“My initial response was that I wanted her to be punished,” said Hunter Michielson, president of the school’s Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) chapter. Michielson realized that punishing the professor was "hypocritical for him as a libertarian," but he decided to do something else that I'll call hypocritical, petition the university to put out an official statement:
“I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the university stand with conservative, libertarian, and autistic students and community members and say that just because you are a libertarian doesn’t mean you are autistic and just because you are autistic doesn’t mean you lack empathy,” Michielson remarked. “College should be a place where you confront difficult opinions,” he added, saying that despite experiencing classroom discrimination for his views, having liberal-leaning professors has been a welcome component of his education given his conservative background.I'd say, forget the petitions and the official statements and set up a debate or a panel discussion on politics and empathy or human psychology and political preferences. Let's get deep and scientific on what's really going on, rather than take offense and try to scare the person into shutting up.
It seems to me that MacLean is contributing to the marketplace of ideas. It's awkward to drag people with autism in as if you are disrespecting them, but some of that disrespect is coming from Michielson, who says: “I struggle to accept that she actually believes libertarianism or conservatism is the result of autism."
First, MacLean said "seem to be on the autism spectrum." A lot of people — including people we encounter in everyday life who are not overwhelmingly disabled — seem to be on the autism spectrum. It may be a bit offensive to say that, mostly because it sounds disparaging toward people with autism. But MacLean was not "speculating that support for individual liberty might actually be the result of a mental disorder" — as Campus Reform puts it. She was trying to understand Buchanan, after somebody else speculated that he was afflicted by “personal greed” or “malevolence.”
And, frankly, I suspect that libertarians are reacting out of recognition that — however possibly offensively MacLean put it — there is some truth to her observation.
Note: I've incurred the wrath of libertarians for daring to talk about their psychology. Here's a good starting point if you want to examine my motivations.
384 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 384 of 384"She was trying to understand Buchanan" Actually, no. Faking it.
If libertarians are autistic or not, i can't really say, but it
s interesting how rarely it's pointed out how angry hard lefties are. I mean, angry, all the time. About everything. Now, that I have waaay too much experience with.
"How can I not be angry, man? There's injustice everywhere!
The angry personality type goes back a long way. As an example of the exception proving the rule, in the late 19th C. people, such as Oscar Wilde, who met the famous anarchist Kropotkin all commented on how calm & saintly he was, unlike every other left-wing revolutionary they'd ever met.
"Here's my "talking point": The U.S. Constitution is a libertarian document. Aside from boring procedures, it's almost entirely about what the gov't, especially the federal gov't, can't do...."
You're exactly wrong. The Constitution was written as a document that enumerated what the government could do. If it wasn't written in the Constitution, the government could not do it.
The Bill of Rights was a list of things the government couldn't do. By immediately adding it to the Constitution, it changed the purpose of the Constitution in most people's eyes, which is why I believe passing the Bill of Rights was a huge mistake.
What complete horse shit. "Autism" is a clinical diagnosis of a particular kind of brain malfunction. The best science suggests that those "on the spectrum" have varying degrees of inability to discern the emotional state of others (among other symptoms less relevant to this discussion). There is no scientific support for the notion that Autists _experience_ less emotion than others.
More to the point, this history professor (and the law professor that runs this blog) have zero qualifications to perform this diagnosis. it is appropriate for the woman's employer to state that she is out of her league in making such a claim. Her statement is completely arbitrary and worthless as a discussion point.
As for me, a small "l" libertarian, and admirer of Ayn Rand, I know that I am actually extremely insightful about others' emotions and psychology. I am told often by my liberal friends and family that I have an accurate antenna for their feelings and reasons for those feelings. I am considered a good listener and helper.
But, I resist the idea that feelings ought to be determinative for what makes good public policy. Driving policy by the alleged feelings of the masses is arguably the cause of our massive public debt and the current assault on free speech. Maybe we should try a different approach.
Even if MacLean were correct (and that's a big "if" given the Left's propensity for disinformation and just plain old jerkiness), don't austitic people have the right to be free, too? "Fellow spergies--are we not men?!"
There is a well regarded professor, James Fallon, who has devoted much of his research who devoted to the study of psychopathy and all their manifestations there of. He discovered several years ago by accident that he IS a psychopath himself by traits and brain scan. He also identifies as a Libertarian which he concluded might be partly with his lack of "normal" empathy. A very rational fellow however.
Keep in mind, though adopted(his mother was a killer), he was raised in a very loving and supporting environment which he says probably made a huge difference in his life.
Very easy to look up. here is a link where he discusses Libertarian and psychopathy(i haven't seen it all)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8bissJSfAQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fallon
Yes, charity could deal with much of that, but women prefer systematic taxing and spending to establish the basic floor below which we will not sink. Women feel more free to go about their own lives doing what they like if that's taken care of by government and not a continual nagging on them to be either charitable or callous with respect to every possible thing that needs attention.
FTFY
I think it is true that many libertarians don't feel a lot of empathy and solidarity toward other people. They feel how bad they could be to other people and, since they don't want bad things done to them, have a distrust of power given to other people, especially in situations where you can't get away from it.
Many socialists, on the other hand, feel great empathy and solidarity, and feel that they need power to help the people they feel empathy for and solidarity with. Correspondingly, they must fight against, kill if necessary, those who stand in the way of the good things they want to bring to humanity. Thus, the French or Russian or Chinese Revolutions.
The colder the mind, the better. Assigning crude ranks of emotional value to unique individuals, then establishing outgroup stereotypes founded on such marginalizing, self-serving perceptions is illogical. It opposes individuality and independent thought. Medicalizing policy differences cuts off any debate over substance. A bias favoring positive government at the federal level reduces society's flexibility to address problems.
I submit the lack of economic imagination (1) holds society back from abundance and prosperity. Voluntary work, trade, and investment in the private sector create wealth. A political system that taxes, regulates, and redistributes wealth effectively acts as an owner of citizens, which is a huge disincentive to produce. The ruins of Detroit and the destroyed homes ensuing from the Kelo decision are not shining examples of empathy. Rather, they are sad testaments to a complete lack of empathy for the spirit of Liberty the nation was supposedly founded to protect and preserve.
-----
(1) The typical campaign promises and legislative moves to address poverty rarely go beyond raising taxes, artificially raising wages, and expanding welfare programs to the point of monopolies. Increasing economic freedom for everyone is rarely on the table or seriously considered. Authoritarian politicians taking a divisive win / lose approach promise benefits for their supporters and punishments for wealth creators. No one is simply left alone in peace.
A truly imaginative, humanitarian problem solver would let go of attempting to control others and start up profitable businesses, using the money directly for education, housing, medicine, and so on. They would benefit from an efficient free market. They would want lots of customers and see the disadvantage of dividing the nation into bitterly warring factions. Instead all we get from the political system are debt creating entitlement programs made by compromise and court decisions. In place of liberty, people are trapped in mandatory compliance with powerful elites, a situation made worse by the lack of an untamed frontier to escape to.
Here's a good example of a spergy, empathy-free blog post from a libertarian economist:
Russ Roberts' 12 rules for life:
https://medium.com/@russroberts/my-twelve-rules-for-life-4041fb11a1b3
I notice that you talked about values. I agree that libertarians have values that they have weighted above other values: individual achievement (and risk) over empathy and social welfare. But my question — which I could not coax libertarians to discuss — is WHY have you given that weight to those values?
How about the fact hat individual achievement and risk advance human knowledge and ability and create wealth.
Empathy and social welfare produce redistribute wealth (not create it) and rarely if ever produce anything worthwhile.
I think it’s a reasonable area of research, but rather than undermining libertarianism it seems like it could have the effect of normalizing psychological profiles that we’ve recently been encouraged to marginalize.
oops i think i was wrong about his being adopted(James Fallon) and about his mother. as far as other ancestors, well there is Lizzie Borden...
"Libetarians may or may not feel compassion. . . . " You know who definitely doesn't? People who demonstrate their "compassion" by forcing other people to pay for stuff.
"I remember when 'liberal" meant being generous with your own money."--Will Rogers
I imagine part of the reaction is that MacLean's book about Buchanan is basically just a fairy tale she invented.
IIRC a fair number of actual Buchanan scholars and associates have demonstrated many of her core assertions to be pure invention and what boils down to unsubstantiatable claims of mindreading, presented as fact, even while they go against the actual evidence.
She's got no credibility left for anything, that I can see; she might as well be Michael Bellesiles or somesuch.
(And, yes, as mentioned repeatedly above, she appears to conflate "compassion and empathy" with "using coercion to make other people serve your empathy".
The conflation is her problem, not that of libertarians for noticing.)
I consider myself a heavily-armed pacifist and a high-functioning sociopath. I like to be left alone, people are no damn good, and I will defend myself as necessary.
Don't like it? Stay the hell away from me.
Autism is a disorder characterized by a basket of symptoms. Unlike the Transgender Spectrum Disorder (i.e. mental or physical divergence), autism is poorly characterized and generic.
Libertarianism is organic (chaotic), liberalism is divergent, progressivism is monotonic, and [American] conservatism is a reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives.
There is an unmistakable left-right nexus, specifically, both the left and right lack empathy, are prone to conflate logical domains, and are motivated by personal greed and a single moral axiom: stability, which is why both the left and right adopt the Pro-Choice religion, selective, opportunistic, and congruent, the twilight faith, and associated traditions.
In college, we used to call Libertarians basically Republicans who like to smoke dope.
As a group committed to ideas, I do appreciate them and join in many of their views.
As a political force, they are mostly impotent because they have trouble grappling with the PRACTICAL realities of modern day living and politics. A lot of these smart fellows are Utopians.
Libertarians think as a matter of ideology that large scale government intervention in society is inherently coercive. Conservatives think that that large scale government intervention in society damages the social fabric of mutual trust & self-reliance, and, from historical example, is apt to not work as advertised.
Both libertarians & conservatives thus overlap in their belief that the governmental cure is worse than the disease. Both believe in human affairs, things can not only get worse, but they very often do.
"The Bill of Rights was a list of things the government couldn't do. By immediately adding it to the Constitution, it changed the purpose of the Constitution in most people's eyes, which is why I believe passing the Bill of Rights was a huge mistake."
Seriously? Which rights would you like to give up?
Without the Bill of Rights the Government is so much more powerful. I can't see how it was a mistake, completely lost you there. IMO it was among the very best things about the Constitution.
@Triangle Man
The conceit of the rational agent is at the foundation of libertarian thinking,
No, it isn't.
The foundation of libertarian thinking is the belief that no matter how many people might be fit only to be slaves, there are no people fit to be masters. Therefore those only fit to be slaves must still be left free, even if they destroy themselves in the process.
The foundation of authoritarian thinking, on the other hand, is that since many people are only fit to be slaves, it is inhuman to leave the natural slaves to make decisions for themselves. So we must set up masters to protect them from themselves.
The conservative sees these arguments, and agrees with the libertarian that no man is fit to be a master. He also agrees with the authoritarian that it is inhuman to leave the natural slaves to make decisions for themselves. He therefore resorts to "God" or "Tradition" as the worthy master no man can be . . . and then sets up an entire system of human overseers to whip the slaves in the name of God or Tradition.
The progressive sees these arguments, and agrees with the libertarian that no man is fit to be a master. He also agrees with the authoritarian that it is inhuman to leave the natural slaves to make decisions for themselves. He therefore resorts to "Society" or "Reason" as the worthy master no man can be . . . and then sets up an entire system of human overseers to whip the slaves in the name of Society or Reason.
Libertarians think as a matter of ideology that large scale government intervention in society is inherently coercive. Conservatives think that that large scale government intervention in society damages the social fabric of mutual trust & self-reliance, and, from historical example, is apt to not work as advertised.
Both libertarians & conservatives thus overlap in their belief that the governmental cure is worse than the disease. Both believe in human affairs, things can not only get worse, but they very often do.
You are right, YH. The problem lies not in the theory but in the application. Identify a Libertarian society. Just one.
"I consider myself a heavily-armed pacifist and a high-functioning sociopath."
A "high-functioning sociopath." What does that even mean? There is nothing about sociopathy that presumes substandard functioning, so your phrase is equivalent to saying you are a "high-functioning person."
Seriously?
Completely.
Which rights would you like to give up?
The "right" to an abortion for starters...
Without the Bill of Rights the Government is so much more powerful.
Only because the Bill of Rights was passed in the first place. The Bill of Rights actually made the government more powerful.
Originally, the government could only do what was explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. For example, under the Constitution the government could not infringe on the right to own a weapon, because nothing in the Constitution gave the government that power. However once the Second Amendment was passed, people began to believe that the only thing that protected the right to own a weapon was the Second Amendment, and eventually the argument was made that not even the Second Amendment protected this right.
The basic meaning of the Constitution changed from "the government may only do these things" to "the government may do anything except for these things".
I can't see how it was a mistake, completely lost you there.
Don't feel bad, most people do, because they don't understand our Constitutional history.
IMO it was among the very best things about the Constitution.
And in mine it was the worst.
Robert Cook high functioning sociopath means he is not a serial killer or somesuch, they can get along with society rules and not end up in jail.
Of course there's "some truth to the observation." LIbertarianism attempts to derive a model of community as an emergent property from individuals acting with and reacting to each other. It also doesn't take as an axiom that any workable definition of "community" must be based on, or even reflected in, whatever model of "government" is operative. If you start from the individual, and your model of community has little or nothing to do with politics, those whose metaphysics are different from that are prone to see that as resembling "being on the autism spectrum." The problem isn't that the chain of reasoning leads to an unreasonable conclusion. It's that the chain of reasoning is vapid.
Slaves were legal property. They were bought by their owners. Would a strict Libertarian see this as a strictly legal issue and side with property rights or as a humanitarian one?
Most libertarians would say that people can't be unwilling property, so on principle, American negro slavery was wrong. Of course, if you want to make libertarians crazy, ask them if it is all right for a person to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. Some will say yes; some will say no--and all will sense that principles are in conflict.
"But my question — which I could not coax libertarians to discuss — is WHY have you given that weight to those values?"
Personally, it seems obvious to me that the State forcing someone to do something against their will that violates their conscience should be near the top of "bad". That's one of my axioms - my presuppositions. I don't even know how to begin to explain "why?"
Why have you given the weight you have to the values you have? Does it even make sense to try to explain **why** racism by private individuals should be near the top of "bad", in your mind?
I think the real reason libertarians are largely unsuccessful is because very few people can genuinely say "I don't need you to embrace my values". While it's very common for people to ask "How can you possibly not give this value of mine the same weight I give it?"
Assuming that people might be racist - and expecting them to explain to you how you can be sure they aren't - because they hold different values and refuse to support policies that you think will effectively address private racism is very similar to assuming that people might actually like watching children get killed because they refuse to support policies that you think might effectively address school shootings. If someone realizes you're making that kind of assumption about them, it's easy to imagine them dismissing most everything else you say.
For my part, I really appreciate your analysis on some topics, and don't need you to share my values. Thank you for being the blogger you are.
I've read high functioning sociopath do quite well in their careers because they work sixty hour weeks, don't mind stabbing people back for promotions, and can be coolly analytical. Apparently lots of ceo's of large corporations are high functioning sociopath.
Identify a Libertarian society. Just one.
Post colonial early America is the closest (with the exception of slavery). Do you ever link that to our surpassing Europe in technological achievement and economic growth? The overwhelming majority of technology spurring the early industrial revolution was developed in Europe, a disproportionate amount in Great Britain. How do you suppose we transformed from a rural economic backwater into the worlds leading economy?
MacLean starts with the utterly bizarre assumption that Buchanan was on a crusade to undermine government, and wrote book that attempts to prove it and does no such thing, and now she just has to dig deeper.
I agree that turning this into yet another grievance complaint is the wrong way to go, but I will observe that when craziness compounds and rationalizes itself it not only gets worse but may become infectious.
"And that spending for the general welfare left a gigantic loophole."
What a shame the "blessings of liberty" weren't given the same reverence as the "general welfare".
@mockturtle,
Identify a Libertarian society.
Actually, more than you might want to admit.
I think most loose-feudal societies (e.g. the Norsemem) were "libertarian" in the broadest sense. Modern libertarianism doesn't have a lot of truck with societies deeply bound by culture & custom. I, however, don't see why such societies cannot be considered libertarian since the social coercion is socially diffused at the individual, family, & tribal level, & not imposed top-down.
Lack of government does not necessarily mean rampant individualism. Indeed, the more individuals can be pushed towards self-restraint the less government is necessary. Needless to say, the Founding Fathers all the way back to Aristotle understood the need for social mores as the foundation of self-restraint.
Most sociopaths are not killers, so he's making an unnecessary distinction.
"The Bill of Rights was a list of things the government couldn't do. By immediately adding it to the Constitution, it changed the purpose of the Constitution in most people's eyes, which is why I believe passing the Bill of Rights was a huge mistake."
It's a provocative point, worthy of discussion.
Myself, I don't have a problem with the Bill of Rights, in fact, I love and respect them.
But, they are a SECONDARY component of the Constitution.
The Articles should take precedent over the Amendments. The Articles provide for the structural disbursement of power. That's the key to the Constitution, and the key to our country.
Liberal folks tend to ignore the powers, and separation thereof; tend to ignore the concept of Federalism; and tend to ignore the structure of the Constitution.
They jump immediately to "rights." We want more "rights." We want to expand the scope of the "rights" we already have. We want to sue somebody to vindicate our "rights".
So, I don't criticize the Bill of Rights per se. I would put them in their proper place, though, secondary to the Articles of the Constitution. Both are critical. But Power -- and the proper exercise thereof -- to me is more important than the rights. The first is dinner, the second is dessert. Both are necessary for a good meal.
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to lump autism in with libertarianism or vice versa. But, as a libertarian, I can say that empathy is not normally our go-to emotional response. Hollywood has that particular emotion covered for the entire country - so I’m not even sure we need to. We’re far more worried about structurally ensuring people are free to make their own choices and allowing them the freedom and dignity to enjoy the consequences. We’d probably say that’s being empathic but it does open us up to the, “what about the children?”
So, I agree - fight back with debate. If they won’t debate, fight back with ridicule. But don’t leverage government or authorities to throttle speech you don’t like - as we tell little kids, use your words. And, don’t be afraid to consider there’s some truth what was said and how it might explain why we consistently earn less than 3% of the vote.
"I remember seeing the data that libertarians have higher IQ than people of other political persuasions...
Makes perfect sense to me."
It also makes perfect sense to me.
However, I am too modest to offer myself up as an example. :-)
The annoying aspect of Ayn Rand was that she always thought she was the smartest person in the room.
What's even more annoying is that in many situations, she was.
I think libertarianism, or classic liberal from 19th century, is that it was/is an ideology only found in Britain and then in America - Locke, Smith, Hume, JS Mill are British while all other European countries had much more socialist thinking. British believed in invisible hand, or spontaneous order, while other countries were very much government controlled societies.
“2) On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing.”
Not quite circular, but... Prof. Baron-Cohen is the Director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, and this empathizing/systemizing distinction is how he tries to explain Autism and ASDs, as essentially extreme male (systemizing) brains. His book: “The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain” (Penguin/Basic Books. 2003. ISBN 978-0-7139-9671-5) was my first foray into Autism and ASDs. I should add that Prof Baron-Cohen kindly provided me with some references on female Asperger’s, which apparently manifests somewhat differently, and which references I found quite helpful.
Didja ever notice (as Andy Rooney used to begin his editorials) that people who say, as a defense of statism, "There never has been a libertarian society," are usually the same people who most fervently don't want one? Funny how that works out, isn't it?
"You know what the worst thing about a truly free society would be? That I couldn't force people to do what I want them to do." (What "liberals," traditionalist Church-and-State conservatives and other liberty-phobes would say if they were being honest.)
Didja ever notice (as Andy Rooney used to begin his editorials) that people who say, as a defense of statism, "There never has been a libertarian society," are usually the same people who most fervently don't want one? Funny how that works out, isn't it?
Well, go on. Name one. JUST ONE!
If you could get everyone on board with Libertarian thinking it might--might!--work. But it goes against human nature--much like Communism does from the other end of the spectrum--and so will fail. Hell, it wouldn't even get off the ground.
1: It's not hypocritical to demand that the University, and the Professor, play by their own rules
2: "She gave what might have sounded, in context, like an empathetic understanding of his sort of mind — that he, like other libertarians she's observed — seems to be somewhere on the autism spectrum."
Claiming that people you disagree with are psychologically damaged, since otherwise they'd agree with you, isn't "contributing to the marketplace of ideas", it's burning it down.
Duke history professor Nancy MacLean is a fraud and a liar (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/28/some-dubious-claims-in-nancy-macleans-democracy-in-chains/?utm_term=.4896955e282a). But here she shows she's also a closed minded bigot. "If you disagree with me on politics, it's because you're a mental defective who lacks empathy and the ability to connect with other human beings".
She is a primary example of the closing of the American (leftist) mind.
I hope they go full bore social justice warrior on her, and protest her until she's forced to recant her bad-think.
Those aren't the rules I want. But they are the rules the Left has put into place. Which means it's imperative that the Left be forced to suffer under them, too.
3: What would your response be to a male libertarian professor, asked if MacLean was just stupid for being such a leftist, responded that "It’s striking to me how many of the architects of [the Left] seem to be on Myers-Briggs "feelers" — you know, people who run on emotion, and who have difficultly thinking or using reason sometimes"?
It's a comment at least as valid as hers
"Originally, the government could only do what was explicitly enumerated in the Constitution"
Don't see why this is not still true in theory at least. I get what you are saying now but I think spelling things out in the Bill of Rights helped as it gave less creative space for judges to read what they wan to read into it. As for abortion it was never a right; merely a demonstration of raw power by the oligarchy.
Being motivated by greed is the basic human norm, and it's generally healthy as one of our motivations. Without it, we would still live in caves.
I can live with citizens motivated at least partly by greed, besides I have no choice, but having a government motivated by greed is what we must fight to control. That is one of the primary points of libertarianism, which I subscribe to more than any other ideology. It's a lot like democracy - the best of a range of highly imperfect options.
"And that spending for the general welfare left a gigantic loophole."
What a shame the "blessings of liberty" weren't given the same reverence as the "general welfare".
The basic problem is a misunderstanding of what the Founders meant when they wrote "promote the general welfare".
What the founders meant by "welfare" was the original meaning:
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group
The purpose of the Constitution was to create a free market republic that would promote people's health, happiness and fortune.
At some point, the general understanding of the term welfare changed to:
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need; financial support given to people in need.
Then the 19th Amendment was passed and all bets were off.
(notice that the only people who matter under the modern interpretation are people in need?)
William, here's a solution: Implant everyone's brain with a Libertarian chip. Oh, but wait! That would be coercion, wouldn't it?
Here is an example of libertarian society, 19th century Britain, one of the most influential and wealthy countries that ever existed.
----------
AJP Taylor - Origins of the Great War:
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service.
http://www.heretical.com/british/mhistory.html
I get what you are saying now but I think spelling things out in the Bill of Rights helped as it gave less creative space for judges to read what they wan to read into it.
No..the Bill of Rights (and the con job case of Marbury V Madison) is what gave the judges the power to read what they want into the Constitution.
Under the original meaning the government could only do what was expressly enumerated...it's the modern meaning given by the Bill of Rights that allows judges to "find" new rights.
Man evolves; greed doesn't. Sorry, Utopians.
-6W
jwl: I think libertarianism, or classic liberal from 19th century, is that it was/is an ideology only found in Britain and then in America - Locke, Smith, Hume, JS Mill are British...
There's a profound insight, implicit in the above, about the nature of political organization (including those of libertarian-leaning states) that modern libertarians have a hard time grasping.
It seems pretty clear throughout history that the main architects of socialism were sociopathic, but I"m not sure if that's itself an argument against socialism in its various forms.
I also quibble with the idea that the key issue is compassion in libertarian vs. progressives.
The image that immediately came to mind was one of parenting. A very loving parent can be very lenient and have high expectations for their kids, making sure they work hard, and learn how to be a good citizen. That can be considered compassion, to help someone learn how to navigate adulthood. It's s sign of respect too.
Meanwhile, the parent who gives their kids everything, pays their way through school, and looks the other way when they mess up, showering them with constant attention isn't necessarily showing good parenting. Indeed, you can have a dad who feels guilty about how they've failed in parenting try to make up for it by being extra generous when they are willing. That's not compassion, though, that's guilt.
Compassion treats the other as true person, helping them in struggle, but wanting the overall best for their future. Guilt responses don't think about the future, only about absolving a sense of guilt in the present, so try to fix things as they come without regard to how its shaping someone's trajectory toward success.
The government is literally and figuratively a gun. It's primary function is to control human behavior, ultimately by force. Like a gun, it is very important to be wise about who it's aimed at and used against. No weapon in history has such a tendandancy and history toward friendly fire tragedy. It is often swung about carelessly, shooting blindly into the dark, or even at well-lit friendly targets.
The best protectors, only use force sparingly when on their own turf and among innocents. They take no pleasure in using it. Some people cannot be trusted with such a weapon.
I wonder, mockturtle; I wonder. If someone attempts to tyrranize me, or simply lift my wallet, and I stop them by brandishing a gun, the gun acts as a kind of "chip," implanting within the aggressor's brain the thought "I'd better not do this." Of course, if the aggressor's sense of ethics isn't changed, he'll probably be back, or at least take his aggression elsewhere. If we're talking of "coercion" as the aggressive use of force, would it actually be coercion to use a chip that stops statists and brigands from ruling and plundering us? Food for thought.
From jwl's quote: For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police.
This happens now with appalling frequency. Libertarians don't believe in borders.
Lewis Wetzel: But I've never met a Libertarian who gave money to a charity or who went to church.
Hi, I'm Paul, registered Libertarian, donator to several charities including the ALMA Society via Amazon Smile, and Missouri-Synod Lutheran. Among other things, I presented on Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics at the Science and Faith series at Bel-Air Church last year. AMA.
If you could get everyone on board with Libertarian thinking it might--might!--work. But it goes against human nature--much like Communism does from the other end of the spectrum--and so will fail. Hell, it wouldn't even get off the ground.
You seem to think a libertarian society has no government, I don't know any such libertarian. In fact libertarians have a pretty broad view of the appropriate level, the consistent agreement is that it should be less than now and thus efforts to increase government control should be opposed.
Total la la land, right?
Paddy @ 12:21. Great comment, and excellent analogy. The parenting analogy is very tight.
There are two competing principles that must be balanced to get a highly functional society: solidarity and subsidiarity. Leftists primarily focus on solidarity and libertarians on subsidiarity although they frequently use other terms. There is a natural tension between the benefits that accrue to all in a functional community setting and the freedom and risks of self determination. Near term solidarity outperforms subsidiarity. Long term freedom is required for creative breakthroughs that launch society forward. Libertarians are on the outer edge of a sociological/political spectrum that is directly at odds with progressives pulling in the opposite direction.
Here is an example of libertarian society, 19th century Britain
They suppressed the slave trade but allowed millions of Irish to starve, then did little for the many millworkers made destitute by the Civil War cotton blockade. But their society as a whole advanced considerably.
Wm. Chadwick: Your 'food for thought 'is pretty toxic.
"Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, "
There was, however, gun control, of a sort. The Gun License Act of 1870 and the Pistols Act of 1903.
Libertarians don't believe in borders.
This is no more true than saying conservatives believe abortion patients should be jailed for life.
This has been an interesting discussion. It seems safe to say that Libertarianism [in the strict sense] is both Idealistic and Utopian.
The open borders and foreign policy is where I part with libertarians. Just like how you manage your own household is quite different than how you relate with strangers which includes criminals and others with no respect for you or your interests. They have no right to your home, but ignoring them and what they are up to will eventually put you and yours in danger.
It's funny how our individual philosophies can converge or diverge from those of other commentators depending on the issue. And that's healthy.
I loathed both junior high and high school as a kid.
We were very poor and moved around a lot because my mom kept getting kicked out of her apartment or leaving abusive boyfriends, etc... Typically I would have to start a new school every 6 months or so...
You can imagine, poor, skinny kid wearing dirty, hand-me-down salvation army clothes with coke-bottle glasses and major allergies (always sniffling and blowing my runny nose), I got TORMENTED and bullied mercilessly by everyone...
Then, going home and dealing with my alcoholic mother screaming at me that I was a no good piece of shit and taking out her personal demons on me... I'd say that the time I was 12 I was pretty fucked-up in the head... I reached a point where I had had enough and I decided I didn't care anymore... that no matter how big someone was, I wasn't going to let them hurt me anymore...
I vowed that even if the guy beat the shit out of me, I would make him wish he'd never started... So I got pretty good at fighting... When you've got nothing to lose and you can teach yourself to ignore the pain and you finally get a chance for some pay-back against the motherfuckers who have made your life a living hell for so much of your life... People for the most part learned to leave me alone... But there were times I dreamed about hurting them the way they hurt me... Lord of the Flies describes things perfectly...
I thank GOD that he put enough good people in my life to help keep me from going totally over the edge... Most people, especially those growing up in middle-class suburbia, have no idea how bad it can be... Bullying is a real problem and I'm sure contributes significantly to things like this...
If you could get everyone on board with Libertarian thinking it might--might!--work. But it goes against human nature--much like Communism does from the other end of the spectrum
Reality is in fact the opposite. Communism only works if people work just as hard for others as they would if they actually benefit from their own labor. Libertarianism works because it does not deny human nature but instead finds a way for that effort to be shared.
I admire Libertarian thought just as I have always admired Ayn Rand. I worked for Ron Paul in two elections, voted for him and wrote in his name on the ballot. My concern is for the viability--or lack thereof--of a system that, like Communism, ignores history and human nature.
Gahrie: The basic problem is a misunderstanding of what the Founders meant when they wrote "promote the general welfare".
It's not a "misunderstanding", in the sense that if you carefully explained to every newcomer to America what what the culturally Anglo-Saxon founders meant by "promote the general welfare", they'd all nod along. People brought different concepts of what "the general welfare meant" into the "libertarianish" culture of the early republic, and eventually changed it.
What the founders meant by "welfare" was the original meaning:
the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group
The purpose of the Constitution was to create a free market republic that would promote people's health, happiness and fortune.
They weren't actually whole hog on the "free market" stuff - the U.S. wasn't a free-trading nation for most of its history. That's a bit of a modern myth. Jus' sayin'.
At some point, the general understanding of the term welfare changed to:
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need; financial support given to people in need.
The founders warned you about the resident krauts and about letting in all those wogs and micks and their dangerous social ideas.
Then the 19th Amendment was passed and all bets were off.
Mostly, I blame the Irish.
thanks, bagoh!
Mockturtle , except for a society running on pacifist-libertarian grounds a la Robert LeFevre, why do you think those of us who want to live freely would not defend a free society against those who want to make us serfs or slaves? Whether that defense would be effective, if the masses wanted serfdom (as the masses are prone to do) doesn't make the idea of a free society illegitimate. Just whose liberty do you want to curtail, anyway?
As for naming a libertarian society , the commenter with the AJP Taylor quote has covered that. Just because a society has never existed without the total absence of aggressive force doesn't give me or you or anyone else a kind of moral blank check to turn the State loose on anyone we don't like. Me, I get by very nicely without pulling guns on people (with the exception of the "youths" who once tried to kick in my door).
RE: Gahrie:
Yes, charity could deal with much of that, but women prefer systematic taxing and spending to establish the basic floor below which we will not sink. Women feel more free to go about their own lives doing what they like if that's taken care of by government and not a continual nagging on them to be either charitable or callous with respect to every possible thing that needs attention.
The social "safety net" isn't really a result of female suffrage. Look at the first extensive modern program of government social programs: Bismarckian socialism. The Iron Chancellor wasn't some bleeding heart. He instituted these programs for pragmatic reasons: to maximise the productivity of the German people and to undercut popular support for wacky socialist radicals. Lord Salisbury promoted social welfare legislation in Great Britain for similar reasons, although in his case, I think he also had some measure of tender concern for the welfare of the common labourers (those "horny handed sons of toil" as he phrased it), just as he had for his tenants at Hatfield.
What is problematic today (and what I think is going to render these programs totally insolvent) is the ongoing effort to "de-stigmatise" welfare. Part of what restricts these programs to the truly needy is the shame that ordinary poor people feel at being on the dole. If you eliminate that, you'll get a lot more use, a lot more expense, and the programs will collapse.
mockturtle: It seems safe to say that Libertarianism [in the strict sense] is both Idealistic and Utopian.
I'd be interested in knowing what "in the strict sense" means. Radicals for Capitalism gives a pretty good idea of the fractiousness of the movement in America. The Libertarian Reader attempts to sketch a big-picture historical development. Anarchy, State, and Utopia is probably the most closely argued, and most explicitly formally philosophical, work on the subject I know.
Joshua Barker: Perhaps your important post should be put in the 'school shooter' thread where it can be better appreciated. But maybe you meant it for this thread.
The open borders and foreign policy is where I part with libertarians. Just like how you manage your own household is quite different than how you relate with strangers which includes criminals and others with no respect for you or your interests. They have no right to your home, but ignoring them and what they are up to will eventually put you and yours in danger.
There are plenty of libertarians against open borders and pacifism. Left wingers are fond of claiming pro lifers aren't really pro life because they don't take a uniform position on the death penalty. This ignores the difference between guilt and innocence. Similarly there is a difference between how countries act and how government treats its citizens. Citizens who have committed no crimes deserve the widest possible freedoms. That reality is not applicable to foreign relations since the motivations for conflict are entirely different. Libertarianism should be seen as a domestic policy.
Victorians also paid for a state church and had restrictive marriage and sex laws.
They left the libertine out of libertarian.
The Whig party, both in England and the US, which consisted of all MEN, were very much inclined toward government sponsored welfare systems. Gladstone was a prime example. Though I prefer the pragmatic approach of Disraeli, Gladstone was merely responding to the poverty of the era in view of his Christian faith.
"Our feelings about things too far beyond our personal scope are too inaccurate."
Are you so very sure, Althouse? I would be genuinely curious to hear you expound upon this. As the phrase stands, it reads as an emotionally-based assumption, and nothing more.
But maybe that's just the tiny libertarian part of me talking.
"The conceit of the rational agent is at the foundation of libertarian thinking."
No, it's not. The idea is not that people are perfectly rational, they aren't -- but even so they are the ones who are best able to make choices for themselves. Will some of them make 'bad choices' (or at least what look like bad choices to 'neutral' observers)? Sure. But governments are not run by all-seeing, all-knowing, benevolent philosopher kings. Agents of government have the same human flaws as those whose choices they seek to override and -- as Buchanan's Public Choice theory showed, those government agents are often motivated more by self interest (getting re-elected, rewarding allies and punishing enemies, increasing the size of their little empires, increasing their salaries and pensions) than by serving the public. Libertarians think people are flawed but still must be allowed the freedom to make their own way in the world with as little interference from their 'betters' as possible.
Internally there's a distinction between actually being unable to actually feel empathy and feeling empathy but not allowing it to be the only factor in guiding one's choices. To the outward observer, there may not appear to be a difference. An incurious observer may incorrectly conclude that an individual of the latter proclivity may be autistic or some kind of sociopath.
Personally I think empathy may be overrated in our modern society, but I also think that an unempathetic society would be truly terrifying. It'd be insect politics writ large.
"The social "safety net" isn't really a result of female suffrage."
No it isn't.
The first historical example, possibly, is not the Bismarckian welfare state, but the Roman corn dole, which was created to pacify the Roman mob.
The Egyptians may have had something similar much earlier, depending on interpretation.
There are other historical cases also, of a "guaranteed income" or guaranteed food supply, administered by the state.
Let's put it this way: one critic of Man, Economy, and State With Power and Market I had a "debate" with summed up his criticism as "It reads like someone trying to design an economy for a computer game" (the person in question has spent a lot of time developing games). Somehow, it never occurred to him that any systematic approach to any subject is going to sound like "developing for a computer game" once it becomes sufficiently detailed and sufficiently accurate.
As for libertarian empathy and taking human needs and desires into account, Rothbard was following up and elaborating on Ludwig von Mises' Human Action, which laid the foundation for all of Austrian economics: precisely that it arises from the individual needs and wants of human actors, so aggregating economic systems can be neither accurate in their assessment of human needs nor supportive of individual human ends.
So the criticism that libertarianism doesn't accord with human nature, I have to say, sounds like a category error to me. Libertarianism does the most to recognize the inherent differences and conflicts among human beings. It just also recognizes the degrees of the combination of futility and evil in politically coercive "solutions" to those differences. What's left, then, is a difference in emphasis among those degrees, with the modern American Libertarian Party as (let's say) representative of one end of the spectrum, and full-on Lysander Spooner anarcho-capitalism at the other.
Personally I think empathy may be overrated in our modern society, but I also think that an unempathetic society would be truly terrifying. It'd be insect politics writ large.
Yes it would, Nonapod!
When I saw that there were 285 comments, I quietly whispered some conclusions to myself.
"The social "safety net" isn't really a result of female suffrage."
It's just a coincidence that the welfare state in the U.S. was created almost immediately after women were given the right to vote.
The whole point of our constitution was to not repeat the mistakes of others.
Of course, you realize that this is very common tactic: pathologizing of political opponents. It is a way of misdirecting from their arguments and is really a sophisticated form of ad hominem. The assumption that libertarians have no empathy - what if they have more empathy? Why is that the assumption? Perhaps (and I know this to be true), libertarians have empathy for the victims of socialism, in the tens of millions murdered under leftist regimes, that seems to be lacking on the left. Should the left be pathologized as lacking empathy due to their psychological state?
Thank you, Ann, for suggesting that there may be truth in the statement. I am Libertarian and while I may not be autistic, I would rather have less to do with people than more to do with them.
The left indulge in a lot of fake empathy. What do their policies and programs really accomplish besides more power and wealth for them?
I like Libertarians. Many, many good ideas. They should become Republicans and try to move the party towards its ideals.
Claims that libertarianism ignores human nature and is "autistic" in nature strike me as quite humorous and ironic. In my experience, it is only libertarians who recognize a major facet of human nature that everyone else seems to ignore.
All human organizations devolve into bureaucracy over time, the larger the organization, the more bureaucratic it becomes. It is also known that bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional, the larger the bureaucracy, the more dysfunctional it is. This is universal and appears to be rooted in human nature.
By its advocacy of decentralization and individual initiative, libertarianism is the ONLY political philosophy that recognizes this reality and, by extension, the human nature that it is rooted in. All other political philosophies, being advocates of collectivism of one sort or another, are really based on the belief in the efficacy of bureaucracy. As such, it is reasonable to state that it is the detractors of libertarianism who are ignorant of human nature and are, thus, "autistic".
I attribute my libertarianism to my intellect (160 IQ) rather than the few spectrum markers I have.
"This is universal and appears to be rooted in human nature."
"By its advocacy of decentralization and individual initiative"
So is this not simply a restatement of libertarian disregard for human nature?
There is that bit out of Unamuno - heck, his big book - "The Tragic Sense of Life" which is the central idea, or rather sensibility, of conservatism, in that you cannot break out of human limitations.
" All other political philosophies, being advocates of collectivism of one sort or another, are really based on the belief in the efficacy of bureaucracy. "
Efficacy, certainly not. Inevitability, yes. And this does not even require a government to create it; in fact government and its corresponding regulation may be created in service of it, that is, civilizational decline. Consider Schumpeter.
All civilizations end, and this is just a mechanism of decline.
Lyssa said...
This seems like a place for a spin on the "pussies and dicks" discussion from Team America. We need emotionalism and detached rationality to check each other. Too much is bad of either one.
2/15/18, 10:19 AM
True, that. But I don’t think that America is in trouble because there’s way too much detached rationality in our society. On the contrary, emotionalism and subjectivism is allowed to run roughshod over plain facts. Are you a girl because you feel like one, even though you have a penis? Well, then you are a girl. You said your date raped you, although you didn’t report it at the time, and in fact later sent him texts indicating you were still sexually interested in him? Well, forget any evidence; if you feel you were raped, you were raped. We have craven university administrators, CEOs and politicians caving on basic issues of free speech because a small group of people have discovered that throwing screaming hissy fits gets you what you want. You can’t even do the Spock-Bones comparison here, unless there was a Star Trek episode where some aliens injected Bones with a drug that caused him to mentally and emotionally revert to age 3. The emotionalism I am seeing on the left now has very little to do with compassion and a lot to do with me,me,me, me. It’s either I want what I want and I want it now, or look at what a wonderful person I am, so unlike those shitty racist people.
I called myself a libertarian for a while when I realized that I could no longer call myself a liberal, but I found I disagreed strongly with the Reason crowd on foreign affairs and national defense. (I think commenter J. Farmer is the most libertarian commenter here in that respect.) I found and still find isolationism unrealistic and potentially disastrous, although I’m no great fan of roaming the world looking for fights either. I’ve come to believe invading Iraq was a costly mistake, but I’ve never quite grasped what the folks at Reason thought we should have done in response to 9/11. Nothing at all?
When I read the comments over at Reason, I quickly become annoyed by both the puerile anti-religion snark (which is indistinguishable from anything you would read at Vox or HuffPo) and the emphasis on pot/drug legalization which you would think is the most important matter facing the Republic. I know not all libertarians are like that, but sometimes I get the feeling the majority of Reason commenters are 25 year olds who are holding decade old grudges against their parents for making them go to church on Sunday mornings and forbidding them to fire up spiffs in the rec room.
Still, give me a libertarian over a leftist any day. The libertarian might make fun of people who go to church – but he’ll let them go. People who want to be left alone are far better than people who want to control and regulate your entire existence.
Why aren’t libertarians more politically popular? Because politicians, almost by definition, are people who want to control and regulate your entire existence.
"...emotionalism and subjectivism is allowed to run roughshod over plain facts"
Should be "are allowed," of course.
While we're generalizing about libertarians being high-functioning autistic individuals, what do you say we generalize about women of a certain age voting for the presidential candidate primarily on who makes their vaginas the wettest? The numbers of women who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 despite his rather undistinguished CV provide as much support -- indeed more support! -- for this assertion than Nancy McLean can muster for for her assertion that libertarians are autistic.
And I'm not a libertarian, though I confess to enjoying Glenn Reynolds.
Leslie Graves said...
When I saw that there were 285 comments, I quietly whispered some conclusions to myself.
2/15/18, 1:13 PM
Sometimes that means the thread have been overtaken by trolls, but that has not been the case here. Actually, it's been a lively, interesting, and largely civil debate, which is a relief.
There are other historical cases also, of a "guaranteed income" or guaranteed food supply, administered by the state.
In the case of pharaonic Egypt, the guaranteed income came at the price of liberty and confiscatory taxation in kind. The peasant farmers supported a powerful nobility and a numerous priestly class in addition to compulsory labor on the various monumental construction projects Ancient Eypgt is well known for.
As a moderate libertarian I moderately resemble this slander.
1. It is Nancy MacLean who has presented the assertion, and thus it is up to her to support it. It is not the responsibility of her critics to disprove it.
Because, there is never a shortage of crackpots offering crackpot ideas, and then demanding you accept them if you can't disprove them. Disproving is a sucker game because it is so much less work to make an assertion than to disprove one. And as soon as one is disproven, another assertion is sure to be tossed out.
So far, the evidence she has offered is, "it seems to me that ..." How about she does some more work to support (and if she can't or won't, there's obviously no need to waste effort on this)?
2. Yes, it's an obvious ad-hominem: the premise is, "Liberatarianism is little more than the expression of its authors' psychological shortcomings, of their inability or unwillingness to feel solidarity or empathy with others." If this is her entry into the "marketplace of ideas," how about she offers up something other than "I don't like libertarians" as a rational argument against libertarianism?
3. Now that just about everyone other than the loudest and most boistrous extraverts are said to be "on the spectrum," just what does "on the spectrum" mean anymore, anyway? That the person so described might not do well doing high-pressure, face-to-face sales everyday?
Do libertarians oppose mandatory vaccinations that cause libertarianism?
"In the case of pharaonic Egypt, the guaranteed income came at the price of liberty and confiscatory taxation in kind. "
Hmmm. What else in history or current conditions resembles this description?
Ambrose said...
Do libertarians oppose mandatory vaccinations that cause libertarianism?
At the Althouse blog they ask the tough questions.
"Sometimes that means the thread have been overtaken by trolls, but that has not been the case here. Actually, it's been a lively, interesting, and largely civil debate, which is a relief."
Some like to think that conversation only happens if there's broadly drawn sides with opposite positions, but the reality is that nuances exist and that can provoke much deeper conversation. While the commenters around here skew conservative, there's very different kinds of conservatives that lead to very different positions and perspectives on issues.
mockturtle said...
Libertarians don't believe in borders.
I do. And it's related to that idea that "libertarianism" is British, and my short version is:
-- your country's (the US's) principles don't apply to the rest of the world
-- most of the rest of the world would destroy a libertarian country because they're too stupid and even moreso, because they're too corrupt <--Note which countries are the least corrupt: the British diaspora is most of it. Also note the overlaps between stupid and corrupt.
Supposedly a lot of gov't corruption stems from weird family obligations (you're *supposed to* hire your relatives!), but too bad. Stay there until you can act civilized.
kurt9: All human organizations devolve into bureaucracy over time, the larger the organization, the more bureaucratic it becomes. It is also known that bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional, the larger the bureaucracy, the more dysfunctional it is. This is universal and appears to be rooted in human nature.
By its advocacy of decentralization and individual initiative, libertarianism is the ONLY political philosophy that recognizes this reality and, by extension, the human nature that it is rooted in. All other political philosophies, being advocates of collectivism of one sort or another, are really based on the belief in the efficacy of bureaucracy.
"Libertarianism is the ONLY political philosophy that recognizes this reality..." Lol.
Don't know if kurt9 is really this ignorant of the history of political philosophy, or is just trying to snow those who are.
"At the Althouse blog they ask the tough questions."
This is a tough question. Its not limited to libertarianism.
Its a point thats been open for decades, on the matter of what can be done to the mind, once we understand the mind well enough to intervene in its workings in detail.
Not that new either. We are much closer to "Brave New World" than 1984.
Enormously more in this vein in Science Fiction, over the last five decades.
W/r/t the Bill of Rights. When I contrast the relative liberty(ies) we have in the realm of speech, religion (although that's decreasing rapidly), bearing arms (increasing!), search/seizure of our persons and possessions, etc., with the laws of other countries, even those others in the Anglosphere (e.g., Australia, UK, Canada), I am convinced that it's only the writing down and incorporation of them by amendment into the Constitution, that safeguards those liberties.
Among other infringements on individual liberty, Australia confiscated privately-owned guns. England and Canada outlaw speech that is considered offensive.
While the Bill of Rights may ultimately reveal itself as but a paper Maginot Line for the defense of our individual liberties, I suggest that, at the very least, it's delayed their extinction.
Safety net needed? Then also: fences.
-6W
Daddy Government: cat, cradle, car keys.
-6W
Daddy Government: no T-Bird, you.
-6W
Daddy Government: Pimp? So then you...
-6W
All human organizations devolve into bureaucracy over time, the larger the organization, the more bureaucratic it becomes. It is also known that bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional, the larger the bureaucracy, the more dysfunctional it is. This is universal and appears to be rooted in human nature.
By its advocacy of decentralization and individual initiative, libertarianism is the ONLY political philosophy that recognizes this reality and, by extension, the human nature that it is rooted in. All other political philosophies, being advocates of collectivism of one sort or another, are really based on the belief in the efficacy of bureaucracy.
QED. Libertarianism is a political philosophy suited only to small groups of human beings. Recognizing that collectivism and bureaucracy are inevitable human leanings is the first step to recovery.
Every coherent philosophy required the banishment of uncomfortable facts from the discussion to really shine in it’s best light.
"QED. Libertarianism is a political philosophy suited only to small groups of human beings. Recognizing that collectivism and bureaucracy are inevitable human leanings is the first step to recovery." How does increasing the population empower some people to impose their will on others?
By the way, is anyone here familiar with the Oppenhein theory on the origin of the State? Just wondering.
Recognizing that collectivism and bureaucracy are inevitable human leanings is the first step to recovery.
2/15/18, 2:53 PM
No, recognizing that bureaucracies inevitably become corrupt and inefficient at everything except expanding and maintaining their own power and that collectivism inevitably leads to gulags and killing fields is the first step to recovery.
"How does increasing the population empower some people to impose their will on others? "
Increasing the population ENABLES some people to impose their will. In part because you require collective effort to use modern technologies, such as irrigated agriculture effectively to feed a dense population. Somebody has to run things...
Could all the liberty phobes on this board come clean (Mockturtle, this is specifically for you but I'd be curious about others) and state how devoted to Der Staat you all are? As I've said earlier, when people say "There has never been a libertarian society . . ." the next and usually concealed thought is, "And I don't want there to be one!"
They also seem to be making the same kind of argument-by-precedent that defenders of slavery made at one time. "There never has been a society without slavery; therefore we shouldn't try to abolish slavery." Finally, they are making the age-old statist error of conflating Society with the State.
Please feel free to bottom-line it by using my patented Statist Scale (aka "the Coercion Meter"). As always, on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 represents pure pacifist- libertarian anarchism a la Robert LeFevre, and 10 represents pure dictatorship a la Mao, Stalin and Hitler. I consider somewhere around 6.5 what I call "the State felllator Zone" (Obama, Hillary, etc.). This cuts out a lot of obfuscating "liberal" rhetoric.
"Somebody has to run things..." Yeah, that's what they all say.
"There are plenty of libertarians against open borders and pacifism."
First, these two don't go together.
Second, the OFFICIAL libertarian position is: Open borders. BTW, Ron Paul was against a Border wall because "libertarians" thought it would used to KEEP Americans in.
Third, if libertarian philosophy means you can be -for AND against - pacifism, open borders, bad trade deals, the EU, medicare and social security, welfare, affirmative action, free speech, Abortion, legalized drugs and prostitution..
Then, you don't have a political philosophy - just a "Label" and a set of political attitudes.
Oppenheins is a bit of a just-so story.
It is not actually known how the first state emerged.
If you want to delve into whats known about pre-agricultural or otherwise primitive tribes, you can tease out some of that victorious gangster business, maybe, if you squint a bit.
The problem with letting women vote is it increases the dumb, low-information vote.
If 20% of men are too ignorant/stupid to vote, with women its more like 40%, since women - on average - care less about politics, and know less about history, political science, economics, etc than men.
In a sane world, we'd give people a current events test before they could vote. And instead of making it easier, we'd make it harder - so only those truly motivated and informed would cast a vote.
""Somebody has to run things..." Yeah, that's what they all say."
They do. Try run a project of any size (tech, IT, civil, you name it).
Or even very small size. Heck, try organize girl-scout cookie distribution.
We've ALWAYS Had states/governments/Chiefs etc. and always will.
Libertarians are almost exclusively American.
I wonder why that is.
My, my. The commentariat's blood pressure seems to be going up today. The Professor has noted the low emotional intelligence and discernment levels ( a/k/a empathy) of Libertarians. And the predominant reaction has been denial. But she did not say libertarians lacked emotional feelings. She said they tend to ignore other's emotional signals.
Do we put this down to Lenten repentance frustration.
@Chadwick
How far into an experimental libertarian society do you think we'd get before rules would be needed to prohibit people from collective action?
There may be something to this. I don't know much about autism and I have known relatively few self-identified libertarians but what I have seen a great deal of is normal left-wing people and one thing I strongly suspect about them is that they do not arrive at their political opinions through logic.
Now unfortunately this is a common place observation, and frankly almost everyone who has an opinion thinks, or so they claim, that their opinion is logical and based on reasoning. So if this is such a common illusion, how do I know that my opinions are based on reasoning when apparently everyone else has the same illusion also?
Well the answer, it seems to me, is that I don't. And in fact it is entirely possible that my opinions are in reality driven by other factors than logic, and so I somewhat skeptical about myself and sometimes I try to watch myself to try to catch myself in the act, so to speak, of whatever it is I'm actually doing that is driving how I think. But I never catch myself. I never apprehend what is going on even if I'm suspicious.
But if it's impossible to look at myself, it's not nearly so difficult to look at others. And the absence of reasoning seems to be common. Many people seem to be so very bad at this that this could be the most striking observation about their thinking. Why does someone believe such and such? Well I don't know because for one thing they can't explain it. But they think they can. People have this common illusion that they opinions are based on reasoning, even in the extreme case where it seems to me that there isn't a whole lot of evidence being offered for reasoning occurring or in any significant sense driving things.
And then there is the striking situation where you have a whole lot of people believing the same thing and with all of them being almost equally bad at explaining why they believe this thing and in particular being bad at interacting with information that would contradict their belief.
It's this common situation that prompts the suspicion on my part that it may be normal human behavior and in particular normal left-wing behavior to believe things based on sort of a census of what people around you think. It could be that there is something like a compulsion to not think thoughts counter to what the group thinks. And that for some people this compulsion is so strong that they literally cannot hold ideas counter to the group around them.
I can see evolutionary arguments for such a compulsion existing and it having adaptive value.
But if that is the case then that means there is something wrong with me because I'm good at coming up with arguments counter to the group around me. And then that raises two questions about me from myself, the first is if it is the case that there is something broken in me that I'm not feeling a common part of the human experience, are there also other things that are broken? And the second is to wonder if there is an adaptive value to being able to think counter to the group? I mean in the evolutionary sense. If there is adaptive value then there could be a significant number of people able to do this, even if they were a rather small proportion of humanity. But if there is no adaptive value then we would expect to see only a tiny percentage of people that can do this.
An obvious problem with what I suspect is a common human compulsion to believe ideas that others around you believe (if they are something like group-marking ideas) is that means people can believe bizarre things and arrive at very illogical and odd places. But then that would be consistent with human history.
traditionalguy: The Professor has noted the low emotional intelligence and discernment levels ( a/k/a empathy) of Libertarians. And the predominant reaction has been denial. But she did not say libertarians lacked emotional feelings. She said they tend to ignore other's emotional signals.
The libertarian's problem with this is that "empathy" tends to be measured as "supporting the coercive spending of other people's money" by those claiming libertarians lack "empathy." Whether or not you empathize with libertarians, the flaw in this reasoning should be obvious. If that's not what "empathy" is intended to mean, then the claim seems to be that (some) libertarians of the claimant's acquaintance presumably failed to exhibit empathy toward some specific person or group also known to the claimant. That's an even more problematic assertion, also for reasons that should be obvious.
Couple this with the complainant often exhibiting a shocking degree of ignorance of libertarian philosophy, and it becomes exceedingly difficult to take these criticisms seriously. 90% of them amount to no more than a special case of selection bias. "I don't know any Libertarians who contribute to charities or attend church" is a striking example in the genre.
No, Wm. Chadwick, I am not a 'statist'. Do I believe some form of government is necessary? Yes. Even if that government is the family or the clan, it is government. Armies are necessary and involve hierarchy and subordination. Do you not believe in military institutions? Is it every man for himself? [While I have the means to defend myself I doubt I could take on an invading army with my 38 Ruger].
If everyone was as logical and pragmatic as you [or I, for that matter], maybe a government would be unnecessary but millennia of human experience has shown this premise is unrealistic, just like Cookie's dreams of world peace. Dream on, Utopian.
Blogger deepelemblues said...
Oh Lewis, if you're now saying you weren't really trying to say anything, why did you say anything at all? You did have a point you were trying to make with your anecdote about libertarians, did you not? Don't be weaselly, proudly stand by what you believe.
Where, oh where, is your disagreement with me, deepeleblues?
Do you believe it is not true that Libertarians believe that social welfare should be left to private charities and churches? Do you believe that Libertarians make a practice of financially supporting secular and religious charities?
"I like Libertarians. Many, many good ideas. They should become Republicans and try to move the party towards its ideals."
Bay Area Guy,
I first voted Republican in 1984 when I was 31. Before then, I was a standard brainwashed leftist who eventually read Ayn Rand.
After Reagan, there were few inspiring conservative/libertarian Republicans, but I voted for the Bushes (honorable men that I gave money to) and got Bill Clinton/Barack Obama-lite.
I never liked Trump nor did I take him seriously until it was between him and the Clinton Crime Family.
I would change my 47 years registration from Independent to Republican if they moved more in the libertarian direction.
I think it would be fun for Althouse to rate the regular commenters on her perception of where they fit on the libertarian/autism spectrum. I'd expect a rating of 11, not sure if that's on a scale of 10, 100, or 1000.
Some of us libertarians who lack empathy for the problems of other people are happy to outsource that function to the government. That may mystify other libertarians. I don't understand what is so hard to understand about that.
As to the failure of libertarians to succeed in politics, I attribute that to the problem of organization. If you call a meeting of libertarians, you know that anyone who shows up is not a libertarian. But, if libertarians are failing so badly in politics, why do we have so much liberty?
If everyone was as logical and pragmatic as you [or I, for that matter], maybe a government would be unnecessary
It's easy to understand why so many people here oppose libertarianism, they don't know what it is. I would have thought people used to the assertion that conservatism is about supporting racism would not fall into the same trap.
"But, if libertarians are failing so badly in politics, why do we have so much liberty?'
But you have less liberty. Much less since the 1980's.
Since we've drifted far from the original Libertarian as Autistic spectrum, I would offer that I favor decentralized government wherever possible. In my lifetime, the federal government has greedily taken over nearly every function of the states and counties. The big question is how to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
Buwaya, I disagree. When I was a child, vagrancy was a crime, as was panhandling. Blue laws were in effect. Homosexual behavior was a crime. Women had far fewer legal rights. And there are many other examples of past proscription of personal behavior.
Addendum: Ok, you said 'since the 1980's'.
I "identify" as libertarian, likely because there's not a more appropriate term, and people tend to understand the basic tenets of what that means. I'm also female, in case that matters for this discussion.
Generally, on the topic of compassion/emotion, most of the time we are not measuring a feeling. Because you can't, really. But you can observe actions said to spring from an emotion. When contemplating an issue that provokes an emotional reaction, as an above commentator mentioned, there is "helping" and then there is "solving the problem". Often we do the first because we cannot or are not willing to do what it takes to do the second (or it is not possible). I imagine some people, on some issues, are unwilling to do certain kinds of "help", because they believe it makes the problem worse/does not solve the problem, such as panhandling. Others give cash, because it is a help. (Both helping and attempting to solve is also possible).
Here in the Puget Sound area we have a huge problem with homelessness. There are a ton of factors. Money is being thrown at the problem from all angles, yet it persist and worsens. The debate among people seems to be solidly divided between "help" vs "solve the problem" and it is an extremely emotional argument (I base this on observations of other comment sections). I bring this up, because as much as outside elements want to help or solve this issue, you cannot help someone if they don't want it. And it sucks to know this and drive through the areas that are absolutely festooned with tent cities and their detritus. Seeing these folks and their situation makes me sad, angry, etc but I know I can't personally help all of them, or solve their problems, and I KNOW my governments as they currently operate will try but continue to fail. So rather than be consumed by sadness and pain every time I consider this particular issue, I let myself have a break from feeling that way sometimes. This is probably interpreted as coldness, rather than self-protection.
So now that I have to go click "I'm not a robot" captcha, you can decide if you think that's a lie or not (hah).
Collectivists always have a very difficult time understanding people who believe first and foremost in the individual and individual rights. I'm disgusted that she's a professor at Duke. Disgusted, but not surprised. Glad I didn't waste my money sending my kid there.
There are no collective rights. No group rights. Every group is made up of individuals, and if you don't protect the rights of all individuals, then you protect no one. Libertarians believe that every person has the right to live for his or her own sake, with the only restriction being that you do not infringe on the rights of others to live for their own sake. If that's autistic, I'm glad to be on the spectrum (along with my grandson).
In my mind, she's a simpleton. A follower. A collectivist. Pretty classic college material.
"And there are many other examples of past proscription of personal behavior."
Business licensing and oversight was much less stringent. There were many fewer and less costly requirements for hiring (i.e., cost of employment). You could smoke and drink where now you can't. You could, without violating tons of laws and ordinances, invent things in your garage. You could sell Carbon tetrachloride for kids to make their own circuit boards - heck, that's how Apple got started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_Club
You could start a machine shop with used equipment, with minimal investment, in any office park suite with a concrete pad, close to your customers.
And you could say what you liked. There was, relative to now, free speech.
I find the comment meaningless, because I could just as well apply it to some of those screaming liberals. To Hillary calling people who didn't want to vote for her "deplorables". To all those pundits in the press earnestly describing Trump voters as racists, because clearly that was the only possible motivation! To those who think wearing a MAGA hat is explicit endorsement of genocide. To Democrats claiming various Republicans will leave bodies on the streets, etc. To John Kerry telling students that if they don't work hard they'll have to join the army and go "over there". I read proposals from earnest environmentalists about raising energy costs so high that people will freeze/roast.
Our public politics is crap because far too many operate from the basis that anyone who doesn't agree with their positions must be deranged or evil, and this applies to individuals of various ideologies. It's really only average people who take each other and each other's problems seriously any more.
It's not that Libertarians can't be like that too, but geeze, look around! All over the political landscape we have clots of objectively disgusting people. In 2016, just before the election, one of my own cousins who works for the government and considers himself Republican/conservative told me that workers' wages needed to come down! My diagnosis: Out of touch and proud as punch about it. Oh, yeah, and no empathy and no conscience. AT ALL.
So I will not concede that the professor had a valid point. No one who thinks that the problem she ascribes may be applied to just one of the political ideological poles may be taken seriously. She is one of those; she is an example of just EXACTLY what she is ascribing to Libertarians.
I will not feed this meme by playing her game, and I have little regard for anyone who does play that game. Until we try to talk to each other with respect, our political climate will grow more and more dysfunctional.
Temujin, valuing individual rights over collective rights does not define Libertarianism as I understand it. Our government in its foundation, God bless it, protects our individual rights, unlike the governments of most European countries and Canada which place collective rights ahead of individual rights. The adage, "He who governs least governs best" is a good one but in a multicultural society where a large portion of the populace is incapable of self-government, sound choices and good judgment, more government becomes necessary to prevent mass uprisings. FDR knew this and though I abhor his measures, many of which plague us today, I understand his reasoning.
QED. Libertarianism is a political philosophy suited only to small groups of human beings. Recognizing that collectivism and bureaucracy are inevitable human leanings is the first step to recovery.
Quite the contrary. That bureaucracy and collectivism are natural human leanings is the first step towards recognizing that such is inimical to any kind of productive accomplishment. Since the only function of human organizations is to facilitate productive accomplishment, then it is reason to consider that libertarianism is the only political philosophy that is appropriate for any society that seeks to accomplish anything useful. Anything else is a non-starter.
"This is universal and appears to be rooted in human nature."
"By its advocacy of decentralization and individual initiative"
So is this not simply a restatement of libertarian disregard for human nature?
Quite the contrary. It is a statement of the libertarian recognition of this facet of human nature. All other political philosophies tend to disregard this human nature with regards to any productive human endeavor.
You could start a machine shop with used equipment, with minimal investment, in any office park suite with a concrete pad, close to your customers.
And you could say what you liked. There was, relative to now, free speech.
2/15/18, 5:40 PM
You could also let your children walk to school by themselves without a neighbor calling the cops on you.
2/15/18, 6:25 PM Delete
A decade or so ago there was a “study” (I think more than one) by (of course liberal) academics that purported to show that conservatives were less capable of seeing the points of view of others, or feeling compassion for others. The, shall we say rigors, of the study were quite successfully challenged, as I recall. The study was a mess of lefty prejudices.
Liberals (not leftists, who seem to be primarily about opposition to whomever and whatever) who are sincerely compassionate about the less fortunate favor statist interventions as the best approaches to address the needs of the unfortunate. The fact that conservatives and libertarians see more potential problems than solutions in big government welfare programs does not mean they have less compassion. That idea is an old indulgence of intellectually lazy and vain liberals. Is the observation, for example, that five generations of welfare culture has not adequately addressed poverty or inequality an expression of lack of compassion? Or could it be that the blind insistence that more of the same monumentally failed approach will reduce net suffering in the long run, when it quite obviously has not in last half century, an expression of lack of compassion? Could the support of socialistic ideas that have consistently failed everywhere for a century possibly be seen as lacking compassion?
Now arises the notion that libertarians are “on the spectrum.” Another slight variation on the theme that anything besides liberal orthodoxy results from a mental disorder...this time not a “phobia” but a developmental disorder. You know, maybe Michael Savage is right and it is liberalism that is a mental disorder. See how easy that is?
Predictable. It makes complete sense.
In the old days, maybe three decades ago, "it's a free country" was a common expression. You know, in response to someone asking if they might share a table in a public area, or smoke a cigarette, or speak up.
No one says "it's a free country" anymore.
I am very encouraged about the interest in this thread.
There may be hope for the future.
First, we need to get rid of the swamp. Next, we need to correct the overcorrections.
Change is not just good. It is necessary for survival.
True believer libertarians don't live in "realsville".
Most are just happy to live in dream land of political philosophy.
Good for internet chit-chat. Meaningless, for actual real life results.
maybe Michael Savage is right and it is liberalism that is a mental disorder. See how easy that is?
Yes, it is common that the conversation is poisoned with the opening remark, or preconceived notions.
Change is not just good. It is necessary for survival.
No, not for it's own sake. Certainly not when there exists a dynamic that promotes fitness. The fitness function seems to be negotiable and subject to change.
The libertarian philosophy underestimates the process of reconciliation.
"Meaningless, for actual real life results."
Please elucidate me, rcoceaan, what creates actual life results, outside of the usual real life corruption.
Please elucidate me, rcoceaan, what creates actual life results, outside of the usual real life corruption.
What would be the point in telling you? You're hopeless! A nihilistic psychologist - such as you are - is someone who doesn't need any explanations, let alone enlightenment.
Just for the record since I'm late and the discussion is way past dead, but libertarians aren't autistic. They are amoral and self-centered. Which makes them closer to the left than to the right.
"here are no collective rights. No group rights. Every group is made up of individuals, and if you don't protect the rights of all individuals, then you protect no one. "
Temujin, (sorry about the spelling), I could not agree more!
As an autistic libertarian, I believe she's on to something.
But that doesn't invalidate libertarianism. Autistics also invented computers, spaceflight, and Dungeons and Dragons.
Debate? Screw that. Fire her sorry ass. Now. Enough is enough.
When I read the comments over at Reason
I used to comment at Reason. Then, wholesale, a bunch of us left because of their strange fascination with things most libertarians would find absurd (read Shikha Dalmia or Peter Suderman columns -- they're nowhere near libertarian in their underpinnings)
Just look at their Alexa score drop for an idea of how far away they've strayed from libertarian principles.
I've often partially-joking said the reason I'm libertarian is that I can't care for everyone. It's physically impossible. But isn't a part of empathy understanding the limits of what oneself is capable of?
I'm a registered Republican, but I can't play the team politics game anymore, where it's all about principals over principles.
"Then, you don't have a political philosophy - just a "Label" and a set of political attitudes."
The Republicans are a political party. Supposedly, they are conservative. Yet, they keep making giant fucking deficits like the Democrats do. They vote for shit that goes against their principles and have done this repeatedly. In fact, it's part of the reason for the rise of Trump!
See, I can play the inconsistency game, too.
Is there a purity test for libertarians? Hell if I know. There's disagreement within the philosophy on the concept of open borders. We don't expunge people for differing beliefs on single issues, unlike Democrats and their Pro-Life members.
Can you give us examples, Mark, of what makes libertarians "amoral"? The fact that we don't hurt other people and don't take their stuff?
As for being self-centered, you mean like people who believe they are so god-like they have the right to rule other people?
If we had to get rid of everything people with a bit of autism or dyslexia gave us, I think we might all be in caves in the dark.
A philosophy of non-aggression meaningless for real life? You must have an interesting life.
"Money is being thrown at the problem from all angles, yet it persist and worsens." Paging Fox Butterfield.
It's funny to come to this thread and listen to people tell me who I am.
Oh, well ...
Mockturtle, you're all over the place. (I think the Objectivist term is "mixed premises.") So other people's irrationalism invalidates libertarianism? How does that work exactly? Are you advocating force against irrational people? If so, how irrational do they have to be before you decide you have the right to curtail their liberty? And if their irrationality manifests itself in aggression against others (as in the recent school shooting), why would it be anti-libertarian to forcibly stop them? You seem to have a very uninformed perception of libertarianism. Is it based on any actual reading of libertarian authors and thinkers?
Which gets me to the origin of this thread: that dingbat "scholar" saying that the "architects" of libertarianism showed signs of being autistic. Which architects of libertarianism would those autistics be? John Locke? Bastiat? Really, who? One of my favorite books is Jim Powell's TRIUMPH OF LIBERTY, which consists of mini-biographies of liberty's champions down through the centuries; and while I've read it two or three times, I can't recall any of those champions--whatever their personal shortcomings--showing signs of autism.
Not that it matters. An autistic who minds his own business (in both the personal and political spheres) is a more valuable citizen and neighbor than some statist busybody who thinks he's entitled to use force against you and help himself to your stuff.
Re-reading the original post my first thought was: "Wow--a statist using the ad hominem argument against people who resist statism! How unusual! Their arguments are usually so logical!"
I was born and raised in New York City, so even my inner voice is sarcastic. As Fran Lebowitz once wrote, sarcasm is what New Yorkers have instead of hot tubs.
I studied libertarianism after being introduced to it. Sounds great in theory, just like Communism does- from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, but in practice, neither one works.
I've come to think of myself as a realistic libertarian. That government is best which governs least, but government itself is a necessary evil. In order foe a society to be stable over generations, it needs rules to reproduce the society. There will always be those that chafe under the rules.
Should recreational drugs be completely legal? "Of course!" says the pure libertarian. Does unfettered access to recreational drugs lead to a coarsening or breakdown of society? The evidence to date seems to lead to "Yes!" as an answer. Where's the line on what should be allowed and what should be banned? We've experimented with banning alcohol. It didn't work, we ended the experiment. So we've established BAC levels and encouraged designated drivers. Seems to stop much of the direct carnage. Doesn't stop family chaos when a parent is an alcoholic.
When I was younger- people could, and did, use tobacco anywhere. Movie theater seats had built in ashtrays. Nowadays, some cars don't have ashtrays and the cigarette lighter receptacle is now the 12V power outlet. Smoking has been restricted, but not banned. In the U.S. Used to be seen as a sophisticated and suave behavior, and is now associated with lower class and criminals. I like the new almost tobacco free world. It's a lot easier for me to breathe. My ancestors made their money growing and selling the product...
Wandered a bit there. From what I've read, autistic people, and Asperger's Syndrome people on the autism spectrum, like rules and defined behaviors. Libertarianism is a lack of both. Seems to be autists of all types would reject libertarianism and accept some variety of authoritarianism with clearcut rules and expectations of behavior.
I'm coming in rather late to the discussion...
Our host stated:
Yes, charity could deal with much of that, but most of us prefer systematic taxing and spending to establish the basic floor below which we will not sink. We feel more free to go about our own lives doing what we like if that's taken care of by government and not a continual nagging on me to be either charitable or callous with respect to every possible thing that needs attention.
Many of us non-autistic libertarians see that this type of floor (meaning a government built floor) is on inherently unstable foundations. While libertarians are often accused of being Utopians, thinking governments are the solution is even more Utopian.
The real problem with the government provide "basic floor" is that it lets us "go about our own lives" without having to think about the poor. How's that for a lack of empathy? Push these people off on the government so I don't have to think about them. And libertarians are without empathy?
And, as been pointed out here - how is that floor working? Trillions spent since the great society to virtually no effect. The percentage of poor is still with us. That's because those running the program have no incentive to work themselves out of a job.
At the turn of the last century, there were no government programs, hospitals, etc. But there were a lot of charitable organizations, including mutual aid societies. You can thank government, the AMA and other rent seekers for putting them out of business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtBskFDiOC4
The government as a basic floor shows a lack of empathy and emotional distance from the poor. It shows selfishness by passing the problem off to someone else because you can't be bothered.
Patrick Henry asserts: At the turn of the last century, there were no government programs, hospitals, etc. But there were a lot of charitable organizations, including mutual aid societies. You can thank government, the AMA and other rent seekers for putting them out of business.
Medicine has become a high-tech industry, for better or for worse. Charities are ill-equipped to pay for MRIs and joint replacements. While I liked it better when health care was a profession, not an industry, it is what it is.
Buwaya @ 5:40pm,
I laid out and etched quite a few circuit boards at home, back in the day, and I'm certain that CCl4 was never part of the process. Are you perhaps confusing it with trichloroethane or trichloroethylene? The latter two were what we used to clean off the soldering flux when I worked at a small electronic mfr during college (I was there for the transition from -ethane to -ethylene.)
Gospace: I studied libertarianism after being introduced to it... I've come to think of myself as a realistic libertarian. That government is best which governs least, but government itself is a necessary evil.
You studied libertarianism, but failed to differentiate it from anarchism until you invented "realistic libertarianism" ex nihilo?
This is another good entry in the "Why I reflexively disbelieve 'I studied libertarianism...'" category. The evidence is to the contrary.
Let's use fake science to find out why (all non-progressive) people think the way they do! That way we can finally "cure" all those who aren't progressives!
And, as been pointed out here - how is that floor working? Trillions spent since the great society to virtually no effect. The percentage of poor is still with us. That's because those running the program have no incentive to work themselves out of a job.
The war on poverty is an unwinnable war.
First of all, the government changes the definition of poverty literally every year. If poverty is defined as $20,000 this year, next year it will be $20,300.
Secondly, poverty is a relative term. Most poor people in the United States today have vastly higher standards of living than rich people 100 years ago, and of the middle class in most countries today.
Paul Snively said...
I stand on top of this mountain and judge everyone from a few snippets of word because I am all knowing and all seeing and perfect in every way and know others better than they know themselves.
Mockturtle: Medicine has become a high-tech industry, for better or for worse. Charities are ill-equipped to pay for MRIs and joint replacements. While I liked it better when health care was a profession, not an industry, it is what it is.
One can not assume that because something is a certain way that it had to be that way nor that the way it is could not be changed. https://fmma.org/ and look up the Surgery Center of Oklahoma.
Your thinking is much like the CBO that statically scores tax rate changes and never takes into account the change of behavior caused by the changes in the rates.
My concern is for the viability--or lack thereof--of a system that, like Communism, ignores history and human nature.
It's true that we can't in practice abolish overseers whipping the slaves because, for whatever reason, the vast majority of people think there need to be overseers whipping slaves. That does not suggest to me that the actual problem here is the minority of people who want to abolish overseers whipping slaves.
There is another issue that I have with non-libertarian world-views and their consideration of group identity. There have been times in my youth when I have felt group affinity for the people around me. When I was in high school, I was part of a group of guys who were wild and partied a lot. But at the same time they had a sort of work ethic in that they believed in having one's act together in life and in making rational decisions. In practice this meant studying and getting good grades as well as working for superior performance in other activities (e.g. playing a musical instrument or any athletic endeavor). We lacked respect for those who did not have their act together. It was some years later that I realized that my group of friend could be described as "heinleinian" competent people. The reason why I say all of this is because I am capable of feeling a group identity providing the human capital of the group is worthy of my attention (e.g. the group is comprised exclusively of "heinleinian" competent individuals). The problem is that no conventional society (nation-state, kingdom, empire, religious group) at present or in history has ever been comprised of such individuals. Hence, I feel no affinity for such social groupings.
Patrick Henry states: One can not assume that because something is a certain way that it had to be that way nor that the way it is could not be changed. https://fmma.org/ and look up the Surgery Center of Oklahoma.
The rise of medical mega-industries is not just 'a certain way' by accident. It is the result of greed. Where hospitals used to have administrators, they now have CEOs. They advertise. They hire layers of executives [Michele Obama was once "Vice President for Community and External Affairs" at a Chicago medical center for which she was paid over $300K a year]. Then there's Big Pharma. Medical supply companies. Nursing home chains. All with big profit margins. Private practice is being driven out of business by the Multicare entities of this country. Even 'not for profit' hospitals have executives making in excess of $1M. I'm no socialist but having worked in the field and have several physicians in my family I can say that care will not be improved by these trends and that doctors will, in future, all be foreign imports.
OK, I'm done. ;-)
Nonsense, Ann. She was giving a lecture because of her status. To wrap it into pure free speech, as if she was sitting in her living room and chatting around.
Sure debating it is wonderful. All for it. Will also wait for your call for a debate on opposing sides of homosexuality and perhaps race and IQ. The problem as I see it is that you and the Duke professor do not see the obvious medicalization of ideologies. Long live the Soviet Union.
Post a Comment