by Andrew
I see that Markos Moulitsas is busy selling his libertarian Democrat trope again, this time at Cato. I suppose, as a nominal libertarian (I’m really more of a small-r republican, actually), I ought to be flattered that the Democrats are at least looking for our votes now. The Republican response to libertarians leaving seems to run along the lines of ‘Speaker Pelosi…President Hilary Clinton..’ and so on. Granted, not necessarily pleasant prospects (although I really don’t know enough about Representative Pelosi to have any idea if she’d be any good as speaker, and it’s not like we could do a lot worse than Representative Hastert), but in six years of Republican dominance or near-dominance, there hasn’t been much (anything? Surely there must be something?) to point to in Republican accomplishments that would warm the cockles of a libertarian’s heart. No Child Left Behind and Medicare Plan D are the two signature domestic achievements of the past six years, and both of those are libertarian nightmares. Sure, the Republicans cut taxes, but since they’ve accelerated spending on a curve that looks disturbingly logarithmic, taxes are going to go back up sooner or later, so the current respite doesn’t do much for libertarians either.
However, unlike the old maxim about the enemy of my enemy, the fact Republicans make lousy libertarians is hardly proof that Democrats would make good ones. Indeed, the core principle of the Democratic Party seems to be that government is a good thing. It’s hard to square that with the circle of libertarianism that considers government at best a necessary evil. And reading Kos’ missive, it becomes clear that, like so many Democrats, he just doesn’t understand libertarians. (In fairness, there’s little doubt I don’t understand Democrats, either.) Exhibit A, a quote from a diarist at Daily Kos named hekebolos, "The fundamental reason that "libertarian" has become "libertarian democrat" is that corporations are becoming more powerful than governments." Oh, please.
I do know that Democrats tend to dismiss libertarian concerns about concentrations of power in government because we don’t seem equally as concerned about corporations. There is a very good reason for that, however: beliefs like hekebolos’ (and, by extension, Kos) are irrational. Let’s take a look at Kos’ argument:
As hekebolos further noted, defense contractors now have greater say in what weapons systems get built (via their lobbyists, blackmailing elected officials by claiming that jobs will be lost in their states and districts if weapons system X gets axed). The energy industry dominates the executive branch and has reaped record windfall profits. Our public debt is now held increasingly by private hedge funds. Corporations foul our air and water. They plunder our treasury.
This list, I’m sure, could be added to. Oil and oil services companies can even dictate when and how the most powerful nation on earth decides to go to war. A cabal of major corporate industry is, in fact, more powerful than the government of the most powerful nation on earth–and government is the only thing that can stop them from recklessly exploiting the people and destroying their freedom.
I realize that people don’t want to believe this, but business has to deal with one very simple fact: on its own, business cannot force anyone to buy its products. Microsoft can’t make you buy Windows, or Office, or any of their other products if you don’t want to do so. Even if they have a monopoly, they can’t make you buy their products. The complaints Kos and hekebolos make above aren’t really a problem of corporations having too much power; they’re problems of government having too much power. A simple case in point: where my parents live, the local government recently passed a law stating that everyone with a septic tank would have to get the tank inspected annually. Interestingly enough, there is only one company in their town that inspects septic tanks. That company isn’t forcing my parents to use their services, however: the local government is. The same is true with most complaints that a corporation is ‘forcing’ someone to do something. What is really happening is that the corporation has spent money to get the government to force people to do something that will benefit the corporation. I would submit that the solution to improper use of government power is not necessarily the agglomeration of additional power to the government to prevent such abuses.
This is the kind of talk that makes at least this nominal libertarian very wary of Democrats. One would think that, given the proper concern modern Democrats have for the excessive powers President Bush has attempted to claim for his own, there might actually be some Democrats thinking that the libertarians just might have a point. If the government didn’t have as much power as it has accumulated over the past century, it would have been a lot tougher for President Bush to get away with everything he has done over the past five years. If the government didn’t have as much power as it does to select winners and losers, companies wouldn’t pour nearly as much money into political campaigns. (The typical rejoinder to this is, ‘well, we have to have government do some things, and there will still be corruption there,’ with the implied result that we may as well have corruption everywhere. I hope I don’t have to explain where that argument falls short.) As Barry Goldwater once presciently observed, a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
This is not to suggest that there cannot be alliances between libertarians and Democrats. When it comes to many civil liberties, Democrats have an excellent record that libertarians can applaud and encourage. And certainly at this time, when a government unified under Republicans appears bent in driving off a cliff, libertarians have little choice but to do everything in our power to return to a divided government. But such alliances will be at best operational, working together on the areas where we do agree while still fighting tooth and nail on other fronts. Attempts to draw libertarians into the Democratic Party, however wise from a tactical sense for the Democrats, will ultimately end with unhappy libertarians.
Andrew,
So, between right-wing statists and liberal statists, (please, American liberals are not leftist), you err on the side of the right-wingers?
And certainly at this time, when a government unified under Republicans appears bent in driving off a cliff, libertarians have little choice but to do everything in our power to return to a divided government. But such alliances will be at best operational, working together on the areas where we do agree while still fighting tooth and nail on other fronts. Attempts to draw libertarians into the Democratic Party, however wise from a tactical sense for the Democrats, will ultimately end with unhappy libertarians.
Sorry, just got to the last paragraph.
I think that answers it.
What is really happening is that the corporation has spent money to get the government to force people to do something that will benefit the corporation.
In other words, the corporation is controlling the government. Generally speaking, that’s the kind of thing we mean by “more powerful than”.
Your point seems to be that if I hit you with a sword, it’s the sword that has the power, not me.
I would submit that the solution to improper use of government power is not necessarily the agglomeration of additional power to the government to prevent such abuses.
There’s considerable logic in what you say. But what other actor can control the corporations?
corporations are becoming more powerful than governments.” Oh, please.
Andrew, you do realize that companies show up at fundraisers and such for key government officials hand over bags of campaign cash and in return get to flat out write the laws that affect their industry – see e.g. Bankrputcy Reform, The Energy Bill, Tort Reform, Tax Breaks, No Bid Contracts in Iraq, Prescription Drug Bill
The advatages of this being that the return on the “investment” in most cases vastly outstrips the initial outlay.
If the government didn’t have the power to choose winners and losers, the corporations wouldn’t bother to try and control government. Corporations don’t spend money on political campaigns because they think it would be cool to have their own Senator bought and paid for. They do it because it pays off for their companies, or they at least have a reasonable expectation that it will. Trimming the power of government will change the cost-benefit calculus and cause businesses to invest elsewhere.
Now, how to reduce the power of government is a different issue entirely, and one I’m not certain is even possible short of revolution. Few leaders volunteer to reduce their own power.
If the government didn’t have the power to choose winners and losers, the corporations wouldn’t bother to try and control government.
I understand your thinking on this but the fact remains that the government, even in libertarian utopia, will always have the power to write laws, raise and spend revenue, criminize actions, etc.
Since they will always have that power our elected representatives will always be targets for corporate bribery.
see e.g. Bankrputcy Reform, The Energy Bill, Tort Reform, Tax Breaks, No Bid Contracts in Iraq, Prescription Drug Bill
…and all the assorted sordid copyright bills we’ve seen. copyright law is literally written by the media companies’ lawyers then presented to Congress for rubber-stamping. the public is not involved. cite.
Fledermaus,
And the answer to bribery is to grant government even more power so they’ll have more things to be bribed over? If we cannot trust our elected representatives with the power they already have, and it seems clear we cannot, I fail to see the logic in granting them even more power in the hope that they will then do the right thing.
Hmm — I think I might just feel another post coming on. However, since a meeting is coming on even quicker:
You say: “the core principle of the Democratic Party seems to be that government is a good thing.” This is true, if it means: we’re better off with a government than without it; or: anarchy would be really bad. But do any people other than anarchists doubt this? I don’t know that many of us would accept a further claim like: government is the sort of good thing of which more is always better. We might accept something like: government is a useful tool for some purposes — but, again, who wouldn’t?
About corporate power: some of the complaints in the para. you quote are the result, as you say, of government having the power to pick winners and losers. About such cases I think it’s important to investigate the details, and ask: what is the alternative? If the government is “picking winners” in the sense of putting a contract out to bid and then choosing one bidder to win, then the alternative to its picking winners and losers is not to do whatever it’s contracting for. In the case of, say, defense contracts, this might not be a good idea. In some cases (the septic tank case, for instance), government is requiring something that makes very good sense, and is only ‘picking a winner’ because there’s only one company. I would imagine that other companies would expand their business into that town in short order; if not, the market might not have been worth that much to start with.
A lot of corporate power, though, is exercised either to get government to pick winners and losers in a much more direct way — by writing laws or tax codes or regs to favor individuals — or to refrain from using its power in ways that would be beneficial. To my mind, government is absolutely necessary both to create the institutions that support markets (stock exchanges and other ways of connecting capital to firms that need it, various sorts of property regimes (e.g., intellectual property laws), etc.), and also to correct for market failures, like externalities, of which the pollution kos referred to is an obvious example.
The free market is not working well when firms have the power to transfer some of their costs of production to unwitting, unconsenting third parties. Government is, among other things, a tool for preventing that from happening, and making sure that those costs go to the firm, where they belong, so that when consumers decide whether or not to buy that firm’s products, they’re choosing based on the real costs of those products, not costs that have been artificially reduced because some of the costs of production have been shifted onto me without my consent.
This, I think, is necessary to protect freedom in two ways: first, to protect me from having costs shifted onto me, and second, to enhance everyone’s freedom by allowing markets to function more efficiently and transparently than they would if it were left up to, for instance, each individual person whose air was fouled by a company to seek individual damages.
But in a society composed of humans, not angels, this is probably not something that can be accomplished without a government, any more than capital markets or intellectual property regimes can be created an invisible hand guiding a million unconnected individual choices. They rather create structures in which those choices work together in a way that allows us possibilities of free action we would not have had otherwise, as all property does.
No structures, no advanced capitalism. No government, no structures.
And it’s by no means clear to me that if we lessened government’s power, we’d lessen opportunities for corruption. It would depend on how we lessened it. Just eliminating the Air Traffic Control Board, for instance, wouldn’t eliminate all that many opportunities for corruption at all, but it would do a lot of harm. Eliminating mine safety regulations would remove the opportunity for corruption only by giving would-be corrupters all they wanted, and it would (see above) mean deciding not to mind that a lot of the costs of coal mining are being externalized onto the miners. (Some they might be said to take on willingly when they accept their jobs, but not the ones they don’t know about.)
I don’t understand your thinking about Microsoft. Is it that you’re opposed to the government’s enforcement of “intellectual property” laws, and Microsoft wouldn’t be all-powerful if everyone could just copy their stuff? It doesn’t seem to be that you’re opposed to corporations entirely, because they’re creations of government? How exactly is every monopoly the government’s fault?
Trimming the power of government will change the cost-benefit calculus and cause businesses to invest elsewhere.
— which would be in exerting their power without the bother of using the government as their cats-paw.
My question still remains, what actor do you see that is able to control or circumscribe the power of large corporations? For instance, if there’s no government regulation of pollution, then unchecked pollution will enhance many corporations’ balance sheets.
Microsoft can’t make you buy Windows, or Office, or any of their other products if you don’t want to do so. Even if they have a monopoly, they can’t make you buy their products.
This is true only if “make you” means “use violence or the threat of violence”. “Make you” can also mean “control the circumstances so you have (or are aware of) no practical alternative.” The latter is more effective than violent threats at getting people to do what you want, and that’s the very definition of power.
If we cannot trust our elected representatives with the power they already have, and it seems clear we cannot, I fail to see the logic in granting them even more power
Just to flip it around on you – if we cannot trust corporations to act in the public’s general interest why would even less oversight fix the problem.
We had a type of limited government regulation during the Gilded Age, funny I don’t remember that working out too well.
I’m willing to stipluate that market regulations can be ineffectual or even counter-productive in some cases. I hope that you understand that market failures are far common than the ‘free market’ evangelicals would have us believe. Indeed it was out of those failures that our current regulatory system was born.
I think you should be thankful that Insty and Michelle Malkin haven’t made saying you are a libertarian akin to you are an anarchist. I think Kos is throwing a lifeline to a system/party that has let any number of people slip in under its aegis and pollute the discourse with observations that pretend to be based on one set of principles but are actually covers for others.
This comment may be too sharply worded, but if you adhere to libertarian notions and you feel that reducing the power of government is not possible without revolution, you are supporting priniciples in the abstract that you would never support in practice. Of course, you can say that you avoid that by calling yourself a nominal libertarian, but this seems a bit much.
I’d also point out that one of the ways Republicans have attempted to stoke the ‘libertarian’ base (scare quotes, because it’s not all that clear many of these people are actually libertarians) is to cry havoc at the notions of surrendering sovereignity to the UN, which also appeals to the nativist portion of the base.
Liberatarians aren’t going to be happy with [i]either[/i] party. And Libertarians are and will continue to small a chunk of the electorate to have their own party.
Neither the Republicans or the Democrats are going to endorse your platform, adhere to your beliefs, or generally do anything that makes you 100% happy. Libertarianism simply isn’t that attractive to the average American — and that’s the [i]sane[/i] form of Libertarinism. (The less that’s said of the ‘privatize the sidewalks’ type the better).
So the question is: What are you going to do about it? You can always continue to vote Libertarian, of course (I recommend it, personally).
But if you don’t, if you go the lesser of two evils — which set of evils do you want? Going to protect your pocketbook or your privacy? Which set of freedoms is more at risk? Which is more important?
It comes down to positions. Policies. Your ideology is [i]never[/i] going to be satisified. If you’re choosing the “lesser of two evils”, I’d toss that aside and just weigh platforms. What’s the GOP doing lately — that you [i]like[/i]? What are they doing that you hate?
What about the Democrats? Like? Don’t like?
I personally don’t see why libertarians are so supportive of the GOP. Sure, they cut taxes — but are small tax changes to the upper bracket [i]that[/i] important?
KC,
First, please point out to me where I said that ‘every monopoly is government’s fault.’ If I said that, I’ll probably recant it, but I’d appreciate having it pointed out to me first so I can see the context.
Doc,
I see a vast difference between making you do something through market power and making you do something by putting a gun to your head. If I don’t want to use Microsoft software, I can do so pretty easily. I can get a copy of Linux very cheaply. OpenOffice is free, as are Firefox and Thunderbird. That’s just an example, of course, but I’m curious where you see a company’s ‘naked power’ looming?
Someone please help me: in a world where we trim back the federal government drastically, how will corporations then be able to impose their will on people? Where there are real examples, I think there’s a reasonable case for government (environmental laws come to mind, since I can think of no other way to address negative externalities). But if the federal government, for example, closes down the Department of Commerce, what threats are we going to face from businesses?
I fear that a large number of readers seem to be applying a fallacious assumption to my post: that because I don’t think that corporations are more powerful than government, I therefore think that we should simply eliminate the government entirely. This is inaccurate, to put it mildly.
“I do know that Democrats tend to dismiss libertarian concerns about concentrations of power in government because we don’t seem equally as concerned about government.”
Did you possibly mean “corporations” or some other noun, at the end of that sentence, rather than “government” again?
I did, thank you.
Fixed. Thanks again, Gary.
Dr. Science:
See here for the same point.
Corporations don’t need to be more powerful than the government to be a problem. They just need to be more powerful than individuals.
For that matter, you don’t even need corporations. There’s also the imbalance between individuals with weapons and indivudals without them (and I’m talking about violence here, not the possession of hunting rifles). Or individuals with a lot of money and indiviudals without much.
More than that, if you’re not an anarchist you’re for some government, and we’re arguing about how much government and what it should do. Corporations, property rights, laws, courts–these are all creatures of the government.
I have next to know patience for the sort of libertarian who wants jails but thinks that the taxes needed to pay for public defenders are too oppressive. (and I’m sure you’re not one, Andrew–I just find the term “libertarian” and those who use very hard to pin down, to the point where I wonder if the label tells me anything. Anarchists are nuts but at least consistent.)
ANdrew: before I have to run: any situation in which a corporation can externalize its costs. Pollution: I might have owned land I could farm, or water I could drink, before the corporation decided to dump the detritus of its production processes next door; now I don’t. I am not forced to do something literally — I could always choose to starve, rather than paying for cleanup myself, or moving and hoping the same thing doesn’t happen all over again — but it certainly counts as an infringement of my freedom, I would think. (My choice set goes from [‘live happily on land, farming’ and ‘sell and do something else’] to [‘starve’, ‘pay large sums’, ‘die of poisoning’, ‘abandon land’, or ‘sell for next to nothing’].)
Indeed, the core principle of the Democratic Party seems to be that government is a good thing.
This is Republican strawman baloney, and it’s been so for at least a decade now, if not longer. Hilzoy expressed it well above: government is not a good thing in and of itself, but a necessary thing to ensure opportunity and to ameliorate market failures.
Libertarianism has often struck me as little more than laziness: the desire to condemn all government as bad because one can’t be bothered to figure out what works and what doesn’t, and to fight for the former and against the latter.
“Someone please help me: in a world where we trim back the federal government drastically, how will corporations then be able to impose their will on people? Where there are real examples, I think there’s a reasonable case for government (environmental laws come to mind, since I can think of no other way to address negative externalities). But if the federal government, for example, closes down the Department of Commerce, what threats are we going to face from businesses?”
Err, imho the corporations will enfore their will the same way Standard Oil did. They used their market power (along with plain crooked dealing) to crush or buy all of their competition. Thats where we got a fair amount of regulation. Companies will collude to avoid the need to compete and just extract as much as they can from consumers.
Donald Clarke
Until relatively recently, I would not have looked at this twice, however, in an epiphany I realized that the ultimate form of government, The Honor System (also known as Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done To You), was also The Ultimate Anarchy. I could be wrong.
Katherine,
This is why I tend to shy away from the libertarian label. While many of my beliefs do fit into that camp, I am firmly of the belief that government is a necessary component of a civil society, as I believe I’ve explained at length in the past.
We are in dispute over degrees, not over kind, if you will. I would prefer to live in a society where we default to less government interference, because I am of the opinion that a great deal of government interference causes as many problems as it solves. That does not mean that I want to live in anarchy, however, only that I’d like to minimize the number of powers we grant the government in order to minimize those problems. It is a balancing act, and one where we will always make errors, of course.
hilzoy,
As I noted above, I am fully in favor of utilizing government to ensure that the cost of negative externalities are borne by the entities that create them.
Once again, nowhere in this post did I say I wanted to eliminate government, nor that I didn’t consider it important to have the ability to guard against the abuse of power by corporations (simply because I think it’s asinine to suggest the corporations are more powerful than government doesn’t mean that I don’t think corporations do not hold any power; we do not live in a binary universe). I suspect that most of the comments here are based much more on what people are reading into my words than on what my words actually say.
Or maybe I’m just a lousy writer. I can’t rule that out.
in a world where we trim back the federal government drastically, how will corporations then be able to impose their will on people?
To better illustrate my objection to this argument it seems to me no different than arguing that if you have a crime problem you should slash the police budget and take away their guns.
Corporations will never act in the pubic’s general interest if it means huring the bottom line. Just like individuals corporations must be policed.
“First, please point out to me where I said that ‘every monopoly is government’s fault.'”
I don’t believe you did, but I’ll point you to where I suspect people are reading you as implying it (which I think you didn’t mean to do).
First you brought up monopolies:
Then you moved to assertions about “most complaints” regarding “corporations” and their “‘forcing’ someone to do something.”
Thus, you went from discussion of monopolies to “most complaints.”
Then you went to:
And further explicated about how it was all the fault of government having too much power, the primary point of your entire thesis (yes?).
Thus the fertile ground for inference that government having too much power explains most complaints, and causes monopolies, however incorrect any such inference may be.
*shrugs* I give up. I’ll be at the bar.
I’m unenthused about giving a history lesson at the moment, but you want to go back to at least Calvin Coolidge.
Running through the obvious of before “at least a decade,” we have Reagan, Goldwater, Robert Taft, Herbert Hoover, and then, as I said, Coolidge, who epitomized this more than anyone since, although one might also give Warren Harding a few kicks while we’re in the neighborhood. We could also go back to the Republican establishment Teddy Roosevelt fought, but I’d start losing name recognition for my cites, I suspect, and it would get time-consuming.
I’d think people wouldn’t have forgotten Ronald Reagan, though. If not longer?
“I give up.”
You’re giving up because I explained why people were misunderstanding you?
Jeepers, what would you have done if I’d not said they were wrong?
I’ll be at the bar.
Joni Mitchell?
Gary,
No, I’m giving up because I have a really unpleasant pain in my shoulder and it renders me less willing to try and fend off the various preconceived notions people bring to my posts. It had nothing to do with you.
lj,
Warren DeMontague, actually.
And Gary…’jeepers’? How old are you? 😉
Sheesh, the strawmen are flying everywhere.
“Hilzoy expressed it well above: government is not a good thing in and of itself, but a necessary thing to ensure opportunity and to ameliorate market failures.”
Is it? Is it really? The history of ameliorating market failures through government intervention is rather decidedly mixed (cough Great Depression, ahem rent control, hmm gas price controls under Nixon, HUD 1966 through the late 1980s at least). That is just in the US. I’ll grant you chemical pollution of the air and ground, so I’m not willing to get rid of the government. I also think it could in theory be ok at setting basic ground rules if it stuck to that. But this idea that the government is particularly good at dealing with “market failures” seems at the very least non-obvious. Now that is in “market failures” as popularly used to mean undesireable temporary outcomes (shortages of basic neccessities for example). Permanent market failures like vaccines for low incidence diseases is a different story.
“No, I’m giving up because I have a really unpleasant pain in my shoulder and it renders me less willing to try and fend off the various preconceived notions people bring to my posts.”
Oh, okay; fair enough, then, and try some aspirin or your preferred efficacious imbibement.
I was startled because I wrote “I don’t believe you did,” and “which I think you didn’t mean to do” and “however incorrect any such inference may be” and then it seemed as if that led you to feel it was impossible for you to communicate, which seemed rather the reverse of the reaction I’d think called for.
I think, more generally, that a lot of the political communications problems are the result — and this is obvious, I realize, but I’ll say it anyway — of the different assumptions people come to the table with.
I see you and Sebastian holding a number of assumptions that a considerable number of the more “liberal” types here, including myself, and Hilzoy, don’t agree with, and vice versa, as regards the usage of certain words, what “compulsion” is and isn’t, what is and isn’t possible for impoverished people, and so on.
But I’ll save further argument for another time. (Besides, you’ve both declared me as talking nonsense and uninterested in honest debate, more or less, in the “Government and Labor” thread, which isn’t conducive to useful interchange.)
Well, that’s not what I think I said, but I suppose there’s little point in going down that rabbit hole.
Andrew: Someone please help me: in a world where we trim back the federal government drastically, how will corporations then be able to impose their will on people?
Use your imagination, Andrew. In any situation where someone richer and more powerful can impose their will on people far less rich and far less powerful, corporations will be able to impose their will on people.
I see a vast difference between making you do something through market power and making you do something by putting a gun to your head.
In a country with no government, anyone can put a gun to your head. Including corporations, of course: and they can afford more and better guns than you.
Do you think the US army would be run better if it were run by market power?
Katherine: Corporations don’t need to be more powerful than the government to be a problem. They just need to be more powerful than individuals.
Worth repeating.
In a country with no government
This, for the record Gary, is why I tend to give up. Because nobody’s discussing what I said. The discussion is entirely about what they think I meant to say.
Don’t mean to pile on Andrew, but given the stuff about Foley, it seems obvious that power differentials can bring about a lot of bad results. Government can also bring about a lot of bad results, but there are (ideally) institutional strictures to stop them. For me at least, that is a key difference.
Andrew: Because nobody’s discussing what I said. The discussion is entirely about what they think I meant to say.
I read your post, Andrew, and it all seemed to be about how government is a bad, bad thing. If you think government is a bad, bad thing, go live in Afghanistan, where there is no government outside Kabul. Won’t stop people holding guns to your head, but they won’t be government guns, they’ll be free enterprise guns.
I read your post, Andrew, and it all seemed to be about how government is a bad, bad thing.
You prove my point, Jes. But then, you are remarkably good at that. And don’t think I don’t appreciate it.
Indeed, when you think about it, if American libertarians object to government, why aren’t more of them moving to Afghanistan since the Taliban was (temporarily, as Frist points out) overthrown? If living in a country without government is their ambition, then there is a country without government for them to live in.
Of course, I’ve never yet met a libertarian who lived up to their principle of objecting to government by rejecting the benefits of living in a country with government…
Andrew: You prove my point, Jes.
I’m sorry, Andrew. I missed the part of your post where you were arguing that government is a good thing. Do cite it for me.
Ah, Jesurgislac logic in action: you didn’t say government is good, therefore, you said government is bad. Truly brilliant. Geez, I didn’t say child molestation was bad, either, so presumably you’re convinced I think that’s terrific too, right Jes?
Honestly, is simple logic that far beyond you?
Meanwhile, I see that you have now invented the fascinating notion that, since the Taliban was overthrown, Afghanistan has no government and therefore is a libertarian paradise. I guess that Hamid Karzai guy just doesn’t exist in Jes-land?
I would consider it a badge of honor not to live up to your asinine notions about what people who believe other things should do.
“Someone please help me: in a world where we trim back the federal government drastically, how will corporations then be able to impose their will on people?”
No one needs to use their imagination on this. Simply familiarize yourself with the 1890s.
We actually have a control experiment on this whole “big government”/”little government,” regulation/non-regulation thing.
That’s why we, as a society, decided that unfettered capitalism didn’t, you know, work out so well.
Good point, Gary. One data point=all we ever need know on a subject. I’ll keep that in mind as your new policy.
Well, Jes, this is your typical erroneous style of thought.
guess that Hamid Karzai guy just doesn’t exist in Jes-land?
If you care to read any of the on-the-ground information coming out of Afghanistan, you will discover that Karzid’s authority doesn’t run anywhere much outside Kabul. Outside Kabul, therefore, Afghanistan has no government – or rather, it has local warlords. Which is the situation – indeed, a libertarian paradise, a country governed by the rule of who has the most money and can buy the best guns – that Afghanistan was left in for years after the US dropped Afghanistan last time – the situation that was so unbearable that the Taliban was actually a slight improvement. Any government, no matter how awful, is better than none.
Unless you’re a libertarian, of course. In which case, Afghanistan outside of Kabul is paradise.
you didn’t say government is good, therefore, you said government is bad. Truly brilliant.
Andrew, when you can take your attention away from devising childish insults, you might want to consider this: everyone (not just me) thinks you’re saying government is bad. You were complaining about just that before I commented. When one person misunderstands you, you might want to shrug it off and insult that person for misunderstanding you. When all your readers misunderstand you, you might want to suck it up and conclude you didn’t manage to explain yourself properly.
Well, Jes, this is your typical erroneous style of thought.
You see, the key is to read the actual words and respond to the actual words.
Whereas what you constantly and consistently do is allow the words to create some sort of vague image in your head, which you then connect to other, Bad, Things.
Then you attack those Bad Things your imagination has conjured up, and insist that that’s what the person said, or at least meant, and that the latter is the same as the former.
This gets you into constant trouble, but you never change. You might consider re-evaluation this methodology.
Example: you’ve ignored what Andrew said for what you think he “seemed” to have said.
Then you proceed to engage, not with what he said, but with your hallucination of it: “If you think government is a bad, bad thing….”
Bzzzt! That’s your imagination you are talking to. Your own retranslation.
Then you get upset when people don’t agree that you said what you imagined they “seemed” to have said.
Rinse, repeat.
“One data point=all we ever need know on a subject.”
I wouldn’t consider decades of American history as “one data point,” but YMMV.
I’m not Andrew, but:
And:
HTH.
“When all your readers misunderstand you, you might want to suck it up and conclude you didn’t manage to explain yourself properly.”
Also, the lurkers support her in e-mail.
Gary,
My point is that it is difficult to tell much about what a reduced level of government might mean today based on the events of a society entering the industrial age.
Further, I should point out that when I argue for a reduced government, there are plenty of places I’d like to cut before I start slashing business regulation. We could have a markedly smaller government and still have quite a bit of regulation.
if American libertarians object to government, why aren’t more of them moving to Afghanistan since the Taliban was (temporarily, as Frist points out) overthrown?
Your whole set of comments here stands or falls on that first word, “if,” so you might want to reflect on whether in fact that condition holds true. (Hint: No.)
I mean, it’s fairly clear that you don’t really have much of a concept of what a libertarian is*, but that doesn’t really permit you to simply make things up concerning them. I realize it’s embarrassing to admit you don’t know something, but try to be a grownup about it.
*Anarchists are the ones who object to government. It is, in fact, implicit in the name.
Jes,
Bottom line: nowhere in the post do I state that government is bad. Nowhere. Not once. Anywhere. If readers can take that and turn it into ‘Andrew says government is bad,’ I’m not sure how to fight that. I’m willing to concede that I could probably stand to tighten up my writing style, but when you don’t say X and you are immediately accused of saying X, I think at that point one has to ask if there isn’t a problem somewhere else.
Which really raises the question for me, is there even a place for conservatives at ObWings, when it seems clearer and clearer to me that there is limited (at best) interest in attempts at understanding here. Perhaps it would be wiser simply to admit that ObWings is a left-liberal site and leave it at that. But that is probably a question best left for a more detailed essay.
“Corporations don’t need to be more powerful than the government to be a problem. They just need to be more powerful than individuals.”
It depends on what you mean by “a problem”. You could just as easily say that you don’t have to be the smartest person in the world to be more successful than an imbecile, you just have to be noticeably smarter. [Though you were never elected president of the United States were you? ;)]
There are lots of individuals more powerful than me and less. There are lots of corporations more powerful than me and probably a few that are less. So what?
The question is “powerful to do what”? Governmental power tends to be much more coercive than non-governmental power given a baseline of law and order. Microsoft can’t throw you in jail. Dell can’t raid your house at midnight and shoot you if they think you have a gun in your hand. GM can’t force you to pay 25% of your income every year even if you don’t want their car.
One doesn’t have to argue that the US government is useless in order to notice that it has more power than any company. If you believe that power attracts the corruptible, government is the place the corruptible will gather. It isn’t shocking to suggest that we might want to exercise more care in what we let the stronger force (government) do than the weaker force (corporations) or the still weaker force (non-grouped individuals). The fact that in many cases Democrats want to reverse this standard of care strikes libertarians as foolish.
Gary, true
communismcapitalism has never been tried. We’ll get it right the next time.“Which really raises the question for me, is there even a place for conservatives at ObWings, when it seems clearer and clearer to me that there is limited (at best) interest in attempts at understanding here. Perhaps it would be wiser simply to admit that ObWings is a left-liberal site and leave it at that.”
So early Andrew? I promise I’ll post more. 🙂
Does this: “Indeed, the core principle of the Democratic Party seems to be that government is a good thing. It’s hard to square that with the circle of libertarianism that considers government at best a necessary evil” not mean that libertarians consider government to be evil at best? How does that not state that government is bad?
KC,
You do have a fascinating penchant for putting words in people’s mouths, don’t you.
Carlos,
Perhaps you could pair it with ‘I don’t really consider myself a libertarian’ and see how the two go together.
Seb,
Don’t worry about it. Despite my frustration, I’m too damn stubborn to leave. Unless I get booted, that it. 😉
“It’s hard to square that with the circle of libertarianism that considers government at best a necessary evil” not mean that libertarians consider government to be evil at best?”
I think the answer is to consider practical realities. I think [ahem] eliminating personal bodily waste is a necessary evil, but I’m not calling for people to stop using the toilet. Some things have to be dealt with.
By the way, I didn’t take Andrew as saying government is bad, but, you know, I don’t count.
Anyway. Back to professional wrestling. Give ‘im the chair!
We can use chairs? Why wasn’t I informed?
Andrew,
It sounds like your libertarianism can be summed up as, “When in doubt, default to the option with less government.” Perhaps it would help to illustrate your philosophy with some examples.
For example, would you classify any of the following roles as obviously appropriate for government, obviously inappropriate, or arguable?
– quarantines of infectious disease carriers (CDC)
– drug approval (FDA)
– meat inspections (USDA)
– smoking bans in public spaces
– science funding agencies (NIH, etc.)
– eminent domain for hospital construction
– overtime limits for physicians
– single payer health insurance
I’d be particularly interested in which categories (not necessarily from the set above) that you would consider to be tough calls, since that would presumably narrow down where you draw the line.
(I hope I’m not putting words in your mouth. I realize this thread has sounded a lot like:
Andrew: In general, we should just wear sweaters in the house instead of adjusting the thermostat.
Commenter: If you hate heat so much, go live in SPACE! There’s no heat in SPACE!!!)
Just to clear up the nearly inevitable misunderstanding, nor do I think government is bad. Any and all other misunderstandings needing clarification are going to have to wait until after dinner.
There’s no heat in SPACE!!!
That’s why they invented space heaters.
“Hilzoy expressed it well above: government is not a good thing in and of itself, but a necessary thing to ensure opportunity and to ameliorate market failures.”
[…] But this idea that the government is particularly good at dealing with “market failures” seems at the very least non-obvious.
Sebastian:
It isn’t that I think that government is good at dealing with the market but that it is necessary for dealing with the market. There are things the government is good at, and things it is not good at. Unfortunately, sometimes the things it is bad at are things that are nevertheless desirable and not easy to do through any other avenue.
I believe that:
1. Corporations serve the people better when they are regulated.
2. The government doesn’t always do well at regulating corporate behavior.
3. The government regulates corporate behavior better than individuals do.
Where I think reasonable people disagree is on the trade-off between government waste and corporate misbehavior. If you’d rather endure misbehavior than government waste, I get that, but I don’t agree with it.
I have sympathy for Andrew here, on many counts. Seems to be a tendency to try to create principled positions out of what is usually practical policies or compromises or simply tendencies. A question of whether the SEC works, or works well, or would work better if limited or empowered gets lost in instinctive reactions to strawmen. An empirical politics is difficult because we all want our preferences justified a priori.
And a general suspicion of government is not at all limited to conservatives or reactionaries
Anarchism …Marxist.org
Syndicalism Wikipedia, only because AnarchoSyndicalism.net wouldn’t open
I think misunderstandings are bad. And what is a misunderstanding that doesn’t require clarification? If you understood it, I don’t need to clarify.
Maybe it isn’t important? I was never good at figuring that out. 😉
I was struck by the interesting and (mostly) on-topic nature of these comments. Quite a change from what has passed as political discourse in the US these few years. It almost makes one wonder if a coalition of people might develop among those who prefer serious arguing of issues for the purpose of developing good policy, rather than cheap manipulation of issues for political gain.
Disclaimer: I’m a liberal (who vote Democratic as the closest thing available in this country) who thinks that the dynamic tension of discussion and compromise just might produce better results than any one (fallible, human) point of view.
Thank you, Andrew and Sebastian. I did read the post as saying government is bad, and it’s helpful to know that I misunderstood that part.
morinao,
OK, let me try your list. (Thanks for the final note, btw, I’m still laughing over that one.)
– quarantines of infectious disease carriers (CDC)
This is probably a government function, since I don’t think the private sector can really do it effectively.
– drug approval (FDA)
Mixed feelings here. I think that the manufacturers should certainly have to demonstrate the dangers involved with all drugs (since I don’t think there are any that are 100% safe) and there should be some criteria on effectiveness, but I do think the current FDA goes too far (although I understand perfectly why this is so: when they approve a drug and something goes bad, they get flak. If they don’t approve a drug and people die, people rarely hear about it.)
– meat inspections (USDA)
I need to do some research in this area. Is all meat inspected by the USDA, or just beef? (I never hear about USDA grading of chicken or pork, for example.) This is a gray area for me, as on the one hand I certainly don’t want people getting sick from contaminated food, but on the other hand, it also seems to me that it is certainly in business’ best interests not to sell products that harm their customers both from the standpoint of liability law and from the standpoint that dead people rarely buy new products.
– smoking bans in public spaces
Define public spaces. Government buildings I have no issue with. Private property, even if open to the public, I think should be up to the property owner.
– science funding agencies (NIH, etc.)
Mixed feelings. My purist instincts are to keep government out of science research because the dollars often go to what’s trendy rather than what’s important, but on the other hand, I don’t think business does a good job of funding pure science for obvious reasons.
– eminent domain for hospital construction
Another tough one. I’d lean towards no, but this is definitely a gray area.
– overtime limits for physicians
Yet another purist vs. pragmatist question. I lean against, but am willing to be convinced in the other direction.
– single payer health insurance
I don’t like the government in the business of providing health insurance.
Too many liberals are willing to say that the primary functions of government are the creation and protection of property rights and the reification of social relations (markets) without examining the implications of the statement.
Carlos,
You were obviously far from alone in that.
morinao,
Good list, btw. Lots of tough questions there. I’d be a liar if I said I was sure what the right answer was for any of them.
A bunch of people have written responses to Kos’s piece; here’s Ezra Klein’s.
“A bunch of people have written responses to Kos’s piece; here’s Ezra Klein’s.” …Gary
Yeah, look at that thread. 6 comments, very little substantive or interesting discussion.
Personal snark and ad hominems. Yecccch.
ObsWi people don’t appreciate how nice it is here, a much better brand of commenters than
found elsewhere on the web.
Andrew,
might I also point out that your argument is one that against the notion of getting the Republicans out of one (or both) of the houses of Congress and as such, people may be letting their passion about that influence the shape their arguments take here? At any rate, if I took issue with your post in a way that was unfair, I apologize.
Andrew: Which really raises the question for me, is there even a place for conservatives at ObWings, when it seems clearer and clearer to me that there is limited (at best) interest in attempts at understanding here.
Which raises the question for me, Andrew: do I represent Obsidian Wings to you, or do you just attack me more viciously as a scapegoat for the other leftwingers who comment here? Your comments to me have a personal viciousness bordering on personal attack, which I have in fact attempted not to return, trying to stick to criticizing your opinions and beliefs. Which I may misunderstand, and my misunderstanding is inevitably followed by a personal attack from you. I won’t venture to try and figure out your motivations for this, but if you’re trying to get me to feel personally hostile towards you, that part is working just fine.
I’ll log off now.
Thanks, Andrew.
I don’t actually know that much about food inspections, but that’s my gray area. I spoke recently with a fellow who had developed a device that could be used to assess produce freshness/contamination in the supermarket. His problem was that no one in the supply chain had any incentive to purchase a product that made their wares look bad (especially since they could pass blame for any E. coli outbreaks upstream). So here’s what seems like an obvious public good that would never be implemented privately.
On the other hand, his device didn’t really work that well.
When I see Libertarians climb down from their ivory tower and start doing the hard work of politics like the Democratic Party does, I might start listening to their arguments. Libertarians are the ultimate kibitzers; preaching at us from the sidelines while making sure their hands stay clean.
“Which really raises the question for me, is there even a place for conservatives at ObWings, when it seems clearer and clearer to me that there is limited (at best) interest in attempts at understanding here. Perhaps it would be wiser simply to admit that ObWings is a left-liberal site and leave it at that.”
I perfectly well understand the feeling, but this is largely a product of how off-balance the site is. I’ve been agitating abou this for at least a year and a half.
The intent was to be more or less 50/50 in balance. It was more or less that way for quite a while; all the original bloggers came from Tacitus, a conservative blog; the primary founder, Moe, was conservative.
But without retracing each drop and add, it went way off balance a couple of years ago in the liberal direction, and sadly, the blogowners didn’t do much about it.
So like any dynamic system going out of whack, and responding to positive feedback, it rapidly went more off-kilter, as more liberals/lefties found it congenial to comment, and more conservatives/libertarians did not.
I thought it reach the point where it threatened to kill the site over a year and a half ago, which is why I started agitating, even though I speak just as another commenter.
I wrote comment after comment on this problem, pointing it out, and repeating the need to find new conservative/libertarian bloggers.
Yours was the first name from me to finally be asked and accepted. We need, as I said then, as I’ve said consistently, over and over and over and over and over, at least 3-4 more bloggers on the right here, and another 1-2 on the left.
Seb posts but infrequently, and it’s down to you and him, and Hilzoy; that doesn’t cut it. You two can’t be expected to hold up All Of Rightdom — that’s insane. And with the greatest of respect to Hilzoy, who is arguably the blogger I most respect of them all, anywhere, the intent of this site wasn’t to be The Hilzoy Show, either; rather, an ensemble. And just having Hilzoy occasionally add (much valued!) contributions by Katherine doesn’t fairly represent the left/liberal side very well, either.
Summary recommendation: find 4-5 more good bloggers, who would fit in, on the “right.” Find 2-3 on the “left.” ASAP. Urgently. Vite. Schnell.
Stir and season to taste.
This is not a luxury for this site. It’s a necessity.
Unless people do want it to just be another left/lib we-all-agree echo chamber. In which case I, for one, am out of here; I’m interested in debate and discussion, not oozing agreement.
And then you won’t feel remotely so put upon; because it won’t be about you and Seb playing cardboard stand-ins for Those Evil Right-Wingers — get them! Get them now!
Hark, an argument that I can actually respond to.
I think the government is really crappy at personal prioritizing. Having it decide things on the level of whether or not I need the Tivo more than 4 new volleyballs isn’t good. As a general (baseline) rule, I like people to let me do my own thing. And while I’m not as personally committed to letting other people do whatever they want (some people choose really silly things–from my point of view) I realize that I don’t have the monopoly on understanding the truth of the world. So my baseline is non-interference for individuals.
Now I fully realize that some government is needed to protect this general non-interference. This is needed because some people have an abiding desire to interfere in other people’s lives. If I want to cherish general non-interference I have to restrain these people. A proper function of the government is doing this–preventing rapists from acting on their urges for example. Proper function of the government–crime prevention. By that I tend to mean what I think of as the crimes people instinctively know are wrong: murder, rape, theft, etc.
People are social. Some more than others. They form formal and informal groups. Thats ok so long as they let me do my thing. This gets tricky because some groups want to meddle in my life. People should be allowed to try to influence me non-coercively, but not be able to force me to do lots of things. This is where what we think of as “basic human rights” tend to come in.
Some people like to make things. Some complicated things require lots of things to make. Sometimes it would be nice to have things that I can’t personally make. This is where trade and corporations come in.
The law of diminishing returns exists. Just because you improved things by 50% for a cheap price doesn’t mean you can improve another 25% for a cheap price.
This is all baseline thinking for me. Some things have to go beyond the baseline–but that requires strong justification.
So, on to your statements:
“Corporations serve the people better when they are regulated.”
This depends on what you mean by regulated. I think people tend to make better individual choices for themselves than governments. (Note I say “better” not “ideal”. I fully believe that people make irrational choices. Governments run by people also make irrational choices. They just tend to be bigger and scarier irrational choices) So one goal of corporate regulation could be to get honest disclosure of what is going on so that individuals can make more informed choices if they want to. I’m ok with that kind of regulation.
Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to intentionally harm people. I’m ok with that too, but I have a pretty direct understanding of “harm”. If we know that fatty foods make us fat and still to choose to eat fatty foods, we shouldn’t be able to sue said food manufacturer.
You’ll note I haven’t said anything about prices. They don’t fit into my “harm” analysis or my transparency analysis. Almost always governments should keep their hands off of prices.
“The government doesn’t always do well at regulating corporate behavior.”
Agreed.
“The government regulates corporate behavior better than individuals do.”
I don’t always agree. There are a vast number of instances where transparency would allow individuals to regulate corporate behavior much more flexibly than governments.
lj,
Interesting. I pointed specifically to the clear tactical advantage of libertarians voting Democratic next month. My point was simply that I see little chance of libertarians being happy with Democrats in the long-term.
Jes,
Clearly there are perceptual issues here, as I almost always get the impression that you are trying very hard to misrepresent my positions when I post. I attack you more viciously because I feel more viciously attacked by you, not to put to fine a point on it. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you to dislike me personally, but I honestly believed that I had little to fear in this regard because I thought you already did, based on your commentary to date.
Since it appears I was wrong in that belief, I apologize for my behavior. In my defense, as I said, I read your comments as attacks. Perhaps I am simply overly sensitive; it would not be the first time. I am not seeking to make you my enemy, however, and I regret it if my words have done so. If there is still an opportunity for us to try again, I would very much like to take it.
“One doesn’t have to argue that the US government is useless in order to notice that it has more power than any company.”
That’s certainly true — if one tautologically narrowly defines “power” so as to refer only to the sort the government has the most of.
But, in fact, there are many kinds of power over people.
So: how’d that break-up of Microsoft go?
How well has governmental reform of the corruption and problems in defense acquistion been coming, and over how many decades now?
We probably agree that the government has far less control over the price of gasoline than a lot of people think: the President quite often explains that he has no magic wand. But, surely the government has more power, you say. Is the President wrong?
When, in fact, corporations are constantly writing bills, in the past couple of decades, and getting their language passed without change, who is it holding the power there?
If we agree that “regulatory capture” occurs — and I certainly agree that it does: who has captured who? Who has the power?
And so on. Or we could get specific.
“So: how’d that break-up of Microsoft go?
How well has governmental reform of the corruption and problems in defense acquistion been coming, and over how many decades now?
We probably agree that the government has far less control over the price of gasoline than a lot of people think: the President quite often explains that he has no magic wand. But, surely the government has more power, you say. Is the President wrong?”
The government could clearly break up Microsoft right this second. It could clearly haul Gates into the street and shoot him. It does neither because it would be illegal under current law, not because it lacks the power.
And the government has less control over gas prices than people think, yes. But Exxon does too, so I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Even OPEC has less power over gas prices than people thinks it does.
“When, in fact, corporations are constantly writing bills, in the past couple of decades, and getting their language passed without change, who is it holding the power there?”
It depends. You talking about good laws or bad? When it becomes commonplace for government to try to control business decisions, clearly businesses will fight back by trying to influence government decisions about business decisions. Proposing that the way to fix that is to have govenment control how businesses influence government control of business decisions seems to be a case of not learning from the previous mistake.
Jes, this is just my opinion, but Andrew’s harshness might stem from your initial comments to him when he was first assimilated into the ObWi hivemind, remarks which I remember even Hilzoy noted were problematic. I realize that time zones have a lot to do with this, but coming in to deliver a coup de grace at the end is not really the most helpful way to focus the conversation. It is not simply what you say, it is when you say it.
Andrew,
you did note that, but 5-weeks-before-the-election passion makes it very easy to miss, so I don’t think it is fair to claim that this is due to the fundamental outlines of commentariat here. I’m not too enamoured of libertarians at the moment because the discussions often end up as ‘a pox on both your houses’ rhetoric that actually makes it easier to fail to understand the issues involved and imho has gotten us into our current mess.
If you’d like, I can post something at TiO, but frankly, I’m having trouble getting a hook to hang it on. I hope you take that as a compliment.
lj,
I hope to put something together talking about ObWings in general (along the lines of what Gary mentioned above) which may address some of those questions. Although I confess that posting here is often a negative feedback loop. And maybe that is because of my own shoddy writing; I’m not going to pretend I’m some lyrical stylist. But it is still somewhat discouraging to post something where I’m talking about one thing (libertarian Democrats) but suddenly find myself defend something I never said (government is bad).
I would love to see it, but my advice would be to wait until after the mid-terms to post it and take everything everyone says for the next five weeks with a shaker of salt. I’m half a world away and I still feel the rising tide.
lj,
You’re probably right. I confess that I tend to take politics less seriously than most political junkies, a fact that doubtless drives some crazy. While I’m certainly hoping to see the Democrats clobber the pack on November 7, I don’t anticipate suicide should the Republicans win. I’ll be annoyed, but that’s about it.
Perhaps I’ll take a hiatus of my own, as I am not particularly fond of getting people upset, and it would appear that I may be doing little else at the moment.
Actually I view myself as a Libertarian Liberal, and hope that the Dems do push more of a libertarian philosophy. Specifically I’d push for abolishing the Export-Import bank, severing any government relation to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, ending the World Bank & IMF, putting an end to farm subsidies, and of course legalizing marijuana & hashish.
Believe that the list of government agencies that should be eliminated can go on extensively and not violate beliefs of the proper role of government for either Liberals or Libertarians. Perhaps the Democratic party will look to paring back at least some government functions when next in power.
However, I have to agree with your final point that any alliance between Libertarians & Democrats today would be a temporary, marriage of convenience with the strongest argument being ‘separation of power’ will lead to more gridlock.
Would be curious to know which governmental functions would be high on your list of deserving of elimination.
Gary above mentioned the Gilded and Edwardian age, the period between say 1880-1930. Thi was not a “libertarian” age, but a corporatist age, when the federal gov’t was largely a tool and servant of big business. The first true American leftists, many of them immigrants, arose in that age in opposition to government.
The 1930s are usually interpreted as the gov’t finally moving to the side of the worker, but that is not true. The gov’t sometimes over short-sighted objections from business interests, protected the capitalist system from its own collapse and self-destruction.
Gov’t will always be on the side of the privately powerful. How can it be otherwise?
But remember, workers outnumber owners.
A concrete example is in an earlier thread about unions. Only with gov’t assistance is an open shop possible! If the workers are organized, strike, and can prevent scabs from crossing, the union will likely win. The gov’t will assist business with physical violence in breaking picket lines and escorting scabs and breaking strikes.
The workers and the company can negotiate in good faith and create a closed shop. Only gov’t interference can create a open shop.
And liberals, as we look around at both Repubs and Dems, at war, tax cuts, bankruptcy bills, do you still think gov’t is your friend and here to help you? Do you look around and believe the poor and oppressed are going to gain control any minute now? Torture bill give you a clue?
I take a few days off from blogging and the whole world goes to hell. Frist says Afghanistan is lost. Woodward’s book calls Condi a liar, and the White House supports Woodward. A Republican Congressman needs to start using bookmarks.
and now this.
As best I can tell, the libertarian principle is: The government that governs least govern best.
most likely true. but in the basic struggle between labor and capital once government put its really big thumb on the scales in favor of capital, by allowing for the agglomeration of capital with limited liability, progressives have been fighting back.
you want a corporation to monitor scrupulously its outputs? Eliminate the corporate form altogether. You wouldn’t even need environmental laws. Neighbors could use traditional nuisance and trespass laws.
If the owners of ExxonMobil knew that they could be sued personally for discharges constituting a nuisance, they’d be a little more careful about what the company did.
Now, the available evidence (compare the West to the rest of the world) suggests that limited liability is a critical component of modern capitalism. But the very moment that we as a society decided to allow for limited liability companies, we created the need for the modern regulatory state.
Corporations are required, by their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, to at least try to maximize their use of externalities. Ruthless focus on financial gain, no empathy towards others, relentless cost-shifting onto society — these are considered virtues among corporations; individuals acting this way would be called sociopaths.
So, I profoundly disagree with Andrew’s claim that Kos’s beliefs are “irrational”. Do we really want a society where the most rich and powerful are sociopaths unrestrained by the government?
[ok, Andrew, that last bit was hyperbole. but your comments on the universal insurance thread suggested to me a faith in the marketplace that failed to consider the degree to which the rules of the marketplace were stacked in favor of capital over 150 years ago. cite
Francis,
Why should you be any different from everyone else? 🙂
“It does neither because it would be illegal under current law, not because it lacks the power.”
See, this is where the fact that we define “power” differently causes conversation to break down.
You seem to be asserting that our government has the power to shoot people at will, and break up companies in a “second.”
To me, this is some sort of bizarre cartoon fantasy world you’re describing, rather than reality; clearly, however, you feel differently.
All I can say is that I’m interested in discussing reality, not theory of some alternate universe.
Seems to me you’re more interested in defining terms precisely as you want them defined so as to win the argument before you make it.
“Perhaps I’ll take a hiatus of my own, as I am not particularly fond of getting people upset, and it would appear that I may be doing little else at the moment.”
Personally, I’d prefer and recommend that you not worry about upsetting other people, but only about upsetting yourself.
This place had been kinda boring for a couple of days, with relatively low posting; the past two days: fun!
But you shouldn’t post to the point where you’re getting seriously irritated in a way that will make you want to stop, and/or burn-out. That would be bad.
That’s my prescription, which is the opposite of mandatory.
“Do we really want a society where the most rich and powerful are sociopaths unrestrained by the government?”
Hey! Speaking of sociopaths, I am just finishing Tuchman. Serfs got uppity, tired of dying in the richs man’s wars and being taxed for tournaments, and every time yon Lord of the Manor holed up in the keep and yelled “King!!! Sire, Like over here!” A lot of serfs died after that, in fact it was the law:
Lords could kill serfs. Serfs couldn’t own weapons.
I will negotiate fine with the libertarians. First thing, give up the state’s monopoly on violence. They won’t.
hmmph. all that work and all i get is snark. [ 😉 back at you.]
in the context of the foregoing, let’s take another crack at health insurance.
the practical case: every single other western country offers similar health care at a fraction of the cost. (counterarguments: see SH.) (counter-counter args: see Ezra Klein.)
the moral case: no citizen should be financially devasted by circumstances beyond their control. no citizen should have to bear the anxiety of going without insurance when they can’t afford it. equal access to health care, especially in a country as wealthy as this one, is a matter of fundamental fairness.
one libertarian counterargument is essentially Dickensian — are there no poorhouses? (eg, can’t this issue be devolved to cities and volunteerism?)
{to which the answer is: well, yes. in fact that’s the way the system works now. and it’s rather inefficient.}
but to the extent that libertarianism is more than a consequentialist approach to government, to the extent that libertarians are making a moral claim on what government should and should not do, i’m curious what is the libertarian objection to federal universal health care insurance.
cheers,
To echo a point Donald Clarke made way up thread, part, if not the overwhelming and major part, of the reason for a lot of the gov’t regulation we have today is bad behavior on the part of corporations. Antitrust laws? See Standard Oil and others. SEC? See the stock market crash of 1929. EPA? See the pollution problem that came to a head in the late 60s and early 70s.
To analogize to something I know a little more about, there’s a lot of complaint by corporations and individuals these days of the complexity of the tax code. Well, a lot of that complexity came about as Congress’ and the IRS’ response to bad behavior (or perceived bad behavior) by taxpayers.
That’s not to say that said regulation couldn’t be better or more effective or less burdensome, just that it didn’t appear out of no where.
I’m not sure if that’s responsive to Andrew’s post or not.
I think Bill Quick gets to the point pretty effectively here when it comes to questions of power.
“tarylcabot”
John Norman (Lange) fan, are we? (Don’t worry, I won’t make any more of it; just amused.)
Francis,
Sorry, my snark:substance ratio is terribly poor.
If you’ll forgive me, given the Hell that broke loose here last time I talked about universal health care, I’m going to pass for the time being on addressing that question. I think I’ve kicked over enough ant hills for one day.
Ugh,
I am not of the belief that businesses are somehow angelic creations that would do naught but good were it not for the guvmint. I am of the opinion that any agglomeration of power is likely to lead to abuse, because people who like to abuse power will be drawn to those positions. I just think it’s possible to mistrust power whether it is concentrated in government, business, or anything else.
“i’m curious what is the libertarian objection to federal universal health care insurance.”
Retirement and health care should be a contractural cost of doing business. SS and Medicare are simply cost-shifting from capital to labor. He who starts a business, let him talk with organized and free labor.
Get government out of the way.
That means sympathy and general strikes, by the way.
“Retirement and health care should be a contractural cost of doing business.”
Problems.
Andrew: my slip on negative externalities was purely the result of my not reading carefully, which is probably why I shouldn’t post right before I have to head off to a meeting. Apologies. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. Also, earlier, when I was talking about what I, and I think a bunch of Democrats, think about government, I only meant to be doing that; not to be making any implicit point about where you might or might not stand.
Myself, I think that it’s a mistake to be for or against things like government intervention or regulation in the abstract. I would loathe, and vehemently protest, government regulation of my grocery shopping. That’s exactly the sort of thing I think people do much, much better, and even if they didn’t, they have the right to make as many mistakes as they want. It’s their life. On the other hand, I see lots of reasons to support the FDA, and also to support any effort to make it do its job better, more efficiently, and in ways that are removed from political interference.
And then there are lots of tricky intermediate cases. Some concern the provision of public goods — the interstate highway system, Central Park, air traffic control. I tend to evaluate these case by case, at least aspiring not to assume that government is or is not the best way to do this. I think there are some general things to say about cases in which government is good or bad at this stuff: cases in which harmonization on some good option matters more than each person having the right to choose the best option for him- or herself, for instance, are more likely to strike me as good cases for government, as are cases in which the point is to provide something for the public, which the public can choose whether or not it wants. (Thus, having air traffic controllers who can operate together, rather than a million different disparate solutions to the ‘where should my airplane go?’ problem, seems to me to make air traffic control a good case; having NY build Central Park if the public supports it seems to me a case of the second.)
Then there are safety questions in areas where people could in principle inform themselves, but it’s difficult, either because the criteria are murky or because the subject matter is complex. (The safety of medical devices, for instance.)
Then, the whole knotty question of whether it’s OK to mandate that the default in some area be X rather than Y, where people are still perfectly free to choose Y. (E.g., requiring that the default be that people are enrolled in retirement plans, which they can then opt out of.)
It all makes me think: this is best done on a case by case basis, given everything we can find out about how a good policy might be implemented, what non-governmental policies are available and how they would work, etc. The yardstick I tend to use is: what has the most beneficial effect on the set of choices available to people? (Where this is admittedly rough, of course, but the restrictions on choice that matter most to me are those that rule out not just one specific option, but whole masses of them. Losing the ability ever to play at Carnegie Hall is bad; but if I were designing policy, I’d prefer a policy that somehow ruled that out to one that involved people losing the use of their legs, or the right to choose their profession.)
But this means: the yardstick is not primarily the rights of corporations, though the right of people to do what they want with their money matters a lot to me, as do the contributions of the market to personal autonomy.
PS: don’t go. I get a lot more than annoyance from what you write. A good thing too, since if I got only annoyance, I wouldn’t get anything at all.
Destroying Workers Right to Organize …Seeing the Forest
“…removed union organizing rights for millions more workers – this time for nurses by declaring them to be “supervisors” – management.” Nurses are management?
Is anyone arguing otherwise, Andrew?
Perhaps (like others?) I’m not in the mood for this sort of discussion today, but I do want to assure you that I don’t dislike you and I appreciate your posting here.
I’d like it even better if you weren’t so quick to interpret misunderstandings as intentional distortions, and if you were a little more tolerant of the snark that can be part of web discussions, but I fully understand that these problems are exacerbated (on all sides) when those involved aren’t really sure of how antagonistic the others are.
I’m also feeling some sympathy for Charles Bird, and the way little incendiary phrases he inserted into his posts got people to respond to those phrases and ignore the rest of what he said, though I haven’t previously seen myself as a particularly incendiary fellow.
I think I just found the new tag line for my blog: Andrew Olmsted: more than annoyance. 🙂
More seriously, I concur that things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I prefer to see the default position to be against regulation, naturally, but I think there are certainly many cases where government regulation is of great value. The problem is predicting which those are in advance.
I’d be a lot happier with government in general if laws were required to have a sunset provision, so we could really examine them and only keep those that worked generally as intended. Of course, that assumes we could find a Congress that actually examined the legislation put before it, so that probably goes in the pony pile.
I just think it’s possible to mistrust power whether it is concentrated in government, business, or anything else.
Agreed.
I am not of the belief that businesses are somehow angelic creations that would do naught but good were it not for the guvmint.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to attribute this view to you through my comment (though that should have been expected given that I was commenting on the thread), and more of a general comment on whiny business executives I’ve heard complain about gov’t regulation as if there’s no real reason for it (which obviously can be the case in certain situations). Just seemed appropriate on the thread.
I’m in general agreement with you that the default position should be, when in doubt, less gov’t regulation/power/etc.
I think maybe the dissonance here is that weakening the power of gov’t, as you’re suggesting (or seeming to suggest), thereby strengthens the relative strength of other concentrations of power, e.g., Microsoft/people with guns/money, such that while the other concentrations might not have the ability to arrest you/imprison you now, there’s no reason why they couldn’t if the gov’t’s monopoly on force is weakened (which I know you’re not suggesting). See Blackwater.
If that’s incoherent, well, I’m on a conference call.
KC,
I shall endeavor to be less touchy in the future.
Debater Hell
My Political Science professor handed back a paper of mine yesterday, tarring one of my arguments as “a debater’s point.” This, apparently, is a point I make just so I can say I’ve covered that base, without actually thinking the argument is importan…
Hil: fortunately (or not), there’s a tremendous unseen regulatory system underlying your grocery shopping.
Zoning laws, labor laws, price supports, anti-trust laws, trade laws, food inspection laws, laws regulating slaughterhouses, pesticide laws … etc.
And, for the record, I don’t think anyone here dislikes me, is out to get me, etc. (So if you are, you’re in perfect position to catch me by surprise.)
I do, however, often feel like Audie Murphy facing off with the Germans when I make a post. 😉
Bob M: how does your model address bankruptcy?
Re:Gary at 8:24
Some problems, not insurmountable. Retirement and health care money should be as fully and safely invested as possible, and completely protected. Also, workers should be first in line in bankruptcy or divestiture allocations.
The 50s and 60s had a much higher demanded investment in pensions and health care than now. It might make products more expensive;I say might, because that is a huge increase in savings, which helped the economies of that era.
There is no need for kids to pay for their parent’s retirement(one way or another) and so run into bubble problems.
There possibly does need to be one and only one union, closed shop, with all laborers members. How could one object to such a concentration of power, when it includes almost everybody? Such a union would be distinguishable from a gov’t only in very interesting ways.
“Bob M: how does your model address bankruptcy?”
Pension and health care funding are not corporate assets.
About ObWi in general: a few little notes:
First, I really think Katherine was right, way back when, when she said that one of the things that drove the shift to the left among commenters was that we have always gotten more links from liberal blogs. I don’t think this is largely a function of who gets linked to, and what their politics are, either: I think that if you exclude Charles’ cross-links to and from his RedState posts, all of our commenters have always gotten more links from liberals. And of course the fact that Katherine and I blog on torture, which should not be a partisan issue at all, also played a role there.
The people who end up commenting, I assume, had to find this place somehow, and presumably, that’s through a link. If the vast majority of our links come from liberal sites — and they do — then an awful lot of our commenters will necessarily be liberal.
I think we all just have to remember how that can come across: as all of us piling on, rather than each of us individually having a thought.
We do need new posters. I’ll put up a thread asking for nominations, from anywhere. But no one should assume that we haven’t been asking any.
Also of course, general and sympathy strikes can provide some restraint on outsourcing and wage arbitrage.
The people who end up commenting, I assume, had to find this place somehow, and presumably, that’s through a link. If the vast majority of our links come from liberal sites — and they do — then an awful lot of our commenters will necessarily be liberal.
Interesting observation. I don’t recall how I found ObWi, though if I could do a good search to find my first 8-10 comments or so I probably could figure it our (any way to do this?). Anyway, I think generally the left-wing commenters here are generally reasoned and well put, though the large number of them can be overwhelming.
It would be better if there were more right-leaning posters/commenters (more from Von/Seb please!), and I myself could put up a good right-leaning comment or two here and there if I wasn’t utterly horrified by the Bush administration and its enablers in Congress (I’d like to stake my claim as a founding member of the “Republicans-in-hiatus” club; we serve donuts and beer at all meetings, or would if we had any), though I sense myself being pulled (or is it pushed?) more and more towards the left side of the aisle as time goes on.
There have been times and places in the US where corporations have themselves effectively been the
government. Railroad towns, coal towns, mill towns —
most things we now think of as government services
were provided by locally-dominant companies.
The history of such times and places
does not make me long for a libertarian utopia in which government power is replaced by
private agencies. Look up the Pinkertons, and the private security actions
taken against the IWW organizers.
That is why Democrats tend to rely
on government for the apparatus of
civil society — private agencies
evolve toward tyranny very rapidly.
We rely on government to restrain them precisely because we have tried not doing so and found it
worse than the alternative.
Shoot folks, y’all don’t have that many or different commenters than some other places. It is still a small community. You just have some very talkative obstinate and irritating commenters.
Lucky I’m around to provide contrast.
“Look up the Pinkertons, and the private security actions
taken against the IWW organizers.”
Homestead Strike
Workers can take care of themselves. These guys took care of the Pinkertons. Capital needs government violence.
Jesus H F Christ, can we have one thread that doesn’t get bogged down with what-did-you-really-mean and you-said-that-wrong and I-know-what-you-said-but-I-choose-not-to-interpret-it-that-way pettifoggery??
I don’t blame Andrew for sometimes wanting to bag the whole thing. I’m getting sick of these pointless exercises in pendatry for its own sake, and the willful misinterpretations for, well, I have no idea what the point of those is.
Back on topic:
Both libertarianism and government work best in a Platonic universe where the private sector doesn’t have a monopoly (de facto or de jure) on essential goods and services and where politicians are sincerely interested in the common good.
Since we don’t live in a Platonic universe, we have to improvise.
I believe it’s better to do that improvising within a structure of governmental control and regulation, simply because the level of Platonic perfection doesn’t need to be quite so high as it does within a libertarian culture. Which is a fancy way of saying it’s easier to fix what’s wrong with government than it is to fix what’s wrong with the private sector, esp. when the private sector has been entirely taken over by major corporations.
That’s the most basic difference: government is intrinsically responsible to people in a way corporations aren’t. The responsiveness is built into the basic structure, as it is not in the private sector.
People can’t organize to vote the corporation’s officers and directors out of office. They can’t petition a corporation to investigate itself (say, for instance, if it’s been dumping toxins in a pit that leaks into the water table); nor, if they know the corporation’s been doing just that, can people realistically demand the corporation stop the dumping, remediate what’s already been dumped, and petition for restitution for the damage already done.
That is, people “can” do those things – but only when they have a government there to make laws, enforce laws, and enforce penalties for breaking the laws. Governments do such things because people demand them.
What recourse does libertarianism offer as an alternative to government?
The problem is predicting which those are in advance.
Under the current system, no one tries to predict in advance what regulations will be needed. Each arises from a particular situation that has either already happened or is directly on the horizon.
This, to me, has always been the biggest problem with libertarianism — and then ultinmately with any kind of alliance between Democrats and libertarians. When we start talking about what exact parts of government we can agree to get rid of, it seems to me that the conversation is destined to get quite hostile quite fast. OK, maybe we can agree to various cuts in what we can agree is ‘corporate welfare.’ But doing so would require tremendous effort to overcome the entrenched interests of the beneficiaries, and neither side is going to end up content with the results of those efforts: in themselves they might be fine, but they’re not going to be nearly enough.
One area where I see a real clash, also, is in federalism. In my view, the federal government has to be strong enough to protect the individual from encroachments by the states. Those who would default to ‘no regulation’ need, it seems to me, to say whether they mean no federal regulation, no federal or state regulation, or an affirmative federal dictate (an occupation of the field) that there be no state regulation. Obviously there are going to be situations where each of these options is preferable, and for that reason, I’m quite gunshy about ‘default positions.’ Except for the rights of the individual person agfainst intrusion by the government.
So, Charley, what is your position on minimum wage laws?
> Workers can take care of themselves.
sometimes. however, in this pointless duel of anecdote
(I assume neither of us has data)
I offer:
child labor.
twelve hour work days.
dangerous machinery that maimed thousands needlessly.
the triangle shirtwaist fire.
the record of companies like
United Fruit and Exxon Mobil in places where there has been less government constraint.
Bhopal.
Huh? I’m honestly not sure how to respond to this. If you have such a restrictive view of “power” I’m frankly shocked that you believe corporations have much power at all.
Or do you? Am I arguing with someone who doesn’t believe that corporations have much power? I may have gotten completely confused about your position.
More concerning dependency ratios.
Gary, I really haven’t given you an adequate answer, but it is a very complicated subject.
There are other arguments for UHC, but basically if the money isn’t saved, the kids will pay. If it is saved privately, the investments must be bought in order to provide cash. The economics is complicated.
I can’t say what is their plan, but China has a private savings of around 50%, gov’t reserves that other nations are screaming are too large, and a pegged yuan. I would suggest they are preparing for the dependency ratio adjustment by limiting current consumer spending with fiscal and monetary policy.
We could do, or could have done the same.
Thanks for the response, Bob. But re this: “Retirement and health care money should be as fully and safely invested as possible, and completely protected.”
How do you feel about the observation that insurance and investments are two very different, rather antithetical, things? (I’ll elaborate if necessary.)
Digressing to the various mentions of the IWW in this and the other thread in recent days, I used to know a lifelong Wobbly organizer, actually, who went back to the Forties (died a few years ago, though).
“There have been times and places in the US where corporations have themselves effectively been the
government. Railroad towns, coal towns, mill towns —
most things we now think of as government services
were provided by locally-dominant companies.”
This is exactly one of the points I’m being too busy elsewhere, and too offput, to go into with Sebastian just now.
But I have various others.
Sebastian, I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about a government’s power to do clearly illegal things — at that point you’re really talking about ability of individuals to abuse the power given to them by government. It’s enough for your point to say that the government has the peculiar power to variously fine, incarcerate, or kill people who don’t follow its pronouncements, to the extent that the law allows.
“There have been times and places in the US where corporations have themselves effectively been the
government. Railroad towns, coal towns, mill towns —
most things we now think of as government services
were provided by locally-dominant companies.”
And they were so nice people wrote songs about them. I think you guys are really exaggerating the problem.
Ken,
OK, let’s talk about something that is uneqivocally legal. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m a lot more comfortable with a dangerous company than I am with the government. I’m sure that could change if we went too far in the other direction, but that’s hardly what I’m advocating.
I really don’t understand the way this conversation about “power” has gone. One of the most ooggah-booggaa companies in the world (Microsoft or Wal-Mart) would have a lot more trouble getting away with coming into your house and killing you than your average podunk sheriff. And if they could get away with it, the method they would use would have to involve corrupting the government. Government complicity would be almost certainly necessary. So what in the world are you guys so afraid of.
well, since Radley Balko has without question already saved the life of a man on death row (“hat tip” seems insufficient), maybe his yeoman’s work on out-of-control police forces will finally build a backlash movement, in which communities give their police oversight boards more authority to review arrests and punish those where excess force is used.
What recourse does libertarianism offer as an alternative to government?
As alluded to above, one could start by
getting rid ofentirely reconceiving limited liability. In any case, again this misperception that libertarians are anarchists. They’re not. Please stop pretending that they are.Andrew, instead of linking to Tennessee Ernie Ford, I suggest you maybe rent Matewan. As long as we’re letting popular culture rather than, oh, heck, the historical record guide our narrative of company towns, that one’s a bit more realistic.
Thanks, Andrew. My enthusiasm had been flagging, but you reminded me of what it’s all about.
Phil,
That was a joke. At least, I don’t really consider ‘I owe my soul to the company store’ to be much of an endorsement of company towns.
Sebastian, are you subject to such a failure of imagination that breaking, entering and killing are the only types of power you can conceive of?
I mean, how about the ChoicePoint debacle from last year? Where the personal financial data of nearly 150,000 people was delivered into the hands of scammers and identity thieves? And management knew about it for months but didn’t tell people? And sold a bunch of stock in the meantime? And then tried to cash in by contacting those same people for costly fraud-protection programs? And how companies like ChoicePoint compile all this data on you all the time, much of it without your knowledge and permission, and sell it to people you might not want to have it? No, no power imbalances there.
Let’s not even go into Enron.
Good point, Phil. Government can only come into my house and kill me. Corporations can take away my pension. I can see clearly now where the greater threat lies.
OK Andrew, granted that I was thinking more along the lines of criminal punishments and forgot about the power granted to police to shoot people who are seen as threatening. But then you might as well say that we all have the power to shoot people, since if we do it in self-defense there’s a good chance we’ll go free.
Andrew,
Just out of curiosity, is libertarianism widespread in the military? Now that I think about it, it seems like kind of a subversive philosophy for a putative instrument of government oppression. =)
OTOH, I can see how exposure to bureaucracy coupled with exposure to guns might make one very suspicious of a bureaucracy with guns!
Andrew, the notion of police being able to bust into one’s home legally only really obtains if you live in a single room duplex on the wrong side of the tracks. On the other hand, minorities have to use the tactics of the civil rights movement to deal with corporations and environmental pollution.
“Government can only come into my house and kill me.”
Lol. Corporations never cause deaths, including in homes. One word comes to mind “contamination.” Others follow.
But, I will leave things to the verbose ones.
I should have also noted that it is not simply minorities but a class based division as well, just to head off one potential misunderstanding.
“And they were so nice people wrote songs about them. I think you guys are really exaggerating the problem.”
Distracted by Veronica Mars, I can’t tell: it’s hard to believe you’re not kidding, but I’m not really following the joke.
You can’t be misreading the song (or that ignorant), and not kidding, but then it’s hard to reconcile that with “Government can only come into my house and kill me” and, you know, companies actually killing people. As in outright murder with guns and clubs and such, which happened a lot.
(Let alone via toxic waste, events like the Triangle fire, industrial accidents out of indifference, etc.)
I’ve composed, typed, and backspaced over several hundred characters, none of which conveyed anything near what I wanted.
So, this is all that’s left. I’m still laughing inside, but I don’t think I can explain why.
“One of the most ooggah-booggaa companies in the world (Microsoft or Wal-Mart) would have a lot more trouble getting away with coming into your house and killing you than your average podunk sheriff.”
Yes, Sebastian, that’s because we’ve had a hundred and fifty odd years of organized labor to stop mass murder by company thugs.
It used to be not uncommon, back before we had these awful unions.
“Government complicity would be almost certainly necessary. So what in the world are you guys so afraid of.”
Even if we assumed arguendo that that first sentence was true, I have utterly no idea how it leads to the second.
“That was a joke. At least, I don’t really consider ‘I owe my soul to the company store’ to be much of an endorsement of company towns.”
Ah. (Now distracted by taping Boston Legal and watching Smith; while reading, of course.)
Just as a sidenote, I’ve been supporting another faculty at my uni for an international conference on Minamata studies, and I pass on this page about Eugene Smith, who was beaten up by men hired to break up a demonstration against the Chisso company, which effectively ended his career. I don’t think it is Japanese exceptionalism that makes Chisso behave the way it did.
Sorry, I’ve been doing other things. I guess I’m OK with minimum wage laws. I think we’ve given government (at both the limited and general levels) the power to impose them, and I think that as a society we can chose to do so. It’s an intrusion, to be sure, but not into what I would consider a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy. That is, it’s an intrusion I’d measure on a rational basis test, and I think that it can rationally be justified.
I’m not troubled that someone would disagree with me on this. I think, though, that while such a person might have much in common with me on other subjects, their desire to eliminate the minimum wage, and mine to raise it, are going to collide.
Well, I can promise libertarians to be pretty good about objecting to the government ahooting them in the head, breaking into their house, etc. Raising their taxes and banning smoking, though, I’m soft on.
These coercive powers of government–the power to imprison, the power to kill–are just *not* especially well correlated to the size of the federal budget or the length of the Federal Register. Not within the range that’s debated in the United States.
You can say the government is worse than Microsoft, but really, could the government have singlehandedly screwed up initial apostrophes throughout the world? The Colbert Report just had a graphic reading “McCain-Lucifer ’08” and, as is usually the case nowadays, thanks to the influence of Microsoft Word’s so-called smart quotes, the apostrophe was upside down (making it an opening single quote). Then I go over to Washington Monthly and there’s a big graphic reading “Showdown ’06” with the same problem.
I’m sure Gary knows what I’m talking about.
I actually hadn’t noticed the graphic, but, yeah, that’s not punctuation; I don’t know what it is, but it’s not punctuation. Odd random graphics, I’d have to call it.
Because I’d have to be rude if I thought it was intended to be punctuation.
My own preoccupation was with calling Charles Peter out for endorsing torture.
This has been a truly interesting discussion –kudos all around.
Andrew or Sebastian (and anyone else arguing the libertarian side against governmental intrusion), I’d like to see how you believe a government with fewer powers would deal with something which was heavily reported in broadcast news, but generally ignored in the blogs I read — last month’s e. coli contamination of the packaged spinach supply. In a world without an FDA to use coercive powers to investigate the cause of the contamination and to use other coercive powers to cause the remaining spinach on store shelves to be destroyed rather than re-sold, how would you expect to see the outbreak of food poisoning by hundreds of people in states across the country handled?
If your response is based on the incentives to burb such behavior through civil litigation, please consider whether the individual who was sickened could expect to be able to convince a judge or jury that the cause of his illness was food that was contaminated (as opposed to the hygiene of the kitchen in which it was prepared)? Would the civil litigation process lead to a determination in each case that the spinach was the cause among the multiple foods eaten? Would it do so in a suffiicently timely manner to prevent far more deaths than occurred? Would it do so in a sufficiently efficient manner as to prevent the multiple plaintiffs’ suits from being overwhelmed by the deeper pockets of the various food sellers and suppliers, and the suits settled for nuisance value, rather than providing a real incentive for the food suppliers to change their practices?
If your response is based on the incentives to burb such behavior through civil litigation, please consider whether the individual who was sickened could expect to be able to convince a judge or jury that the cause of his illness was food that was contaminated (as opposed to the hygiene of the kitchen in which it was prepared)?
That overlooks the fact that one of the most important goals of corporation is to institute “Tort Reform”, pretty much guaranteeing that even if you won the case, the losers wouldn’t have to pay at most a minimal penalty for the damages caused.
PS.
In my limited experience, it’s pretty much guaranteed that the people who call themselves Libertarians are well educated upper middle class individuals who have rarely if ever been hungry or homeless and don’t believe that they ever will be.
the losers wouldn’t have to pay at most a minimal penalty for the damages caused.
the losers would not have to pay any damages or at most a minimal penalty for the damages caused.
“…that’s because we’ve had a hundred and fifty odd years of organized labor to stop mass murder by company thugs.”
For the record, I am aware that most of my arguments above are more applicable to 2nd stage capitalism than the late-stage capitalism the US is currently in. Although conditions will overlap, and pockets and segments remain in underdevelopment, etc.
And late stage capitalism is global.
But we aren’t gonna be successfully organizing the nurses and fast-food workers and recievables clerks. And there are theoretical models to explain why, he muttered darkly.
“Government can only come into my house and kill me” and, you know, companies actually killing people. As in outright murder with guns and clubs and such, which happened a lot.”
Ok, so I can’t use illegal activity by government as examples of government danger but you can use illegal activity by individuals and corporations as examples of why they are dangerous. How does that work? This is why the discussion is so difficult–you feel free to make objections and then do exactly the thing you complain about.
And I will note again that in order for corporations to get away with murder with guns and clubs, they need to have governmental complicity in avoiding investigation–at least if they were to do it on any large scale.
Good point, Phil. Government can only come into my house and kill me. Corporations can take away my pension. I can see clearly now where the greater threat lies.
For someone who stamps his feet about being misunderstood, you stand on unsteady ground here, Andrew. The point is not that corporations are a greater threat than government (I’m the libertarian here, dammit), but that corporations can and often do pose an actual threat to individual freedom and security, contra Sebastian.
I suggest, in the meantime, you don’t go out of your way to mischaracterize others’ arguments if you’re going to expect that people don’t do it to you.
In my limited experience, it’s pretty much guaranteed that the people who call themselves Libertarians are well educated upper middle class individuals who have rarely if ever been hungry or homeless and don’t believe that they ever will be.
One data point against. Induction 0, Phil 1.
Welcome back, Phil.
Andrew: I attack you more viciously because I feel more viciously attacked by you, not to put to fine a point on it. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you to dislike me personally, but I honestly believed that I had little to fear in this regard because I thought you already did, based on your commentary to date.
Ah. Okay.
No. I don’t dislike you personally. Perhaps I should have said this sooner. I disagree with you politically rather a lot, but I find political disagreement, either in real life or online, doesn’t correlate with personal like/dislike. I disagree with Slartibartfast politically, but like him personally: I agree with DonQ politically, but dislike him personally.
Since it appears I was wrong in that belief, I apologize for my behavior. In my defense, as I said, I read your comments as attacks. Perhaps I am simply overly sensitive; it would not be the first time. I am not seeking to make you my enemy, however, and I regret it if my words have done so. If there is still an opportunity for us to try again, I would very much like to take it.
I come across, in writing, as abrasive. I’ve noted (FWIW) that people object to that abrasiveness a lot more when they know I’m a woman than when (as for a couple of years when I first adopted the handle) they assume I’m male. And, FWIW, people who know me in RL (such as my own dear parents) have sometimes murmured that if they didn’t know I was really nice, kind, softly-spoken, love cats, and bake excellent cakes, they would read my letters to the papers or such and think I was sharp, hard-edged, and mean. And these are people who remember me when I was a babbling infant underfoot, and for whom I make birthday cakes on a regular basis. People who know me only as a voice online know me better. 😉
So, look, I don’t mind getting abrasive back. Attack my opinions. Tell me I’ve misunderstood you completely – when I do, I prefer to be told so.
But I hate personal attack: I try not to indulge in it (if I have personally attacked you in the past, I apologize for it) and I don’t like people who do it. To my mind, sticking to assailing each other’s opinions, and avoiding insulting personal comments, is a large part of what makes Obsidian Wings one of the best blogs.
If you care to write a post outlining the principles of libertarianism (a concept that I’m afraid I get primarily as “Government is bad!”) I’ll read it with due care and attention.
And I’ll try not to read your posts pre-coffee. 😉
Andrew –
A few comments.
Indeed, the core principle of the Democratic Party seems to be that government is a good thing.
This is not far off. Democrats are comfortable with, and encourage, a robust role for government in civil life.
The flip side of this is what appears to be a core conservative belief — government is a bad thing. The corollary to this belief is that government should be weak, and limited in power.
I consider the conservative position to be based on a fundamental fallacy.
What makes governments oppressive is not whether they are weak, or strong. It is not whether their scope of operation is broad, or narrow. What makes governments oppressive, or not, is the degree to which they are transparent, responsive, and accountable.
The US Constitution was not crafted to make government weak. That was, in fact, considered and rejected. It was crafted to make government transparent, responsive, and accountable.
There are many weak and limited governments in the world that are insanely oppressive, and which make their citizens lives a living hell.
There are many societies in the world whose governments are weak and limited, and which for that reason are violent and chaotic.
Think twice about what you wish for.
I realize that people don’t want to believe this, but business has to deal with one very simple fact: on its own, business cannot force anyone to buy its products
When people say that corporations are too powerful, they are virtually never talking about being forced to buy something they don’t want.
That is not the issue.
When people say that corporations are too powerful, they mean that corporations are able to influence public policy in ways that benefit them and their interests, to the detriment of a broader public interest.
That is the issue. It is, in fact, an enormous one, and “Oh, please” is a naive and inadequate response.
A simple case in point: where my parents live, the local government recently passed a law stating that everyone with a septic tank would have to get the tank inspected annually. Interestingly enough, there is only one company in their town that inspects septic tanks. That company isn’t forcing my parents to use their services, however: the local government is.
No, it’s not.
The government is not telling anyone to buy anyone’s services. It is not mandating who should inspect septic tanks. It is not preventing anyone else from opening new septic tank inspection businesses in your town, nor is it preventing people in your town from calling the septic tank inspector two towns over to come and do the job.
Anyone could open another inspection business. Perhaps they would do quite well with it, in which case one happy side effect of this legislation was to create new opportunities for small business. Or, the citizens of your parent’s town could decide to have their town hire a septic tank inspector and make that service a public function.
That’s their choice.
What the government is saying that your parents have to have their septic tank inspected.
Why would they do this? Because the effluent from septic tanks leaches into groundwater, which finds its way into public waterways and, more often than not, drinking water.
My guess is that, like many towns, your parent’s town is increasing in population density, and/or that as the housing stock ages septic systems degrade. My guess is that this law was passed to address a real and concrete issue, which is to say, human crap and its byproducts in public waterways.
I’ll even go so far as to speculate that, as in so many similar cases, your parent’s local government did not eagerly embrace the idea of creating new legislation to address this, but had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. Perhaps not, but in that case they are the exception.
I applaud your parent’s town for passing such a law, because it guarantees the availability of a vital public resource for everyone. Sounds like a good and appropriate government function to me.
I’m sorry that it will cost your folks a few bucks, but then again they have been externalizing the real cost of handling their human waste onto public resources for, most likely, some number of decades. The bill has come due.
To make a long story short, I find your position not only wrong, but not very clearly thought through, to the point of being naive. Unfortunately, it’s also a common one, and a destructive one.
Please think longer and harder about this.
Thank you
Sebastian –
There are a vast number of instances where transparency would allow individuals to regulate corporate behavior much more flexibly than governments.
Where does the transparency come from?
“But the very moment that we as a society decided to allow for limited liability companies, we created the need for the modern regulatory state.”
Well said.
Seb: the entire history of capitalism shows us that neither individuals nor the markets can or will ensure that transparency to begin with. That’s why the corporations need to be regulated by the government – to make sure companies aren’t hiding things from us.
Also flexibility isn’t always a good thing – markets, like most people, have very short memories and are subject to selection bias. In the good times they become less careful, and even more so when there are fewer investment opportunities. They forget, or choose to ignore, what happened last time there was a housing market bubble or a commodity price increase, in search of higher yield. But the regulators take longer to forget, except to the extent they are lobbied by companies.
markets, like most people, have very short memories and are subject to selection bias. … But the regulators take longer to forget
Regulators are people. Govt employees are just as self-serving as employees of Exxon. People who cannot make good choices as consumers (and so need govt) can’t make good choices as voters (when choosing that govt).
I got one for you. If businessman A gives $$ to politician B to change govt policy, is that business corrupting a pure govt or a govt agent extorting money from businessmen?
The defense of govt here is the same as the answer evangelicals give about why there is evil in a world created by a good God. Evil is caused by individual free will and not the fault of their god (or the govt). Govt, like God, isn’t corrupt, only rebellious individuals are.
The thinking is that once we stop mere individuals from having the power to stand in govt’s way (laws determined by unelected judges and bureaucrats, campaign finance reform, etc), then our govt will finally be pure and holy. I have to call BS.
Sebastian, thank you for your response.
“The government regulates corporate behavior better than individuals do.”
I don’t always agree. There are a vast number of instances where transparency would allow individuals to regulate corporate behavior much more flexibly than governments.
I agree that transparency would allow easier regulation by individuals. That said, I still think that government would do a better job, even then. Most of the time, I don’t even check with the BBB before dealing with some company. Perhaps I’m unusually lazy or careless or both, but I suspect I’m closer to the norm than a citizen who’d take advantage of the transparency you advocate as a way to regulate. It’s good to make that option available, but I don’t expect it to get used.
Do you disagree? Do you think transparency would be used by individuals to regulate corporations better than government could?
“Corporations serve the people better when they are regulated.”
This depends on what you mean by regulated.
Well, yes, but it was an intentionally vague statement. I think morinao did a fine job of making a short list of areas that might or might not need regulation. I don’t find a lot to disagree with in what you wrote further, except that I don’t think the corporations should be allowed to price however they like. I’m thinking of monopolies and predatory lenders here.
Thanks again for your response.
I don’t understand where multiple people got the idea that I think transparency in corporations is an area government shouldn’t be involved in.
I wrote (in the same comment where I later label the idea “transparency”): “So one goal of corporate regulation could be to get honest disclosure of what is going on so that individuals can make more informed choices if they want to. I’m ok with that kind of regulation.”
I strongly disagree. You don’t need very many people to actively use the transparency before the word gets out.
Rights of corporations should be an oxymoron. Despite the Supreme Court decision that rendered them as legal individuals, they’re creatures formed by the law, and should have no more rights than the law chooses to give them. Which should be much less than they have now.
As for corporate power, libertarian writer Tibor Machan has argued that we should privatize everything humanly possible–roads, parks, schools, public spaces, etc.–so that when the owner decides what science should be taught, or who can march in the annual parades, there’s none of that nasty negotiating and protesting the decision and (shudder!) democracy, because it’s private property, and you gotta do what the owner says.
I’m not claiming this as Andrew’s position, only noting that I think it opens up a world of abusive power with minimal recourse.
Re-reading this thread, Andrew said a very interesting thing far above:
“More seriously, I concur that things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. I prefer to see the default position to be against regulation, naturally, but I think there are certainly many cases where government regulation is of great value. The problem is predicting which those are in advance.”
As CharleyCarp pointed out in response, most regulation arose out of specific documented abuse which companies engaged in and fought every step of the way. So it isn’t a matter of predicting what regulation is needed in advance, but responding once it is apparent that regulation is needed.
A good example could be maximum hours laws. If you read the Volokh Conspiracy, you might see an occasional effort to rehabilitate (as part of their “restoring the lost Constitution” movement) Lochner v. New York, a 1905 Supreme Court decision which overturned a state law limiting the hours worked by bakers to 60 per week on the grounds that it interfered with the employees’ freedom to bargain for longer hours if they so chose. I have fortunately worked significantly more than 60 hours only in infrequent weeks in my legal career, which is far less physically strenuous than being a baker.
I have enormous trouble believing that anyone would voluntarily agree to work greater hours on a regular basis in a physically demanding job, unless they were being paid so little that this was the only way they could support themselves. And yet this strikes me as precisely the sort of world libertarians view as not merely a necessary evil, but actually desirable.
I have no idea what your point is, or what relation it bears to my post. I’m not a libertarian, but I’m only marginally more statist than, say, Ed Brayton. I certainly don’t think government is pure. I just think it’s fallible in different ways to markets, and that it can consequently act as a corrective in certain circumstance. Markets are driven overwhelmingly by short term considerations, as are individual politicians, whereas bureaucracies have longer institutional memories. For instance the current debate about the implementation of new bank capital adequacy rules in the US is being driven mainly by conflict between the FDIC’s fear of a new savings and loan type scandal and banks’ and politicians’ fear of reduced competitiveness. Now this isn’t to say that the FDIC is definitely right in its particular stance, or that bureaucracies are inherently good, it just shows that they can act as a valuable check on the short-termism of individual actors.
And? I didn’t say the government was very good at regulating. I’m just saying that it’s in a position to promote transparency and is from time to time willing to, whereas individuals clearly aren’t. I deal with this every day as a financial journalist. Companies here in Europe have been screaming blue murder about regulations like the Transparency Directive or even the SEC’s Regulation AB, which for all their problems are overwhelmingly supported by investors. Yet these same investors didn’t punish the companies who didn’t meet the standards set out in either regulation before they were introduced. Even now, there’s little if any price differential between the securities of companies that comply with these or other, voluntary, standards and those who don’t. There’s just to much money sitting around that needs to be “put to work” and investors are afraid of missing out.
“But I hate personal attack: I try not to indulge in it….”
Mm.
IJWTS that Russell’s comment at 7:28 AM is excellent, and I agree with it, with the sole exception that “Please think longer and harder about this” is pretty useless advice, and is apt to tend to irritate the receiver.
Yes, a post that draws up numerous straw men and proceeds to knock them down, then points out to me how my ideas are clearly not well-thought out is sheer brilliance. Why didn’t I think of that? After all, it’s so much trouble to argue with what people actually say, and you might not succeed in insulting them that way. Much better to just argue with what you’re quite sure they meant.
Really, why do I bother?
Andrew,
I am not sure which post your 2:24 was in response to, but if it was russell’s post which had just been praised by Gary Farber, I do not see the straw men in it. Perhaps you would like to point them out?
I’m not Andrew, but I have a pretty substantial criticism:
I of course don’t know about the specifics of this instance, but as a general description for this type of legislation, the characterization is false. It is in fact very common for the local government to throw up all sorts of barriers to starting up a new inspection service. It is in fact very common for the local government to mandate who should conduct the inspections. It is very common for local governments to specially tailor the ‘requirements’ to create the circumstance where only one favored provider will do.
I think that septic tank case makes for an interesting liberal-vs-libertarian litmus test — without knowing anything more about it than what was mentioned, do you assume that it’s a reasonable regulation to solve a real external-cost problem, or that it’s intrusive nanny-state overkill that would better be handled in a more free-market or incentive-based fashion, if indeed there’s a genuine problem at all?
Without more detail, I think it could go either way, or perhaps be a little of both. And if we were to dive into the details of this particular case, we might be able to reach broad agreement on the extent to which it’s justified.
Sebastian,
“It is in fact very common for the local government to throw up all sorts of barriers to starting up a new inspection service. It is in fact very common for the local government to mandate who should conduct the inspections. It is very common for local governments to specially tailor the ‘requirements’ to create the circumstance where only one favored provider will do.”
I am going to have to say that my experience (which includes several years working in a law firm which represented multiple municipalities in the Philadelphia suburbs and exurbs) differs immensely from this.
Could a municipal government set up its own qualification standards, as opposed to state standards? Possibly, but not likely without substantial cost (which is very unlikely to be able to be borne by a government in a location sufficiently isolated that there are not numerous qualified contractors within a few miles). Could it mandate that only people it qualified perform services? I would imagine that if the work were sufficiently lucrative for anyone to bother with this, it would be worthwhile for the contractor in the next town to file a challenge to the law, which would almost certainly prevail. So I don’t see the argument as a straw man at all.
“Without more detail, I think it could go either way, or perhaps be a little of both. And if we were to dive into the details of this particular case, we might be able to reach broad agreement on the extent to which it’s justified.”
Thus the litmus test for whether one is a pragmatist, not an idealogue, and one who generally believes in asking for more detail, rather than assuming.
Seb: As described, the case didn’t involve setting u[ such specifications. And as described, I’d be in favor of it if there was, in fact, a problem with aging septic systems leaking into the water supply. The fact that there was, in fact, only one supplier in town, in addition to making me wonder: how big is the town, and how far away is the next nearest septic tank person?, just strikes me as a business opportunity.
Regarding telling Andrew he should think longer and harder:
I actually thought of adding a post to retract that, because the tone is pretty scolding. I did not because I didn’t think anyone would actually end up reading it down at comment #150 or so.
In any case, unfortunately the scolding tone *was* probably my intent, and it’s inappropriate. My apologies.
Sorry, Andrew.
Sebastian –
I agree that governments often pass legislation to favor particular people or interests. My state of MA famously passed a law a few years ago requiring that car inspections be done using equipment for which there was one supplier.
It happens.
The solution to this is to vote people who abuse their office out of that office. That is why responsive governments are good.
The solution, at least IMO, is *not* to remove from government the responsibility for regulating behavior that has a negative impact on the public interest.
That’s the way you end up with e. coli in your drinking water.
A comment on where the line between nanny state and judicious regulation lies:
I think it depends on where you live.
I was born in NYC and have lived all my life in or near large northeastern cities. I’m accustomed to annoying, even persnickety rules about almost everything. Where and when to park. What I can do with my trash. What kind of insurance must I carry, and in what amount, for my home, car, business, and person.
If I lived in Montana, I’d find 80% of the rules I now live by to be stupid, annoying, intrusive hogwash. Who would possibly care if I burned my leaves, mulched them out, or took them to the dump? Who would possibly care if my garden shed was less than 10 feet from my property line (that one cost me, all in, several hundred dollars)?
In crowded places, the “nanny state” is often the way we all get along. In not-so-crowded places, it’s an annoying, pointless hindrance.
You pay your money and you take your choice. Here in this country, you can go live where the living suits you.
Thanks –
[Long, extremely angry rant redacted]
russell, all I will note is that my political opinions are not merely the result of me flipping a coin and it coming up libertarian or republican or whatever. I am trying, in my own way, to discern the best solutions to some of the problems we face as a people. I’m sure I’m wrong in some cases. Maybe many cases. But to suggest that my philosophy isn’t thought out is profoundly insulting to me.
It’s interesting to compare how the British Conservatives look nowadays compared to American conservatives (in theory, rather than practice, that is).
Andrew –
I’ve read a lot of your stuff here, and I would never think that your political, or other, opinions are held either lightly or without thought. I would imagine that very little that you do is done lightly or without thought.
Which is to say, you have, sincerely, my respect.
No insult was intended in any of my remarks. As mentioned above, I think their tone was inappropriately scolding and/or judgemental. I’m sorry for that, and will take care in the future to insure that my tone matches my intent.
The two things I will say here are these.
In my opinion, in this particular instance, and for the reasons I’ve discussed above, the argument you have prevented is not a strong one. For that reason and for that reason alone, I think you might wish to think some of the issues through more rigorously. Hence my comment. There is no insult intended in that remark, at all, in fact very much the opposite.
The second thing I will say is that, in my own experience and life, an exhortation, offered sincerely and with respect, to think again about a position I hold has often been a gift of great value.
Thanks –
I just noticed that much the same topic is taken up at Henley’s place, with a different ratio of libertarian-to-liberal commenters.
As usual, LizardBreath makes some excellent points, IMO.
She sure does.
Hey, thanks. I was thinking of linking that over here, but I get shy about pimping my own posts, even where relevant.
On Power
In which I write about what some people seem to have thought I was writing about when I talked about libertarian Democrats. For those looking to catch up, you can start here, here, and here. While I am not really…
A Marriage of Convenience.
Moulitsas was wrong then, and wrong now, when he endorses a statement that “corporations are becoming more powerful than governments.” The statement is nonsense on the face of it. There is no real need to belabor the point as several responses to his e…
All this talk of “libertarian Democrats.”
Democrats may want to link up with us libertarians, but we libertarians have little if any interest whatsoever of linking up with Democrats.
Put aside for a moment our huge disagreements on economic issues.
Democrats are even bad these days on civil liberties. Who is pushing all the smoking bans all over the US? Democrats. Who is it that’s calling for a return to the Military Draft? Democrats. Who was it that got our libertarian petitions kicked off the ballots all over the US like MT, MO, and NV in 2006? Democrats. Who is it that protests and disrupts speeches by libertarians on college campuses all over the US? Democrats. Who is it that wants to take our guns away? Democrats.
Who is it that supports anti-libertarian affirmative action laws? Who is it that supports seat belt laws? Who is it that wants to force little kids riding bicycles to weat helmets? Answer to all the above: Democrats
When was the last time you even heard a Democrat supporting legalization of marijuana?
There are virtually no areas of agreement between Democrats and libertarians. Maybe Pro-Choice on abortion and Gay Rights. But even there Dems want government funding and “special rights for Gays”(which we libertarians oppose).
Further, how many libertarians ever win election as Democrats? Virtually none. How many libertarians win as Republicans? Hundreds like former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Ron Paul now a Republican Congressman from Texas.
“libertarian Democrat”? A stupid idea if there ever was one.
Eric Dondero at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
I’d be curious to know which ‘libertarian’ Republicans in office–other than Ron Paul–fit your strict criteria, Eric.
Neither party seems eager to legalise pot (or overturn seatbelt laws).
“Courage! What makes the King out of a slave? Courage! What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage! What makes the elephant charge his tusk in the misty mist, or the dusky dusk? Courage! What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage? What makes the Sphinx the seventh wonder? Courage! What makes the dawn come up like thunder? Courage!
What makes the Hottentot so hot? Courage! What puts the ‘ape’ in apricot? Courage! What have they got that I ain’t got”
Well, little kids without stoved-in heads, for one, and that extra little paranoid buzz from smoking marijuana while the authorities’ sneaky-Pete around.
Not to mention the ability to look up Dagny Taggert’s skirt and realize she’s just a mannequin wearing no underwear.
Other libertarian Republicans in public office?
Jeff Flake, Butch Otter, Tom McClintock, Mark Sanford, Bob Hedlund, Vic Kohring, and about 100 to 200 more. Too numerous to cite here. But there’s a full listing at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Eric Dondero: But even there Dems want government funding and “special rights for Gays”(which we libertarians oppose).
Whenever I hear “Special rights for gays” I reach for my gun.
But I hang out with Democrats, and they take it away.
Microsoft can’t make you buy Windows, or Office, or any of their other products if you don’t want to do so.
*falls apart laughing*
Sorry, I got this far and realized the whole post must be a joke, yes?