing today says less about reagan's (or dubya's) empiricism than the widespread disengagement from reality that pervades a western population that is probably best summed up by the word "escapist".

[Stevo Darkly]

joe -- Thanks for the info, I'm gonna mull that. But I'd be interested in seeing that graph; maybe I can dig up the info later. The increased giving enabled/inspired by the increase in disposal income need not occur in the exact same calendar year as the cuts themselves. And a squiggly line does not necessarily contradict a general trend. For example, it's true that stocks provide a better long-term return than bonds or money markets, at least since the Depression, but any short-term plot of stock market returns will go up and down a lot.

On "paying double," the question remains: The putative justification for the welfare state is that the government can provide for the less fortunate better than the efforts of the private sector and individuals. So if we are paying the more-competent State to take care of the less fortunate, why are their needs still unmet? The philosophy of the welfare state implies that private individual efforts are insuffient and incompetent, so why even try the latter? The more "rational" response would be to hold on to your money until it the inevitable expansion of the welfare state to cover the unmet need -- that is, until the inevitable tax increase. Why give away money now that you strongly expect you'll need it when the taxman comes knocking? As Nock said, that's the kind of thinking inspired by an expansive welfare state.

[gaius marius]

I'm concerned about society's institutions because I see them as an extremely important relay by which values are taught and transmitted. You seem to share that with me, but what seems to drive your concern is the belief that society's institutions should enforce as well as teach what is right--do I have that correct?

ultimately, mr schultz, i would say that if institutions do not force values on some level, the values will not hold. a lawful society is coercive by its nature. beyond dealing with the aberrant individual, we all are aware of the madness of crowds -- see flag-burning amendments, or really everything post-9/11, which has yielded an enduring paranoid mania. durable fits of insanity are a normal feature of crowd behavior -- and without institutions of some force for corrective action, civility need not prevail.

Perhaps you consider such people a symptom of the corruption of our institutions as I do? Shouldn't the fear that not enough individuals will choose what is right be the very source of our concern for society's institutions?

i do, and absolutely -- but how does one get a balance of individuals to choose to respect the traditions and laws which indicate to us what is right? it's an extremely difficult task, possibly a lost cause, given the advance of the kantian concept of inner morality having all but destroyed the catholic concept of the morality of good acts. if it is a lost cause, it was lost when the balance of individuals decided that their inner judgements were truest -- and took heart to reject any institution they disagreed with.

i would peg that development for the mass of western man outside germany in 1914-18.

Is it not the case that, when governments have tried to use society's institutions to enforce, rather than simply teach, morality, that they have failed to do either?

yes -- which is why i often talk about western civilization dying. as i've said elsewhere, the health of a civilization occurs in that time where the mass of men feel that what they ought to do is exactly what they'd be forced to do -- nietzsche called it the slave mentality, as the mad individualist he was. when that consensus breaks, i think history shows most civilizations are fighting a rearguard action.

that broken consensus is well illustrated by the paradox i referred to above (as the risk of quoting myself): where one camp of individualists has taken the straight line to emancipation away from social responsibility and authority in any form (the anarchists and their affiliates), the rest saw the danger in that and ...

... sought to emancipate themselves from the obligations of social power [by transferring their responsibilities to the state]. the rise of state power is [therefore] a paradoxical manifestation of individualism.

the paradox has split this society, probably permanently, between two camps of freedom-seekers -- one mortally convinced that state power frees them, the other that state power enslaves them.

if no solution is found to build a general consensus, this unresolved question will be part and parcel to the dissolution of the west -- a challenge without a response.

our great attempts at reconciliation thusfar came in communism and fascism. i would judge both to be failures as a solution; the paradox persists.

[gaius marius]

You seem to have a very negative view of individualism, viewing it as a "society corroder". But what happens when "society" is wrong - oppressive, racist, ignorant, greedy, wasteful, prejudiced, hypocritical, etc.? When is individualism justified? At what point should it be expressed?

let me say, mr violations, that i think the march to self-determination is a perfectly natural process in civility. it occured in every example of civilization i can think of. it isn't evil, in and of itself.

what it is, however, in excess, is a deal-breaker. a civilization is built on a consensus -- regardless of what the consensus is. the osmanlis administrated the ottoman empire as a slave-society for five hundred years; the mamluks did the same in egypt from the mongol invasions to the 16th c and even the 19th. we, in our obsession with emancipation, find that impossible -- but the consensus does not have to be what we would call moral to be effective and durable.

many of the judgments you might pass on society -- oppressive, racist, ignorant, greedy, wasteful, prejudiced, hypocritical -- are individual and only your judgments. if almost no one in the society agrees with you, or if almost everyone agrees with you, that's really rather a sign of a healthy social consensus of which you are a part and therefore a healthy society. but such consensus can only be forged on common unquestioned understandings of what certain thoughts and actions mean.

our degree of individualism has progressed beyond that point where people can any longer agree, in a very fundamental way, on what constitutes right and wrong. even where they cite the same traditions, they frequently pervert and revise the meaning to suit themselves. it's a product of an ahistorical education for members of a society which is fleeing its traditions and laws -- instead, education is obsessed with personal experience and technique of individuals, in the belief that the new is redemption for the sins of the old.

at that level, individualism is a very destructive force in a social sense. technique may advance very rapidly -- it often does in dying civilizations -- but coherence is irretrievably lost and chaos is the ultimate result.

Are you saying that everyone is entitled to a subsistence living from society, even if a substantial portion are being used as slaves of the rest?

i'm saying that manifestation of each personal will through lawless emancipation is not a sutainable social action. freedom within law is the only sustainable (and moral) freedom.

as i said above, sustainable slave societies are part of the record of civilized man. you can take from that what you wish; i think it evidence that the nth degree of freedom is not the panacea it is made out to be. however, i do think western slavery was an unendurable moral conflict -- an aberration from the consensus of western morals, and appropriately expunged.

you seem to be an advocate of a certain amount of societally mandated charitable works. But at the same time I think in the past you have said that reliance on societal charity allows the individual to shirk their societal responsibilities.

i am, but it does. there is a big difference between what i would want -- overwhelming social pressure to engage in good acts -- and bureaucratic government redistribution. the former is increasingly impossible with the decline of peer pressure -- people now, secure in their individuality, tell others attempting to pressure them to take a flying leap. but as they once existed, such mechanisms did much to reinforce the consensus morality and make one feel a part of the whole. i don't think that can be said of state handouts.

for the recipient, i think personal charity is vastly superior to its faceless counterpart. it obligates you to a kind person. for a social creature, that is a powerful thing. again, however, with the advance of the securely individual mindset, that effect is lessened -- recipients can even show disdain for the intrusion on their person.

[CAT_Violations]

what it is, however, in excess, is a deal-breaker. a civilization is built on a consensus -- regardless of what the consensus is. the osmanlis administrated the ottoman empire as a slave-society for five hundred years; the mamluks did the same in egypt from the mongol invasions to the 16th c and even the 19th. we, in our obsession with emancipation, find that impossible -- but the consensus does not have to be what we would call moral to be effective and durable.

This seems like a search for consensus, any consensus, as long as it is "effective and durable". This doesn't seem very far from simple "might makes right", "majority makes right". This is where the spectres of lynching, slavery, oppression, witch burning, inquisitions, etc. begin to arise. I don't see where desiring equity, equality, fairness, autonomy, freedom, etc. becomes an "obsession with emancipation".

if almost no one in the society agrees with you, or if almost everyone agrees with you, that's really rather a sign of a healthy social consensus of which you are a part and therefore a healthy society. but such consensus can only be forged on common unquestioned understandings of what certain thoughts and actions mean.

You admitted above that what you refer to as a "healthy social consensus" can be immoral. I would add unhealthy, unfair, destabilizing, unsustainable, and the other adjectives I mentioned earlier. I think you meant "healthy social consensus" in the sense that a majority agreed with it, but you admitted that this does not prevent it from being immoral. This includes any consensus that can be arrived at - including the "common unquestioned understandings of what certain thoughts and actions mean". In the context of slavery in the Western world you have admitted that immorality was unacceptable, but yet you still seem to seek consensus, as long as it is stable and durable. What about forms of immorality, unfairness, and inequity that fall short of overt slavery? Should minorities in objection to the consensus have mechanisms for protection, like the Judicial branch used to be?

What would be wrong with a different consensus? In other words, a consensus that was more likely to be moral because fundamental rights - human, civil, private property rights, etc. - were carved out as inviolable. This would seem more likely to be durable and sustainable, especially in a society that is becoming more multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious, etc. It seems that reliance on the old traditions and consensus would be more destabilizing in a changing society like that than crafting a new one that emphasized fundamental rights. Why would a libertarian consensus, which would be more compatible with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, etc. society, be more destabilizing than the "old" consensus that emphasized the old traditions, institutions, etc.?

but as they once existed, such mechanisms did much to reinforce the consensus morality and make one feel a part of the whole. i don't think that can be said of state handouts.

I don't know, gaius, you seem to be a big fan of coercion, even if it is passive-agressive coercion. Is the "Scarlett Letter" your favorite book?

for the recipient, i think personal charity is vastly superior to its faceless counterpart. it obligates you to a kind person. for a social creature, that is a powerful thing. again, however, with the advance of the securely individual mindset, that effect is lessened -- recipients can even show disdain for the intrusion on their person.

Well sort of. But this could be dangerous and immoral as well. I have no problem with honest charity. But what if it degenerates to trading people between benefactors? What if the charity comes with strings or bonds? What if the charitable parties participated in creating conditions that produced vulnerable people that required their charity? (And hence a supply of people that weren't much more than slaves.)