---------------------
Libertarians Rising
Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007
Essay By MICHAEL KINSLEY


To oversimplify: Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it. To oversimplify somewhat less, Democrats aren't always for Big Government, and Republicans aren't always against it. Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism. War in general and Iraq in particular--certainly Big Government exercises--are projects Republicans tend to be more enthusiastic about. Likewise the criminal process: Republicans tend to want to make more things illegal and to send more people to jail for longer. Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it. In particular, Republicans think religion needs more help from society, through the government, while Democrats are touchier about the separation of church and state.

Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian. Libertarians are against government in all its manifestations. Domestically, they are against social-welfare programs. They favor self-reliance (as they see it) over Big Government spending. Internationally, they are isolationists. Like George Washington, they loathe "foreign entanglements," and they think the rest of the world can go to hell without America's help. They don't care--or at least they don't think the government should care--about what people are reading, thinking, drinking, smoking or doing in bed. And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...673265,00.html
-------------------------------------




oh. So thats what a libertarian is. I kept getting them confused with librarians.

I always thought the libertarians had solid stances on some issues, particularly their reluctance to engage in foreign wars. This military isolationism combined with their extremely conservative fiscal policy has always appealed to the capitalist in me. But Ron Paul's (formerly a candidate on the libertarian ticket) plan to phase out social security, alone, will ensure that he won't get the republican nomination.

Very true. But, Social Security is un-Constitutional (at least the "mandatory" part of it is), so....

There's only one solution to this problem, which is to get the average voter to stick his/her head up out of the sand.

See, the issue is, that "we" (the US) has enjoyed such a high standard of living for so long, that now we feel we're "entitled" to it. When in reality, the truth of the matter is, that the rest of the world is just now getting to play catch-up.

So, the question is not "whether" you want to sacrifice, but "what" (take you choice), and "when" (ie either "now", you yourself, or "later", your kids) -

I feel a great kinship with the libertarian philosophy - it's probably the closest thing to "originalism", these days. Lord knows the 'Pubs can't lay claim to it anymore, and the Dems never could, so....

Interesting parallel, the essay pointed out, right? It's like, the "social conservatives" want to use government to promote social values, and the "liberal democrats" want to use government to promote social programs, and they're both wrong.

That's not the government's purpose, to promote "values" and "programs".

The government has a very specific purpose, it's stated in the Constitution, and I wish they would adhere to that contract, instead of waving their hands over it and pretending that government is something it's not.

I mean, this latest thing with Bushie really takes the cake. These are god(*)(*)(*)(*) Republicans, f'r cryin' out loud, and here they are using the RICO laws against old ladies who want nothing more than to end their pain and suffering. Man, Barry Goldwater would be rolling over in his grave - as would Reagan and a whole bunch of others.....

But you don't hear Republicans talking about that, right? It's like, in the last debate they were all over each other, trying to prove who was the most "conservative" - only they're talking about stupid stuff like gay marriage. It's like, who cares? And what the heck does that have to do with political conservatism anyway? And then you've got "interest groups" like that Family Research Council, that probably controls a million votes or so, give or take, and the candidates are making "deals" with them, right? (Although, Giuliani was pretty careful, it seems, in exactly what he said - but the whole idea that the candidates are out there pandering to these guys, and then using it to claim political conservatism is just ludicrous).

"I" think, that if the Libertarians (with a capital "L") weren't so nutty economically, they'd probably get a lot more traction. But the way they view the world economically, is "not real", it's almost the economic equivalent of Bushie's "nation-building" pipe dreams or something - it just "wouldn't work" in the real world. So that's kinda why I'm on the Republican side instead of the Libertarian side, 'cause the 'Pubs have a much saner view towards business and all that.

I would like to see the country move in a libertarian "direction" though. I mean, we've been kinda on the wrong side of that coin, for so long now, that there's considerable "un-doing" that needs to be done, to get back to where we're supposed to be.

Like, one of the things the Libertarians are absolutely right about, is that probably 90% of government programs are un-Constitutional, they involve un-enumerated Powers that somehow magically "appeared", they don't exist anywhere in the Constitution and for whatever reason the Supreme Court either didn't review the cases, or reviewed them incorrectly.

Or, the President stacked the Court, like what happened with FDR in the Cardozo decision about Social Security.

Libertarians generally want to have their cake and eat it too. There are some sane ones (stekim being a good example) but most seem to think that society can just magically hold itself together without any sense of collectivism whatsoever.
The truth is that in order to have a society, it must be de facto collectivist.
The conservative way to do it is to have a very collectivist culture while the system itself is individualistic. The liberal way is to create institutional replacements for collectivism so that the individuals are systematically tied together.
Without some way to keep people together, society ceases to be a society.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Interesting. What you're talking about, though, is all in the mind. It's like, if people walk around "believing" they're in a collective mode, then they probably are. I mean, think about it - that's probably the same thing that keeps Al Qaeda together, even though they're all "geographically non-colocated"....

See, you're talking about "liberal" and "conservative" ways - but half my posts here on PF, in the last umpteen weeks, have been about the "meta-issue" in that regard, which has nothing at all to do with which of those ways you prefer -

The "meta-issue", is that our "society" is held together politically, by a belief in certain principles. And it doesn't matter what else you believe, as long as you uphold those certain principles.

That's the "common ground" - that would be like the "cultural" piece of the American political equation. That's the "culture" which, when anyone looks at from the outside, they can identify as "being in common among 'most' members of that particular society", right?

So, the principles in question, have been institutionalized into a little contract, that all the elected weasels... er... representatives, are sworn to uphold. And what that contract says, is this:

If you're in the "middle ground" somewhere, in that liberal-conservative "spectrum" you're talking about, then you're okay. As long as you don't try to "invent" any new Rights or Powers, you can believe whatever you want to believe, just pay your taxes and show up for jury duty and everything will be fine.

On the other hand, if you're too far off either end of that spectrum, then you're in trouble. You know, if you're either "inventing Rights" on the left, or "inventing Powers" on the right, they're both equally as bad. They're "bad" because they're a violation of the contract, and if you let people get away with violating the contract, then that contract really means nothing, does it?

So, in terms of "holding society together", my viewpoint is very simple - let's all agree on the contract, and the rest of it will take care of itself. I mean, this is exactly the point that the Founding Fathers eventually came to, right? Same with me - I have that faith. I'm pretty darn sure, that if we all just stick to the contract, then everything will be just fine.

And you know, all that "oversight" and "checks and balances" thing, that's just um.... in case someone "makes a mistake", and kinda "forgets" to stay within the constraints, right?

I try to do most of my thinking in terms of what is necessary.
I consider myself somewhat of a libertarian lite. The concept of libertarianism is believing in minimal government.
Where I disagree with most is on what the minimum is, and I base this mostly on human psychology. I think libertarians tend to be more in tune with the philosophy of thinkers from long ago than in the actual behavior and motivations of the species homo sapien.

The purpose of a government is to protect rights. Doesn't protecting rights imply that the government must also protect the cohesion of society? If society falls apart we are back to a natural state where rights are not protected.
I reject the concept of "natural rights" for this reason. It's a nice myth. It serves a purpose in making us all feel better. But it's rubbish. In nature your rights are limited to eating or being eaten.

It seems to me protecting rights is a matter of balance. If you have too much security, you're not free. But if you don't have enough, you're not free (at least not in terms of those rights we claim are "natural").
Where I get into the current theme I have about the conservative and liberal ideals for collectivism is based on a train of thought I had concerning another area of balance: centralization vs. decentralization. If we are too centralized, then freedom is limited... and it is virtually impossible to sustain. But if we are too decentralized, we fail to be a society.
Libertarians tend to be on the side of too much decentralization, not just of localities, but of people.
And frankly I think their recent growth in numbers is due to the changes in our society brought on by new technologies. They create the illusion that we can simply all be pure individuals, completing the anonymity and compartmentalization of our lives.
At the same time, the new technologies have allowed for greater organization and the creation of communities (of a sort). This creates the illusion that we no longer need any glue to hold together our society.

I think most libertarians have too much faith in the idea of communities forming of strangers and then working in some kind of competative harmony that just magically ends up harmonious and efficient.
Frankly if they are right and I am wrong, I'll be PLEASANTLY surprised. But I just don't have that high an optimism for humans. I think we can be more than the tribal beasts conservatives accept as our destiny, but I know there are limits to our minds. We require organization and systems for ensuring those who are smart AND altruistic get their hands on power. We need institutions that have the teeth and enough reach to keep a single bad apple from ruining the bunch. Without that, it's back to the tribal days... only with much nastier weapons.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Good. Okay, so my one-word response to your line of thought above, would be, "diversity".

'Cause you know, that's the way it's supposed to be in America, right? I mean, it started out that way, right? All the States were "different", each one of 'em had their own interests and their own way of looking at things - and that's why they set up the federal government in a certain way, so as not infringe on the "Rights" of States.

See, our government isn't just "the government", it's actually very complex, right? But think about this - the primary "node" in our system of government, is not the federal government - it's the State government. According to our Constitution, the federal government is explicitly forbidden from infringing on States' Rights. They only have very specific kinds of influences over States, and they're all enumerated, and the Ninth and Tenth say they must be enumerated. So, when laws conflict, and yadda yadda.....

So, you're talking about the "cohesion of society". Well, I submit, that there are many "axes" of that, right? I mean, the "commonality" could be along the lines of religion, or politics, or skin color, or line of work, or any one of a thousand other factors - and the real question is how people "identify", right? (That's what I meant, when I said, "it's all in the mind"). 'Cause like, if you ask a ... I dunno.... Portuguese-American how he identifies, and he says, "Portuguese", that tells you something, right? And if it's, you know, a black Muslim, and you ask him how he identifies, and he says, "Muslim", that tells you something too, right?

So, like, if someone asks "me", I usually say, "oh, I'm a musician" - 'cause the idea that I'm an American is kinda "given", right? That's my "context" - I'm white, I speak English, I walk around like I own the world, so yeah, must be American, right? But when I'm in, you know, Tokyo, and I'm lifted "out" of my usual contvext, then I respond differently, right?

So, I guess what I'm trying to say. is, my political "identification", comes from this little thing they call "the Constitution". There's where I place my "faith", politically speaking. Like, if that falls apart, all bets are off, and we're back to our "natural state", as you say. And yes, as you say, governments do (hopefully) provide us with some stability, so we can "get things done" without worrying about people killing us all the time -

But in regard to Rights, the fallacy (the "trap", if you will, that it's easy to fall into) - is, that government sometimes "panics" when the "axes of cohesion" change - in other words, this is the kind of thing that happened in the 60's, when Hoover thought MLK was the biggest danger to national security, and was having his phones tapped, and smears put out on him, and all the rest -

I mean, this is an example of "government panicking when the axes of cohesion change", because Hoover somehow was under the mistaken impression that these black people weren't "patriotic" somehow, and they were about to go hog-wild and riot in the streets and all that - but MLK wasn't that way, was he? Now in the absence of a figure like MLK, you've got the LA race riots, right? But as long as MLK was around, he was preaching level-headedness and non-violence, and I can't imagine how Hoover could have seen that as a threat to national security, can you?

See what I mean? So now, in our political world, as the axes change, and the Neo-Cons lose traction and the "next" thing (whatever it may be - same as the old boss, I'm sure) comes along, it's like, some people can't adapt along with the change in the axes, right? They can't shift their thought process along with the thing they're looking at, as it slowly shifts too - so what ends up happening, is that they apply yesterday's standards to today's equation - and that, is where you get into the "head-in-the-sand" phenomenon, and people saying "no, I don't want to hear it" when they're confronted with rock-solid evidence, and that kind of thing.

But that's just the "changing dynamics of society", right?

There's no reason government has to respond to that stuff, is there?

The only time government has to get involved, is when there's a civil war or something - like, when the "limit cycle" falls apart completely.

Other than that, as far as I can tell, it's in government's best interest not to get involved in stuff like that. And, that's exactly the way the US Constitution is set up - the federal government is out of the vice business, and out of the medical business, and out of the morality business - all that, is left up to the States. There is explicitly supposed to be no uniformity in those kinds of things, at the federal level.

Funny game - that "balance" as you say, requires that society be "not" cohesive, to a certain extent, in order to remain "politically cohesive".

Yep. That's the funny thing about balance.
Frankly I view the rising of libertarians as a social more than a political problem. The effect on politics may even be positive... I just think socially we're headed for a society of self-centered narcissists under the guise of so-called "classical liberalism".
Really I think states are too big.
The decentralization we need has to give more power to smaller localities.
But we still have to balance it all. Somehow we need states to be interconnected and we need them to be willing to help each other out. Right now we do that through allocating some federal taxes toward the states... I can't really think of a better way to do it.
Perhaps the federal programs should be more loosely defined. Perhaps states should get allocations intended for a particular purpose, but be allowed to decide how it is done. That's already how a lot of things work. Maybe it should be that way for more things.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Gee.. I wonder which party this guy belongs to...

Democrats treasure civil liberties and are touchier about the separation of church and state, whereas Republicans tolerate censorship, wiretapping, torture, are enthusiastic about war, want to make things illegal and send people to jail for a long time, concern themselves with the moral tone of the country--using government to get their way, and can't promote their religion without government power.

The funniest thing is... he probably thinks he's being objective.

This is the old self-serving statist myth. Statists have just never been able to grasp the self-organizing capabilities of not only the economy, but other social aspects as well. If there is anything that is "magic", or more exactly, like a religious superstition, it is the statists' amazing belief that somehow they can sit at the wizard of oz control panel and run everything, the trillions of events and interactions between individuals, and somehow make it all work, the crystal clear lessons of the 20th century to the contrary notwithstanding.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847