The Long Winter

209 thoughts on “The Long Winter”

1. This isn’t a picture of libertarian independence. This is communitarianism, damn near socialism.
   I think you have a misunderstanding of what constitutes libertarian independence.

2. Ynigo Montoya may have something to say about your use of “libertarianism”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
   Let’s Google:
   Libertarianism: “an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.”
   Communitarianism: “a theory or system of social organization based on small self-governing communities.”
   I’m not seeing a whole lot of state coercion in your little anecdote. I’m just seeing a bunch of people voluntarily associating with one another for purposes of shaming (and threatening) an outlier. That sounds about as libertarian as you can get.
   “Libertarian” is not a synonym for “self-reliant”.

3. someone should ask the Sioux who once lived in what is now South Dakota about state coercion.

4. Well, really, what is “the state” in a small and relatively insular community such as this? If the body-politic is unified in coercing individuals to perform certain actions, does it matter if they do so through well-defined systems administered by an organization wielding formal legal authority, or through fluid, ad-hoc measures that rely on de facto coercion rather than de jure? If libertarianism opposes the former, but not the latter, is it just the verbiage they oppose?

5. I have to agree with Charles and the RadMod…that is pretty much exactly how I think libertarianism should play out.
   And in that sense, as a self-described libertarian, I view that passage at least as manifesto-like (I’m not familiar with the rest of the books and can’t speak to them). It shows a community resolving individual conflict WITHOUT resorting to state coercion…the lawman, the taxman, etc.

6. “Libertarian” is not a synonym for “self-reliant”.
   That’s a really good point, and one that many self-described libertarians quite often seem to miss.
   I’m curious to see how the libertarians here continue this discussion and sort this out. I’ll just add a couple of things to the soup.
   1. What about the free land? What about the enormous public investment that made the railroad feasible? Seems to me that, as Doc S clearly notes, the plucky little self-reliant community described in Ingalls’ story would not exist at all in the absence of those items.
   2. This might be libertarianism, but what it absolutely is not is unfettered capitalism. (Another thing, BTW, that is not a synonym for liberarianism). Ingalls, acting on behalf of the interest of the community at large, rations the distribution of Loftus’ wheat, in spite of the fact that it was Loftus’ putting his own capital at risk that made it available in the first place.
   3. Last but not least, how does Ingalls’ story of informal small-scale community self-organization scale to populations numbering in the millions? Or, thousands, for that matter?
   In any event, it’s a nice story. I’m sure we’d all love to live in a world where all of our differences could be sorted out around the cracker barrel.

7. “how libertarianism should play out”
   Ya mean, Loftus’ property rights were threatened and the telegraph lines to the constabulary were down, so what’s a guy to do?
   😉
   The Donner Party worked their food shortage out too without resorting to state coercion. I lick my chops at the fulfillment of their ideals.
   One wonders what would have ensued if Mr. Loftus had not ceded his wheat at cost to the community, which was within his rights in this libertarian commune, what sort of coercion would have occurred between these self-realized individuals, before the weather broke and the tracks of the railroad, probably built under Congressional Railroad Act of 1862 or some such, financed by U.S. Government bonds issued to the railroads and which secured government use of the railroad for postal, military and other uses, were cleared. Full stop.
   I expect if Loftus had stuck to his guns (what, no guns, on the frontier?), it would have occurred to him or someone else that there might be bigger things at stake than a falloff in his grocery trade come Springtime (everyone was armed, weren’t they?). At the very least some of his wheat would have been stolen, some gunfire would have ensued, and then coercion among these hippies would have escalated and Mr. Loftus himself might have become dinner, thus alleviating the protein shortage in town.
   Then, after the Spring thaw, a Circuit Judge, one of them gummint agents, would have shown up to get to the bottom of Loftus’ disappearance (libertarians getting their stories straight: he just up and left, didn’t tell no one, took his wheat and his dog with him), I expect, out there in Valhalla, where the ghosts of the Sioux, dispatched either by disease or violence (has that been determined yet?), both libertarian principles (the Sioux were given a choice between the two, which I thought was gallant of us) in out early history apparently, count Coup.
   I recall living for a short while in a commune- like arrangement a million years ago wherein decisions were made much the same way as in this story, where all of us sat down in a circle and sort of endlsssly jawed over our disagreements, each individual getting his or her say (there wasn’t as much sex as I thought there would be, being a sharer at the time: I don’t know if that is a failure of socialism or libertarianism) and one time someone made some muffins and someone else, we’re not sure who yet, a confederate, a pastry usurper, a whole grain purloiner, perhaps, ate a couple of them before the group had been alerted to their existence and they could be shared.
   Coercion in this happy home meeting took two forms, albeit without outside formal or legal intervention, our fair ideal. First, by a bunch of snooty officious types (the good cops), self-appointed I might add, since actually appointing someone official Sheriff was outside the rules, trying to shame or politely but firmly threaten our future in the group, much as Mr. Loftus was, and second, as it became clear that no one was going to volunteer their guilt, by the guy (bad cop) who turned out to have baked the accursed muffins, kind of big, husky, shirtless, an amulet hung around his neck, not often showered, water being somehow attached to the lawman and the taxman, who ended the meeting by announcing red-faced that if muffins went missing again some ass was going to be kicked, hari krishna, kumbaya, proving that even in the smallest utopias a Stalin will emerge to starve the Ukraine, which is why the phone number for the authorities is always kept handy.

8. A couple of points…
   Loftus is not producing anything. He is a trader trying to pull off an arbitrage. This is not capitalism.
   In the pure competition model of the firm profits are competed away. Is this situation an example of market breakdown?
   Was it a coolly rational evaluation of his infinite time line expectations along smoothly differentiable indifference curves that led Lofton to change his mind….or something else?
   How much did Lofton agree to pay those who undertook the danger to acquire the wheat?
   What is the libertarian solution to the dire straits facing the town?
   Are professed libertarians thompson and charlesWT in agreement? And what in god’s name is radical moderate trying to say? Coercion is OK in small groups?
   When will McKinney ride to the rescue?
   We await further developments, popcorn in hand. This could get good.

9. russell:
   To (hopefully) answer some of your questions, I may have read into the subtext a little. If I got that wrong I apologize, no offense meant.
   “That’s a really good point, and one that many self-described libertarians quite often seem to miss.”
   True, but I think it’s also something a lot of self-described non-libertarians miss the libertarians saying. 😛
   “What about the free land? What about the enormous public investment that made the railroad feasible?”
   What about them? Libertarianism, except at its most extreme, doesn’t forbid the concept of public investment. For sure, the level of public investment would be far lower in a “libertarian” system.
   Additionally, other solutions to the problem could have occurred without public investment. It may have changed the course and scope of US expansion into the west, but I don’t think it would have halted it completely. Private investment is a thing that does occur, even in fairly large projects.
   Maybe someone with more history cred than I could talk about the East India Companies? I think (and I could be completely wrong), it is an example of a massively expensive and risky expansion based largely on private capital. Earlier era, but my point is such things can happen.
   “This might be libertarianism, but what it absolutely is not is unfettered capitalism. (Another thing, BTW, that is not a synonym for liberarianism). ”
   Agreed. I personally am against the conflation of libertarianism and “unfettered capitalism”. Although I’m assuming by that you mean a short-sighted and purely greed-driven capitalism.
   “Last but not least, how does Ingalls’ story of informal small-scale community self-organization scale to populations numbering in the millions? Or, thousands, for that matter?”
   How does a powerful central government scale when power and money concentrate in the hands of the few? How does communism scale? How does *any* method of organizing and interacting with other people scale to millions when we evolved to live in small tribal units?
   Not well. But we do the best we can.
   Every system has its flaws. Every. System. There is no paradigm for organizing millions of individuals that can be summed up in a sentence or a paragraph that actually works perfectly. I’m not saying that because you don’t know it (I assume you do), I’m saying it to point out that I do as well.
   But pointing out that getting together around a cracker barrel doesn’t work for organizing, say, trade sanctions on a despotic regime isn’t really a criticism of libertarian thought.
   Because cracker barrels aren’t a central tenet of libertarian thought. We prefer ammo crates. (kidding)
   More seriously, I have yet to meet an anarcho-libertarian. Libertarians, in general, agree the government needs to exist. To mediate conflicts, provide for general welfare, common defense, etc etc. Pretty much because there aren’t cracker barrels big enough for the entire nation to stand around.
   But just because a libertarian may think the government may need to exist for reason X DOES NOT MEAN they are being inconsistent when they say it would be better if Y was left to the individual.
   (Not answering something you said explicitly, but something I run across a lot…’how can you be libertarian when you drive on public roads, etc etc?’ I may be projecting a little on you, sorry)
   “In any event, it’s a nice story. I’m sure we’d all love to live in a world where all of our differences could be sorted out around the cracker barrel.”
   Yeah, its a story. And if the author was socialist, it would end up like “The Jungle” where the main character’s life was awful until socialism showed up and bam, everything got better. If it was authoritarian, the benevolent dictator would have shown up and handed out the grain, or whatever.
   People write stories that reflect their beliefs, their fears, etc. If you could discount a line of thought because it showed up in a work of fiction at some point…well, there wouldn’t be much left.
   (not saying you were discounting it for that reason, or discounting it at all, just thought the implication was that libertarianism is a fantasy that only works in fiction, as demonstrated by it working in fiction)

10. Russell–
    What about the free land? What about the enormous public investment that made the railroad feasible?
    I suppose you can find some libertarians that think that all collective action problems should be outside of government province. But you have to be a lot more hard-core than I am to rule transportation infrastructure outside of the government domain.
    This might be libertarianism, but what it absolutely is not is unfettered capitalism.
    Hmmm. Did Mr. Loftus invest his money freely? Did he offer the fruits of his investment at a price that he set? Did market conditions subsequently discover a lower price for his goods? Capitalism doesn’t require that all investments produce a return.
    The intent behind Ingalls’s rationing system certainly isn’t capitalistic, but its implementation is. Loftus is still selling as much wheat as he wants to whomever he wants, at a price he’s free to set. The fact that he’s decided that the present value of his business is higher if he goes along to get along is a purely market decision. There’s certainly coercion going on, but it’s not state coercion.
    …how does Ingalls’ story of informal small-scale community self-organization scale to populations numbering in the millions? Or, thousands, for that matter?
    It doesn’t, obviously. But you’re setting up a bit of a strawman if you’re implying that the only alternative is strong central government. There’s a lot of room between anarchy (which is what’s happening in the story) and the federal government controlling as many things as it does today. I don’t believe that the current allocation of power today is anywhere close to optimal. I’d prefer a lot more power devolving to individuals, municipalities, and states. But I won’t argue that some problems require some amount of central government power. We’re arguing about matters of degree, not of kind.
    To add to our list of things that libertarians aren’t, I guess we should add “anarchists”.

11. bobby:
    “This is not capitalism.”
    It’s not ideal free-market capitalism, certainly. As indicated by the lack of infinite sellers and buyers, etc etc.
    “Is this situation an example of market breakdown?”
    I’m pretty sure yes, but as we’ve previously learned, my econ is lacking. 😛
    “How much did Lofton agree to pay those who undertook the danger to acquire the wheat?”
    I don’t know. Maybe you could read the book and get back to me?
    “What is the libertarian solution to the dire straits facing the town?”
    What was described in the post. Individual actors acting in their own best interest.
    “Are professed libertarians thompson and charlesWT in agreement?”
    I’ll leave you with what I said earlier: “I have to agree with Charles”
    I apologize I can’t be more clear…I’m just so cagey sometimes. 😛

12. Oh, one more thing. What RadMod said. It was what I was trying to say, but expressed…well.

13. “But you have to be a lot more hard-core than I am to rule transportation infrastructure outside of the government domain.”
    I appreciate the lack of hard-corenessiosity, TheRadicalModerate, which now that i think about it, is a great handle.
    But, why not? And if not, how about healthcare?
    “Capitalism doesn’t require that all investments produce a return.”
    Shareholder capitalism certainly does, else why in every quarterly report that I read is there a lengthy explanation (obfuscation) regarding return of invested capital, etc?
    Milton Friedman’s bushy libertarian eyebrows just leapt erumpently from their grave to call for order.
    You may be describing return on taxpayer investment. 😉
    “There’s certainly coercion going on, but it’s not state coercion.”
    Why is that such a relief? I find the coercion closest to me to be the most invasive and .. coercive.
    Compare one’s coercive parents saying: “Go ahead, don’t buy health insurance, you idiot, but don’t come to us when the piper needs to be paid,”, or the health insurance companies coercion: “Give us most of your monthly income or we won’t cover your pre-existing conditions!” .. to Obamacare: “If you require health insurance, even if you’re dying very expensively, you can, according to your income, purchase health insurance through these exchanges or sign up for Medicaid. Yes, there will be a small lien imposed via the IRS if you don’t purchase the insurance, but then you are taking up room in the emergency rooms at others’ coerced expense.
    If wheat was healthcare, the Ingalls are Obamacare.

14. bobbyp:
    “What is the libertarian solution to the dire straits facing the town?”
    Socialism.
    Or, cannibalism by agreement.

15. “There’s certainly coercion going on, but it’s not state coercion.”
    To say that any coercion is going on would require an expanded definition of coercion.

16. “To say that any coercion is going on would require an expanded definition of coercion.”
    From the text quoted by Doc Science:
    “Mr. Loftus looked from Cap to Almanzo and then around at the other faces. They all despised him.”
    Sounds to me like a coercive class-warfare standoff, backed up by a fully-armed, hungry, desperate population with no trains leaving or arriving on a cold night, not even the 3:10 to Yuma.
    Self-interest by any other name is coercion.

17. bobbyp: “Loftus is not producing anything. He is a trader trying to pull off an arbitrage. This is not capitalism.”
    Please.
    “In the pure competition model of the firm profits are competed away. Is this situation an example of market breakdown?”
    No, it’s an example of a real-world market, rather than a blackboard model with major assumptions made to simplify things (and likely also to bias the conclusions).
    “Was it a coolly rational evaluation of his infinite time line expectations along smoothly differentiable indifference curves that led Lofton to change his mind….or something else?”
    Which has what to do with what?

18. “Mr. Loftus looked from Cap to Almanzo and then around at the other faces. They all despised him.”
    Which Charles says isn’t coercion, RadMod says it is, and Count says this:
    “Sounds to me like a coercive class-warfare standoff, backed up by a fully-armed, hungry, desperate population with no trains leaving or arriving on a cold night”
    And the ‘is it coercion?’ question requires some details that I don’t have without the text.
    But let’s be clear, using “coercion” to cover people not liking you is potentially in the definition of coercion, but its a stretch. And definitely distinct from the state using prison to coerce someone into doing something.
    I mean, come on, if I organize people to boycott Orson Scott Card and his movie, is that coercion? What if we also despise him? Is that coercion?
    I’d say no.
    I think the scene in the book might turn to coercion if additional text further suggested the crowd would turn violent. But as it stands, I read the line as:
    we will boycott you next year
    not as
    we’ll burn your shop to the ground
    And I’d say the second is coercive and the first is not.
    You could argue that, as social creatures, we might find intense dislike from out fellow humans as so burdensome that is basically coercive…but at that point we’re really not talking about the same thing as state coercion.
    And using that definition, I have no problem “coercion-of-crowds” in general. Specific examples of it I may disapprove of, but I think its important that people are free to (a) associate and (b) express themselves, even if it makes others uncomfortable or ‘coerced’.

19. I think it’s worth noting the implied threat is not a simple, limited boycott, but a refusal of the entire rest of the (small, isolated) town to do business with him. The threat sounds more like one of economic shunning than social shunning. What’s proposed wouldn’t be a punitive hardship upon his livelihood, but financial ruin like as not necessitating him pulling up stakes and moving.

20. And I’d say the second is coercive and the first is not.
    You’re wrong. You don’t get to redefine coercion to suit your ideology.
    You may think that coercion that uses the threat of violence is unacceptable and that coercion that does not use the threat of violence is acceptable, but the meaning of the word does not change. To attempt to make someone do something they do not wish to do by using a threat is coercion. The store owner wished to make a profit on his free market investment of capital, the mob that despised him implied that unless he gave them his goods at cost they would withhold their business and ruin him. That is coercion.
    When the FBI told MLK that they would reveal his extra-marital affairs unless he committed suicide, that was coercion. It would have been coercion even if it had been done by a non-state entity. Or would that be non-coercive under your ideology?

21. Loftus is not producing anything. He is a trader trying to pull off an arbitrage. This is not capitalism.
    Another very excellent point, in which yet another pair of things commonly held forth as synonyms are found, in fact, not to be.
    it is an example of a massively expensive and risky expansion based largely on private capital.
    Operating under a state-sanctioned and -enforced monopoly, and where a very large portion of the ‘private capital’ was contributed by the individuals who, personally, constituted much of the state.
    Imperial England was a mercantile economy, not a capitalistic one.
    Although I’m assuming by that you mean a short-sighted and purely greed-driven capitalism.
    You can generally assume that I mean what I write, and not something else. So no, I did not mean a short-sighted and purely greed-driven capitalism, I meant unfettered capitalism.
    If somebody other than the buyer and seller is deciding whether and how much can be bought, the transaction is not unfettered.
    Loftus is still selling as much wheat as he wants to whomever he wants
    No, he’s not. If Ingalls, or anyone else or any collection of people, decide whether or when or how much wheat any *other* person can buy or sell, Loftus is not selling as much wheat as he wants to whomever he wants.
    But pointing out that getting together around a cracker barrel doesn’t work for organizing, say, trade sanctions on a despotic regime isn’t really a criticism of libertarian thought.
    No, it’s not. It’s an assertion, by me, that libertarian thought is lovely but does not scale to populations that are too large for people to interact with each directly.
    But just because a libertarian may think the government may need to exist for reason X DOES NOT MEAN they are being inconsistent when they say it would be better if Y was left to the individual.
    No, it just means that their statement about it being “better if Y was left to the individual” is of limited practical use.
    I think it would be better if we all just took care of each other, loved one another as fellow humans, refrained from judging each other, were uniformly kind and generous to each other on all occasions, and weren’t greedy, ever, about anything.
    That would result in a splendid society indeed. So, let’s just do that.
    Whenever the topic of libertarianism comes up, and people present specific cases where government intervention is obviously either necessary or constructive, everybody somehow agrees that *that* government intervention or coercion is the good kind, and that libertarians are therefore OK with *that* kind.
    It’s the *other* kind that falls afoul of libertarian principles.
    So, it seems to me that libertarianism is basically a preference that government not do stuff that bugs particular libertarians.
    I file it under “nice work if you can get it”.
    he just up and left, didn’t tell no one, took his wheat and his dog with him
    but he left behind these most excellent sausages….

22. “…but I think its important that people are free to (a) associate and (b) express themselves, even if it makes others uncomfortable or ‘coerced’.”
    All well and good…so this applies to unions as well when they apply economic pressure on firms? Secondary boycotts that are (gasp!) outlawed by Taft-Hartley? Oh, if only we could be relieved of these infernal federal regulations regulating every aspect of our lives!

23. Please.
    So trade patterns as between Asia, the Middle East and Europe in the early late middle ages were capitalism? Who knew? And thank you for your brevity.
    No, it’s an example of a real-world market
    Could be. But it is not a free market as worshiped by the libertarian ethos, or as defined by free market economic theory (the price was a group decision, and certainly not “arms length” by any means. Further, in a ‘free’ market, the price is given and incentivises behavior. In this example it is the other way around). You are basically saying that any transaction mediated by money is a “market”. By that definition, blackmail qualifies as a market transaction.
    Which has what to do with what?
    Marginalist theory and/or coercion. Pick’em.
    Thanks.

24. This in depth definition of coercion presents a much broader concept of coercion than the one I’m use to. Psychological or social coercion would likely fit situation under discussion.

25. Loftus may have felt coerced into an arrangement with the townspeople, but he wasn’t forced.

26. The type of coercion that libertarians object to is closer to the more narrow, legal definition of coercion.

27. Ugh. Ok. Into the weeds I go…
    NomVide:
    “not a simple, limited boycott, but a refusal of the entire rest of the (small, isolated) town to do business with him.”
    So…boycotts are only allowable if they aren’t crippling? Or what? I was trying to get at the definition of ‘coercion’. And its currently being stretched quite far. If I choose not to patronize a business, is that coercion? What if I convince my friends to do likewise?
    It’s fine for a word to have multiple meanings. And coercion does. My wife can coerce me into doing the dishes. My friends can coerce me into buying candy from their kid. And that, plainly, is not the same thing as the state coercing me into paying taxes, or of a threat of violence, etc etc.
    It gets a little hairy when, as you point out, my boycotting someone would crippling their livelihood. But I maintain (and perhaps you disagree? I’m unclear.) it is really important that people be allowed to coerce each other in this fashion. If I don’t like store X because the manager is an a-hole, I shouldn’t be obligated to purchase things from him.
    I think saying I am ‘coercing’ that manager is a little strong, even if I coordinate a 100% boycott to that effect. But if we agree that’s coercion, I think its still distinct from (a) threats of force, governmental or otherwise.
    Is this something we can reach accord on? Or could you suggest a word other than coercion? Or do you not see a distinction between the scopes of coercion as I have laid them out?
    There’s several worthwhile arguments here, no doubt, and I’m not eager to get tripped up on the definition of coercion.

28. bobbyp:
    “All well and good…so this applies to unions as well when they apply economic pressure on firms?”
    Yes.

29. DClarity:
    “You’re wrong. You don’t get to redefine coercion to suit your ideology.”
    I wasn’t. I was trying to make sure everybody was using the same definition. Words can, you know, have multiple usages in common and technical parlance.
    For example, there is a legal definition of coercion. Also of blackmail, which strikes to the heart of your MLK paragraph.
    I can see how people would describe a boycott as coercive. I’m not trying to belittle that concept. After all, that’s pretty much the point.
    That’s not the same thing as coercion based on a threat of force or incarceration. The same word may be used, but that doesn’t mean the phenomena are the same.

30. Yes.
    Then you are, despite what the Libertarian Party platform says, an unusual libertarian. Every self-described libertarian I have ever met expressed nothing but contempt for organized labor.
    Now, about legalizing the secondary boycott….

31. I have no problem with organized labor as long as employers can legally tell unions to take a hike if they so wish.

32. …and the long one, russell:
    “Operating under a state-sanctioned and -enforced monopoly, and where a very large portion of the ‘private capital’ was contributed by the individuals who, personally, constituted much of the state.”
    Very true…and very similar to the US at all stages where the rich have far more influence, both directly and indirectly, in policy than the rest of us.
    It’s not private capital because they were rich and connected? Is the recent corporate space race also not private capitol because they are all rich?
    You probably have a point here that’s not a ‘no true scotsman’ type of point. But I’m not seeing it. Could you elaborate?
    “You can generally assume that I mean what I write, and not something else. So no, I did not mean a short-sighted and purely greed-driven capitalism, I meant unfettered capitalism.”
    Ok, great, I’m assuming that now, as I did before. The problem is ‘unfettered capitalism’ isn’t especially clear nor is it a term of art. So I guessed what you might mean. I apparently got it wrong. That’s pretty much why I added a qualifier, so that you might clarify. Which you did by saying:
    “If somebody other than the buyer and seller is deciding whether and how much can be bought, the transaction is not unfettered.”
    So thanks for that. That’s a helpful definition. And…now I’m completely lost. Is your point that the Loftus isn’t determining the price of the wheat? Because as I understand it, he is. Under the threat of boycott, but he is.
    Or, are you saying that Loftus isn’t allowed to take anything into account but supply and demand? If so, that’s ridiculous and a complete caricature of libertarian thought.
    If your point is that its not an ideal free market…I’d agree, obviously…but nobody said otherwise.
    “No, he’s not. If Ingalls, or anyone else or any collection of people, decide whether or when or how much wheat any *other* person can buy or sell, Loftus is not selling as much wheat as he wants to whomever he wants.”
    Which gets to freedom of association. People are free to act in concert, and they are in this case. Loftus is free to *attempt* to sell his wheat at any price to whomever he wants. Nobody is obligated to by it now or ever. He is choosing to go along with the at cost and ration because he believes if he doesn’t, people will boycott his store. Which they are free to do.
    “No, it’s not. It’s an assertion, by me, that libertarian thought is lovely but does not scale to populations that are too large for people to interact with each directly.”
    Technically, it wasn’t an assertion. It was a question (‘how does Ingalls’ story of informal small-scale community self-organization scale to populations numbering in the millions?’ The question mark is a dead giveaway).
    You have now turned it into an assertion. If you’d like to offer evidence for your assertion, please do so. Or in the future, if you want to say “libertarian thought is lovely but does not scale”, say it directly and we’ll discuss it.
    Otherwise, I’m just left confused by your use of implication in some areas and your “saying what you mean” in others.
    “No, it just means that their statement about it being “better if Y was left to the individual” is of limited practical use.”
    Ok…so…what? You don’t think ANYTHING should be left to the individual? Everything should be determined by the state?
    Of course not. You want individual liberty to the extent possible. You’ve said as much in multiple posts across multiple threads. Just like I do. We disagree on the extent possible. Let’s talk about that.
    “I think it would be better if we all just took care of each other…splendid society indeed. So, let’s just do that.”
    Strawman. Nobody said it.
    “So, it seems to me that libertarianism is basically a preference that government not do stuff that bugs particular libertarians.”
    Um. Ok, other than being dismissively phrased, how is this different than ‘liberal’: Government should do the things we think are important, but spend less money on defense and not legislate sex.
    Or ‘conservative’: Government shouldn’t provide a social safety net but we totally should make sure penises only go in the right place.
    Protip: We all agree (a) the government should exist and (b) should have some powers and (c) not all powers.
    We can keep going in circles and pretending libertarians think the government shouldn’t exist or we can act like adults, realize we all have different ideas about the scope of government, and talk it?

33. “unusual libertarian. Every self-described libertarian I have ever met expressed nothing but contempt for organized labor.”
    I have a number of problems with “organized labor” in that in many cases I don’t think its actually working to the benefit of labor. I also don’t like that my wages are garnished to support a union that I am not a part of.
    That IS NOT THE SAME THING as saying unions don’t have the RIGHT to associate and negotiate as a group.
    The libertarians I know understand and appreciate the distinction. Perhaps we know different libertarians or perhaps you never get into the depths of their thought on unions.
    Similarly, perhaps you know people that think corporations are an essential legal device in a multinational economy, but think the actions of some corporations are to the detriment of society?

34. To add to our list of things that libertarians aren’t, I guess we should add “anarchists”.
    Indeed. There are no adherents of anarcho capitalism on earth.
    I understand that thompson and CharlesWT and the RadicalModerate feel very strongly that their unique personal definitions of libertarianism should be controlling, but I’m not sure why anyone else should agree. I mean, if “libertarians” are so ignorant of libertarianism that they don’t know about anarcho capitalism or Murray Rothbard, why should we take anything they say seriously?
    Maybe our libertarian cohort can read the wikipedia article on libertarianism before they speak authoritatively about what libertarians believe. Or, if a whole article is too much to read (it seems to have been since they’re all so unfamiliar with it), perhaps they could just skim the table of contents to pick up on the keywords? Or would that be too difficult too?

35. I have no problem with organized labor as long as employers can legally tell unions to take a hike if they so wish.
    You mean they can’t do that? I am shocked.

36. So…boycotts are only allowable if they aren’t crippling? Or what? I was trying to get at the definition of ‘coercion’. And its currently being stretched quite far. If I choose not to patronize a business, is that coercion? What if I convince my friends to do likewise?
    The point of making note of the “scale” of the boycott was primarily to suggest that, given the size of and isolation of the town, the collective citizenry enforcing an economic boycott would be making it untenable for him to continue living in town. I.e., it’s not a boycott where 10% or 50% of customers are gone, but all of them – and due to the isolation, he can’t get more w/o leaving. The collective citizenry are informing him that he must yield to their will or be run out of town – run out of town politely, but still, run out of town. I’m not seeing an amazing bright line between this and e.g. the state imposing taxes and fines to compel compliance. Is it just the fact that the entity performing the coercive act does not have a clear monopoly on force? The unified citizenry have the power to collectively ruin him without taking his life or property – is that not coercion?
    If the monopoly on force is indeed the bright line… Would it be coercion for Mr. Loftus to e.g. require the townspeople to elect him mayor under an autocratic town charter before he sold them any wheat? Plainly, it would be dumb, and inviting the lack of said monopoly to come into play. But while I think it’s obviously coercive, I don’t see a bright line between this and the thorough boycott. I see plenty of circumstantial distinction – primarily that the continued health and welfare of the townsfolk is strongly (though not exclusively) contingent on their receipt of the wheat – but I don’t see a bright line.

37. Turb:
    I know about anarchocapitalism. I’ve just never met IRL an adherent. And I’m not going to speak for them, because its not my place and I don’t agree with them. If you’d like to have a rousing debate about it, please, identify one and go talk to them. I’m sure they will be more than happy to bend your ear about their beliefs. But I can’t speak for them, and I don’t think that says much about my beliefs except that they are not my own.
    “Maybe our libertarian cohort can read the wikipedia article on libertarianism before they speak authoritatively about what libertarians believe. Or, if a whole article is too much to read”
    Would it be too difficult for you to get through the first three sentences?
    “Libertarianism (Latin: liber, “free”)[1] is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end.[2][3] This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty,[4][5] political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism.[6] Although libertarians all share a skepticism of governmental authority, they diverge on the extent and character of their opposition.”
    I don’t think anyone has made claims dramatically outside that definition.
    Generally I, and I’ve noticed others as well, qualify with “most” “many” “some” “libertarians I know” etc etc.
    Libertarianism is broad (which the wikipedia article discusses), and I regularly reject the characterization put forth here, and other places, that is wholly extreme.
    I can’t speak for everybody, but I can speak for myself and my experiences and my beliefs.
    I would point out, that libertarianism is not unique in its breadth. Conservatives and liberals also span such a wide range or beliefs that I am generally loathe to characterize one based on the beliefs of another.
    It’s almost like opinion is fundamentally individual and any set of descriptors is going to result in heterogeneous groupings.
    But I’m unclear on your point. Are you upset that some people on the board are pretending to be libertarian when really they aren’t? Are you upset we’ve hijacked the phrase?
    Or are you upset we’re not willing to carry the water of anybody who also describes themselves as libertarian?
    I’m not asking to be combative, I just really don’t get your point.

38. NomVide:
    That’s a thoughtful point and I want to be really careful about how I answer it.
    I certainly don’t think there is a distinction between the result, per se, between either give us grain at cost or we boycott and the sheriff saying give them the grain or I’ll lock you up and take the grain.
    I both cases he is coerced, in a broad sense, to give up the grain.
    The distinction really is monopoly of force. The people can not, in any legal way, or in my mind any moral way, threaten him with force until he complies.
    They can boycott, and he can leave the city and find another one to sell things in. It would come at great cost, which is something he would likely factor in when deciding how much and how to sell the grain. He can stay and try to wait out the boycott. He can apologize and try to make amends.
    Alternatively, the sheriff can take his stuff and lock him in prison. Or fine him, and use the force of law to keep that fine persistent wherever in this nation he goes (well, probably not at the time…the next town over in Dakota probably wouldn’t care). And if he resists when the sheriff takes his stuff, he can be shot and die.
    None of these things would be legal, or moral, for the masses to do. We grant the government limited powers to utilize force and threat of force to coerce our neighbors. That doesn’t mean it’s always the answer.
    This parable, from my libertarian lens, is an example of a conflict worked out not with the threat of force, but purely with freedom of association.
    Other examples are, say, Chik-Fil-A. I don’t patronize them and I encourage others not to do so, because their values diverge from mine and I don’t want to support them. Is that coercion? Maybe in some sense, but I wouldn’t want the government acting on my behalf in that regard.
    OSC and his movie, same thing.
    There is a restaurant in my town where the management is awful to the wait staff. I’ve informed them I won’t eat there and why. Again, ‘coercive’ on my part, but again I don’t want the owners arrested or fined until they see my point of view.
    If at any point my boycotts actually crippled these businesses, they would be free to take their capital and invest it elsewhere, perhaps keeping in mind why they failed.
    As with all things, its a matter of scale. At some point government intervention, and coercion, will be necessary for the people and their pursuit of happiness.
    But I would prefer, to the extent possible, we rely on the somewhat gentler coercion of association and expression before resort to governmental force.

39. NomVide:
    To answer your hypothetical, I think it would be
    (a) stupid for the townsfolk to agree
    (b) probably not a legal charter
    In general, I’m ok with people doing stupid things, because I don’t like being a judge of what is, or is not, stupid.
    On the other hand, I’m against autocracy and the charter is probably unconstitutional. But IANAL.

40. Maybe our libertarian cohort can read the wikipedia article on libertarianism before they speak authoritatively about what libertarians believe.
    I read the whole thing. Seems about right.
    I suppose, like an English barrister in court, I’ll have to preface anything I say about libertarianism with “In my opinion…”

41. libertarians must, individually, be free to define “libertarian” as they please, when they please, if they please and for whatever ends they please. any other arrangement would be coercive.

42. I’m fascinated by the discussion of the definition of libertarianism here. In a different thread, I referred to the Libertarian party platform as a starting point to discover what individual libertarians here actually believe. I would probably never vote for a member of the Libertarian party because I disagree with much of the party platform.
    The trouble with party platforms is that they’re written to sound aspirational, and they’re short on policy details. It’s easy to agree with certain statements in a platform, but when we see how they’re played out in policy, we notice that the aspirations don’t bear out. I disagree with much of the Libertarian party platform on its face, although there are some statements that are okay with me.
    We don’t really have a track record for Libertarian policymakers (other than Tea Party do-nothing people, who identify as Republicans instead of Libertarians). So it’s difficult to tell what real Libertarian party members would really act like (other than guessing that they’d act like Rand Paul).
    I mostly agree with the Democrats and will vote for them. Rather than discussing vague philosophy, I think it’s more helpful to discuss actual people who are in policy making positions, and whether or not their voting record is something one can support.
    I think the question should be for Libertarians: in what way do you agree or disagree with Rand Paul? Or if they don’t like him as their representative, they should point to another policy maker with whom they, on the whole, agree.

43. I have a number of problems with “organized labor” in that in many cases I don’t think its actually working to the benefit of labor. I also don’t like that my wages are garnished to support a union that I am not a part of.
    And thus doth the libertarian tyre hit the road, the penny drop, and the Russell Axiom* shown to hold.

44. Rand Paul’s voting record.

45. bobbyp:
    I don’t really get what your trying to say…I said its incredibly important for unions to have the right to associate, even if I don’t always think they are working for labor.
    But the point is, its not my place to decide if I like them or not. It’s up to the members of the union.
    For example, I think the union that represents me, does a really crappy job of working for the majority of people it represents.
    I can, amazingly I’m sure, hold both the belief that a right is important and that people will sometimes use the right in a way I find distasteful.
    It’s like freedom of speech. It’s a very important right, but we’re not obligated to love everybody’s use of their right.

46. Yes, I suppose my view of the “gentle” coercion of Mr. Loftus in the story is a little like having Cormac McCarthy replace Ms. Ingalls (Michael Landon having been fired early on, at my insistence) as scriptwriter for the film version and then inviting the Coen brothers (Sam Peckinpah being dead) to direct under the working title: “No Country for a Little Abattoir On The Prairie.”
    Given the circumstances we’re presented here (a desperate community snowed in, down to their last foodstuffs unless you count shoe leather — I suppose the horses and the dogs were next in line for coercion, or were these people vegetarians among their other fine rules to live by — else why the need to take the risky trip to procure the wheat, etc.), I’m extrapolating to what would have been the next line of coercion if Mr. Loftus had stuck to his ideological guns and hoarded the wheat, which would have been within his rights under the generally accepted ideological principles we live by under the thin veneer of civilization.
    And the Rule of Law, inconveniently, is snowbound on a train that might as well be in New Jersey.
    Yes, I’m sure the good people of the community would have turned and gone their way, leaving Mr. Loftus to ponder the coming boycott of his grocery come Spring as he sat among the sheathes? … burlap bags? .. of wheat piled around him, but still here we are.
    I think his next move, being a stubborn cuss, would have been to clean his shotgun and then to ponder over the coming days that hungry people surely aren’t going to wait long just to serve him with the comeuppance of a boycott in the long term, especially if the weather doesn’t break.
    Maybe he’d pile unsold copies of “Atlas Shrugged” in front of the door to forestall a break-in, but then think better of that given their more immediate usefulness as kindling.
    His wife, I expect, would have stood by muttering under her breath, but within his hearing, coercive things along the lines of “Vee should have stayed in Norvay, Ollie, or at least not crossed the Mississippi. We can’t even get ‘Prairie Home Companion’ on the wireless, or we won’t be able to once its invented.”
    Meanwhile, among the townspeople, after a few days, more coercive muttering would break out, I expect, along the lines of “Our children go to bed hungry and cold and we’re expected to wait til — how long exactly — to be fed and then conduct a boycott? My family wants to know what we’re gonna do right now.”
    Counter arguments to more coercive action would be thrown around: “What kind of people are we? Surely you aren’t proposing stealing from Mr. Loftus? You want to take the wheat by force? I’m a good Christian and communitarian …”
    —at this point, someone else would break in and add “I’m a libertarian and I won’t go along with any further coercion, and I certainly won’t agree to any outside intervention when its come time.”
    Right about here, I’d say, someone, probably a mother, will interrupt and spit out the words “You can throw around yer fancy words — communitarian, libertarian, whatever, that’s all very well when times is good … save it for the Sundy morning talk shows … but my children are hungry and by tomorrow evening they are going to have bread … and I’ll do whatever it takes to make sure that happens, even before the eyes of God.”
    Then, a rough looking fellow with bad teeth and a tendency to cackle at inopportune moments (Strother Martin will take this role, having been typecast as ‘prairie scum”) will call out from the back of the room: “I’ll git ya yourn wheat!” draw his buck knife from his belt and stride into the howling wind, first opening the door into a closet, and then, pridefully, nary a glance to the left or right, finding the exit into the street and heading for the Loftus Emporium (Only Foodstuffs Within 50 Miles)

47. Sapient:
    “I think the question should be for Libertarians: in what way do you agree or disagree with Rand Paul? Or if they don’t like him as their representative, they should point to another policy maker with whom they, on the whole, agree.”
    It’s a nifty exercise (I agree with him on some things, not on others), but let’s flip it for a second. How many democrats agree with everything Obama has done and believe he is a representative democrat?
    Because I’ve met Dems that both think he is, and he isn’t.
    I’ve met dems that like the PPACA, and don’t.
    I’ve met dems that like NSA programs like 215, and those that don’t.
    Or how about Feinstein?
    etc etc etc
    Trying to use a small set of words to describe all political thought is going to result in heterogeneous groupings. Which means, whatever word I use to describe myself is going to group me with someone I disagree with.
    But I find it curious that there seems to be a drive to say the self-described libertarians aren’t extreme enough to be libertarian, seems self-fulfilling. If moderates can’t identify libertarian, I suppose libertarianism would be by definition extreme.
    I think the best way to judge someone’s beliefs is to listen them. But the attempt to…define away libertarianism to its most extreme branches is tiresome.
    And now I have to go to work, sadly.

48. I think the comment thread here points to a real “thing” with libertarians, namely, that they are perfectly okay with coercion and even force as long as it’s not government force.
    A while back on my blog I asked why libertarians consider “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” a libertarian book. For those that haven’t read it, a man who looks at a woman inappropriately can get tossed out an airlock into vacuum without a suit, and if the man’s friends aren’t happy about that they can launch a vendetta. In short, not my idea of a utopia.
    But these are private individuals doing the airlock-tossing, not The Man. So that makes it okay, apparently. Much like Pa Ingalls not-so-subtle threat to ruin the store owner, and the unspoken threat of more immediate action.

49. the thing is, “libertarian” (small L) really is a pretty simple and well-defined concept. and that’s what makes it possible to point out when people fail to follow what it demands.
    “Democrat” can at least be compared to the party’s written platform, or the consensus positions of the party leadership. they’ve defined it for us. but that obviously doesn’t mean that everyone who votes D agrees with everything the party says or does. “Democrat” is not a philosophy, it’s a political party that tries to stay palatable to a broad range of center-left voters.

50. It’s a nifty exercise (I agree with him on some things, not on others), but let’s flip it for a second. How many democrats agree with everything Obama has done and believe he is a representative democrat?
    I think sapient’s point was that there isn’t much of a track record for libertarians in office, and that Rand Paul is about as good as it gets if you’re looking for one. There are lots and lots of Democrats out there, Obama being just one of them. All of which means calling yourself a libertarian isn’t quite like calling yourself a Republican or a Democrat, or even a liberal or a conservative. There’s very little actual policy-making to discuss, so you’re left with principles going largely untested.

51. “I think the comment thread here points to a real “thing” with libertarians, namely, that they are perfectly okay with coercion and even force as long as it’s not government force.”
    No. Incorrect. Point to someone here that said use of force was ok. That is the opposite of what was said. In my back and forth with NomVide, monopoly of force was the bright line.

52. How would the libertarian solution have worked in the Loftus case if there were a neighboring reservation full of starving Sioux who also needed the wheat? (In real life in the 1860’s when the Sioux weren’t getting food the whites didn’t care and the Sioux rose up and slaughtered several hundred settlers.) My point being that you could have this unified coercive act against one particular greedy person because everyone knew everyone and presumably they were all white (I haven’t read the books) and they could all agree that it was bad that this one person was using this situation to exploit all the rest. On a large scale or even a small scale and in situations where there are ethnic divisions I think you need some sort of coercive force–let’s call it “government”–that would step in and keep people from going all Road Warrior on each other. Of course the government would need to be fairminded, or it would just be an instrument of one of the factions. But libertarianism in practice would almost certainly give you Somalia in such cases.

53. “”Democrat” is not a philosophy, ”
    Fine, do a find-replace with liberal. My points the same.
    “Rand Paul is about as good as it gets”
    Rand Paul the registered republican?
    “There are lots and lots of Democrats out there, Obama being just one of them. All of which means calling yourself a libertarian isn’t quite like calling yourself a Republican or a Democrat,”
    So…I can’t be libertarian, because there are very few of them, and unless I agree completely with them, I’m not libertarian?
    Again, seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy of libertarians only being extreme.

54. “But libertarianism in practice would almost certainly give you Somalia in such cases. ”
    No.
    And I give up.
    Libertarianism isn’t the same as Road warrior.

55. Justin Amash may be a bit more libertarian than Rand Paul.

56. I’d like to get back to the whole “libertarian manifesto” thing. You have a series of (semi-)autobiographical books about people living on what was the frontier. It was a matter of circumstance that the reach of a central government was highly attenuated. So things are very often going to be sorted out among the people, directly.
    Certainly it was a matter of choice to some degree or another that the Ingalls lived where they lived, knowing that there wouldn’t be much in the way of public infrastructure or institutions. But did they make that choice to get away from the government, or because they thought it was their best opportunity to create the sort of life they aspired to – irrespective of the level of government involved?
    Is everyone living on a frontier necessarily a libertarian?

57. Thompson – so if the storekeeper had told Pa Ingalls “no, the price is $3” you really think everybody would have said “okay?”
    I read the story as Ingalls trying to prevent a food riot.

58. So…I can’t be libertarian, because there are very few of them, and unless I agree completely with them, I’m not libertarian?
    Who said you can’t be a libertarian? The point was simply that there isn’t much in the way of libertarian policy-making to discuss, which makes discussing libertarian ideas more abstract because they haven’t really been tested.

59. Rand Paul the registered republican?
    Yeah, that’s kind of the point, thompson.

60. “”Democrat” is not a philosophy, ”
    Fine, do a find-replace with liberal. My points the same.
    IMO, “liberal” (as seen in the US) is even harder to define. no two liberals are going to agree on either the number of rules that define it nor what those rules are – and they’ll probably be convinced that anyone who disagrees isn’t really a liberal. i can’t define it, even for myself. and i don’t want to; the fact that there isn’t any hard and fast doctrine is a big part of why it fits me. whatever it is, it’s adaptable.
    libertarianism is pretty straightforward by comparison. and that simplicity seems like a big part of its draw. most of the real life libertarians i know are people who likes things simple, clean, predictable and unsullied by the messiness of real life.

61. Given that most “libertarian” utopian communities proposed in this country place the Second Amendment front and center as an organizing principle (are there any unarmed, pacifist libertarian plans in the works?), force is certainly the unspoken rule.
    I understand that having everyone armed is directed at dispersing the monopoly on force among each individual, but still, in the story we’re dealing with here, and I believe everywhere, there is nothing, except convenient declarations of ideology, to stop armed individuals from forming themselves into armed factions when the chips, they be down.
    Thus Donald’s invocation of Somalia, unless Wyatt Earp and the Circuit Court Judge, snowbound on the train, can dig themselves out and mush their way to town in time to prevent further coercion among factions by force of arms.
    Unless the hungry Sioux get there first and all ideological niceties and philosophies become null and void.
    I don’t understand what is being put forth here.
    Is it that even starvation will be tolerated as long as no one is forced to give up their monopoly on the wheat, IF the hate in the eyes of the town folk hadn’t first persuaded Loftus to give up the market opportunity?

62. Is everyone living on a frontier necessarily a libertarian?
    No. While people on a frontier may be a bit more self reliant and independent, there’s likely no shortage of individuals who feel they have the right and the duty to interfere with other people’s lives.

63. This all sounds a lot like a consumer strike, to me.
    What could be wrong with that?

64. I thought we’d agreed that “self-reliant” and “libertarian” were different things.

65. “No. While people on a frontier may be a bit more self reliant and independent, there’s likely no shortage of individuals who feel they have the right and the duty to interfere with other people’s lives.”
    I expect that’s true Charles, but in the Ingalls story, interference in Loftus’ life has occurred via “hate-filled eyes”, much like sanctions on Iran’s pursuit of its libertarian nuclear policies (I kid).
    How does a libertarian community enforce the prohibition on interfering with other people’s lives, if not by force, albeit not from government by any other name, but between individuals.
    Tombstone was called Tombstone for a reason before Wyatt Earp, the man and the legend, arrived.
    It must have been all of those gunfights in the streets among aggrieved individuals who had no higher authority to turn to adjudicate their exchange of hateful glares.
    Then the attorneys arrived.
    Slart:
    “This all sounds a lot like a consumer strike, to me.
    What could be wrong with that?”
    Not a thing, if the consumers made it to the Spring thaw without the food riot referenced above.
    If Loftus had packaged funky wheat derivatives and sold them to unwitting Easterners, we could call it Occupy DeSmet

66. cleek:
    “IMO, “liberal” (as seen in the US) is even harder to define. no two liberals are going to agree on either the number of rules that define it nor what those rules are – and they’ll probably be convinced that anyone who disagrees isn’t really a liberal.”
    -and-
    “libertarianism is pretty straightforward by comparison.”
    This is where we disagree. My point is, if you are using a limited set of political descriptors, let’s say liberal, conservative, you are going to end up with heterogeneous groupings.
    I personally find that I am in more agreement with those that describe themselves as libertarian, and even the wiki article on libertarianism, than with liberals, or conservatives, etc. So that’s how I describe myself.
    I think what I’m confused by is why “liberalism” is broad and varied in your mind, but “libertarianism” isn’t.
    I might agree it might not be AS broad, but I think that’s a factor of the number of adherents.

67. “I read the story as Ingalls trying to prevent a food riot. ”
    I didn’t read a threat of violence from the text. If it was there, I’m not ok with it, and I’ve said as much. But I’m only familiar with the text presented, I haven’t read the books.

68. Fwiw, there are a lot of explicit threats going on towards Loftus in the book, and it’s not at all clear that they wouldn’t be carried out if Loftus kept up his position. Chris G appears right to me- this isn’t Loftus acceding to economic pressure so much as Loftus taking an opportunity to back down with face before people with starving children kill him.
    Anyway, if this is a libertarian parable, it seems like one where the majority enact policies as they choose, even communitarian ones, and the minority are compelled to comply even against their own will and economic interests. I can see no line between this and a commune, except everyone says “we’re all free men here” before enforcing the commune’s dictates.
    It seems that, as long as the town is willing to unite, libertarians would be fine with them telling Loftus who to marry, or what religious practices to observe, or whether he can own a firearm, etc. He’s a free man! Free to do exactly what the other inhabitants of his town tell him to do, that is.
    While people on a frontier may be a bit more self reliant and independent, there’s likely no shortage of individuals who feel they have the right and the duty to interfere with other people’s lives.
    Which you say is *absolutely fine*, as long as there are enough of them to exert economic force. As far as I can tell, anyway, this is your position.
    That’s not the same thing as coercion based on a threat of force or incarceration.
    That seems to define the word down specifically using the types of coercion used by states. States don’t use boycots against individuals, so those are Ok. Individuals just about never use prisons, so those are baaaad.
    Or, as NV put it
    The collective citizenry are informing him that he must yield to their will or be run out of town – run out of town politely, but still, run out of town.
    This is Ok. Having them band together and *vote* to expel him would be state coercion and bad; banding together and forcing him out economically is libertarian and good.
    The only line Im seeing there that makes this coherent is that, in our modern industrialized economy, the use of economic coercion is usually used by the wealthy against the poor, whereas the poor resort to state-based coercion to protect or expand their interests. The occasional boycott working the the other direction is a rare exception.
    The end result is that coercive force is to be permitted to those with the wealth to exert it.
    None of these things would be legal, or moral, for the masses to do.
    Let’s agree to disagree on whether stealing food from a price-gouging merchant to feed a starving child is moral or not, shall we? And Ill maintain the suspicion that we might move towards agreement on the morality of the issue if it was your loved one starving.
    Also, for those asking: the people who went to get the wheat for Loftus didn’t charge him- they did it for the good of the entire town, and were angry when he made his price-gouging demands:

    Cap Garland spoke up. He was not grinning. He had the look that had made the railroader back down. “Don’t offer us any of your filthy cash. Wilder and I didn’t make that trip to skin a profit off folks that are hungry.”
    Almanzo was angry, too. “Get it through your head if you can, there’s not money enough in the mint to pay for that trip. We didn’t make it for you and you can’t pay us for it.”

    Quite the libertarian sentiments.

69. “Who said you can’t be a libertarian? ”
    Sorry, I read into a few comments along the lines of ‘your views aren’t consistent with X understanding of the libertarian party’ and ‘libertarianism is a very narrow set of beliefs’ (some of which I don’t have) as: ‘you are not libertarian’
    Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.

70. I didn’t read a threat of violence from the text. If it was there, I’m not ok with it, and I’ve said as much. But I’m only familiar with the text presented, I haven’t read the books.

    “Now you’re talking!” another man sang out. “Come on, boys! We’ll help ourselves to that wheat!”
    “Reason with him, I said,” Mr. Ingalls objected to that. “I’m talking about reason and justice.”
    “Maybe you are,” someone shouted. “I’m talking about something to eat, and by the Almighty! I’m not going back to my youngsters without it! Are the rest of you fellows?”
    “No! No!” several agreed with him. Then Cap spoke up.
    “Wilder and I have got something to say about this. We brought in the wheat. We didn’t haul it in to make trouble.”
    “That’s so,” Gerald Fuller said. “See here, boys, we don’t want any trouble in town.”
    “I don’t see any sense of flying off the handle,” said Almanzo. He was going on, but one of the men inter- rupted him.
    “Yes, and you’ve got plenty to eat! Both you and Fuller. I’m not going home without-”
    “How much you got to eat at your house, Mr.Ingalls?” Cap interrupted him.
    “Not a thing,” Mr. Ingalls answered. “We ground up the last wheat we had, yesterday. Ate it this morn- ing.”
    “There you are!” said Almanzo. “Let Mr. Ingalls engineer this.”
    “All right, I’ll take the lead,” Mr. Ingalls agreed. “The rest of you boys come along and we’ll see what Loftus has to say.”
    ….
    “We’ll show you whose business it is!” the angry man shouted.
    “You fellows so much as touch my property and I’ll have the law on you!” Mr. Loftus answered. Some of them laughed snarlingly
    ….
    The angry man said, “We’re not here to palaver. Where’s that wheat?”
    “Don’t be a fool, Loftus,” Mr. Harthorn said.

    There’s definitely something in the air here, and it’s not just economic pressure.

71. “But libertarianism in practice would almost certainly give you Somalia in such cases. ”
    No.
    And I give up.
    Libertarianism isn’t the same as Road warrior.—
    Well, the libertarians in and out of the thread claimed the Ingalls story for their philosophy, so I just added one little complication–suppose there were Sioux living on a nearby reservation who also needed the wheat and this all occurred circa 1860. The point being that libertarianism works great with a small community of people with no ethnic strife and where the one greedy relatively rich guy can easily be bullied into behaving like a decent human being because everyone else has the same common interest and no reason to go after each other or side with the rich guy (though I wonder if modern day Tea Party types might end up siding with Loftus). And the rich guy doesn’t have enough wealth to starve them out.
    Now you keep saying you’re a moderate libertarian and that’s fine–you accept the need for government, but then the Ingalls story gives no support at all for your philosophy, unless communists can cite monastery life as an example of how society should be run.

72. Thinking about my Tea Party remark, I wonder if Loftus couldn’t have tried the divide and conquer approach? Why not give enough people wheat at a reasonable price, so they’d stick with him, and then extort as much money as he could from the rest? It probably wouldn’t have worked because in a small community where people mostly like each other or at least get along the sense of fair play would stand in the way, plus there is no Fox News to tell everyone that it is Loftus’s wheat and how dare they think otherwise, but with a larger society I’m sure you could get people who’d side with Loftus against the communist farmers who were trying to force him to buy food at a price lower than he wanted to sell it for.
    Or of course if he was rich enough or if the winter were guaranteed to last long enough, he could force them to sell him their farms for whatever wheat was needed to keep them alive. Who cares what they think if he can pull that off? It’d be a Pareto optimum and in Libertarianland no one could complain of being cheated.

73. I’d say that what happened in the story is neither libertarian nor un-libertarian. So I disagree with Doc Sci, given the already-pointed-out lack of government involvement, while also disagreeing with the idea that there’s anything particularly libertarian about it – I mean, unless my taking a walk at lunch is a libertarian act simply because the state didn’t coerce me to do so.
    It would be one thing if there were some opportunity to get the state involved, and that opportunity was considered, but ultimately decided against, as a matter of political philosophy. But that didn’t happen, so libertarianism has fnck-all to do with it, IMO.

74. Carlton:
    “explicit threats going on towards Loftus in the book”
    See, that’s useful context, thank you
    “It seems that, as long as the town is willing to unite, libertarians would be fine with them telling Loftus who to marry, or what religious practices to observe, or whether he can own a firearm, etc. He’s a free man! Free to do exactly what the other inhabitants of his town tell him to do, that is.”
    No. That is the opposite of what I (at least) am saying. The townsfolk are fine to associate with Loftus, or not, for pretty much any reason they want. They can’t compel him into action using threats of force.
    “Let’s agree to disagree on whether stealing food from a price-gouging merchant to feed a starving child is moral or not, shall we?”
    Carleton, I didn’t say that. Nobody said that. Bluntly, its a little offensive. Perhaps it falls out of context in the book that is not in the post. But as I’ve said many times, I haven’t read the book and am basing everything on the text quoted in the post.
    “That seems to define the word down specifically using the types of coercion used by states. States don’t use boycots against individuals, so those are Ok. Individuals just about never use prisons, so those are baaaad.”
    Carleton, there was extensive discussion about how coercion can have many meanings, and I was trying to draw a distinction between coercion executed by individuals and that executed by the state. I’m glad I succeeded.
    I’m honestly baffled. Are you arguing that a boycott is the same thing as prison? Because that’s ridiculous.
    I think its entirely consistent to allow people to boycott and to not want to limit the power of the state to imprison or otherwise use its power to coerce people. For pretty much this reason:
    “Having them band together and *vote* to expel him would be state coercion and bad; banding together and forcing him out economically is libertarian and good.”
    If the town could get together and VOTE (and are we talking simple majority, 2/3s, 3/4s) to exile someone, Or seize their property, Or imprison them, Or execute them: That would be bad.
    That would be very bad.
    It seems, almost, that getting together to VOTE horrible things onto Loftus is a good thing in your mind. But I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
    In my view of libertarianism, the state lacks the power to punish Loftus for being a terrible person.
    I’d say, again, based only on what I read in the post, its a ‘libertarian parable’ because its a conflict that is resolved by individual action and negotiation, not by state action.
    If there are threats against Loftus, I’m not ok with that. That’s not libertarianism, its hooliganism.

75. I’d say, again, based only on what I read in the post, its a ‘libertarian parable’ because its a conflict that is resolved by individual action and negotiation, not by state action.
    Is my telling you how I brushed my teeth this morning a ‘libertarian parable’ because there was no state action?

76. One of their watchwords was “Free and Independent” — but that was an aspiration (or a comforting platitude), not an accurate description of their lives.
    We have been having a fascinating discussion of what “libertarian” means. But I think it rather misses the point that jumped out at me from this line in the original post. Because it sums up the apparent attitude of a large number of people (whether they label themselves libertarian or not).
    They say they want to live independent of the government and all its works. While benefiting from a large number of government activities. I suspect that it is largely a matter of carefully selective (if unconsciously so) blindness on the part of most of them. They simply do not think about any government activities which they benefit from/like when they are talking about “government.”
    That is why, a couple of years ago, we all laughed so hard at the guy with the sign reading “Government hands off my Medicare!” It was not just funny on its face; it was indicative of the mindset of so many of those gathered there.

77. This is Ok. Having them band together and *vote* to expel him would be state coercion and bad; banding together and forcing him out economically is libertarian and good.
    Thanks, yes, this really was the gist of what I was trying to get at before I got sidetracked by precise definitions of “coercion”. When you have a democratic government, especially a small-scale and/or isolated one where it is both harder for citizens to ignore the role it plays, and easier to observe it closely, I have trouble seeing there being a bright line between a mob consisting of the majority of the citizens and the gov’t. Thompson et al have put it at explicit threat of force. However, the implicit threat felt by a clear minority cannot be eliminated in a real-world environment, so this quickly dims. We are perhaps left with the notion that state actions are implicitly explicit in their threat of force, but this tea is rather weak; state actors are at least in principle bound by defined and formal structures (though their extent can vary wildly), while ad hoc majoritarian collectives are free to behave in whatever unpredictable manner they choose, barring countervailing governmental or minority impediment. I just can’t see how this is supposed to be desirable unless you assume that you’re always the majority, or that there will perforce be government intervention to limit the majority – which is hardly the most libertarian sentiment I’ve ever heard. Unless, I suppose, we are assuming that the government will be mighty and omnipresent but only in the razor-thin areas of law/contract enforcement, thus leaving us all standing in awe of

    La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. – Anatole France

78. “Is my telling you how I brushed my teeth this morning a ‘libertarian parable’ because there was no state action?”
    I guess it would depend on the moral of the story. Is your point you are fully able to take care of yourself without a nannystate checking in on you?
    In that case, yes, I can see it being a libertarian parable.
    But I think the difference (again, haven’t read the book, Carleton is adding to my knowledge of it) is that one of the core tenets of libertarianism is that government action should be minimal.
    It could be interpreted as a parable (although maybe its not, there’s a lot of context I’m apparently missing by only seeing the post) because it is an example of a substantial conflict being resolved without government action.
    I suppose people could use it as a counter to the point that the government is NEEDED to handle those conflicts.
    Again, lot’s of context in the surrounding text I just don’t have.

79. …and they got their land through the government’s Homestead Act.
    This, however, is rather un- (or anti-)libertarian. So I might agree with Doc Sci on the series as a whole, just not about the particular story excerpted.

80. It could be interpreted as a parable (although maybe its not, there’s a lot of context I’m apparently missing by only seeing the post) because it is an example of a substantial conflict being resolved without government action.
    I haven’t read the book either, but it looks like a story about how Pa found a way to save the grocer’s a$$ when the grocer was too stupid figure it out himself, while also preventing anyone from starving. Pa’s a good man. Things might have gone south fast if he weren’t around.

81. It’s a meaningless libertarian parable unless you think that something that works on a very small scale (including the lack of division within the community–it’s everyone against one particular person) could be scaled up. Again, are monasteries good parables for communists to use?
    And something you persist in ignoring–there’s a difference between boycotting a business, which is an impersonal thing, and everyone boycotting one particular person and having enough power to ruin him. In this case the person deserved it, but suppose they boycotted him because he was of a different race or religion or was known to be gay? They have the right to do that too, don’t they? Wouldn’t that be coercive? Boycotting is a tool–whether it’s good or bad depends on the circumstances. The same can be said regarding government regulation.

82. The thread has moved on somewhat, but I owe a couple of replies, so here ya go.
    You probably have a point here that’s not a ‘no true scotsman’ type of point. But I’m not seeing it. Could you elaborate?
    Not really a point, just an observation that historically the East India company (and related mercantilist monopolistic common stock companies) are not really considered to be accurate examples of what we would consider capitalism nowadays.
    Not my opinion, I like you am not an econ-guy, I’m just relating what appears to be the standard analysis.
    If you wish to argue the point, your argument is not with me.
    Or in the future, if you want to say “libertarian thought is lovely but does not scale”, say it directly and we’ll discuss it.
    Yes, my comment was phrased as a question, however in context I would have thought my intent was clear.
    But, to clarify, allow me to plainly assert that libertarian concepts are appealing, but do not scale to communities that are too large for folks to meaningfully interact with each in direct ways.
    My evidence for this is that the number of communities of that size that have operated under libertarian principles are vanishingly small.
    And by “under libertarian principles”, I mean have found ways to resolve conflicts of any significance without resort to coercion by law and government.
    If you can think of some, I’d be interested to hear of them.
    I have no problem with people aspiring to ideals that are lovely ideas yet are not a practical basis for governing public life. I have a few of those myself. However I don’t, for that very reason, espouse them as guiding principles for public policy.
    It is a fairly palpable tension, but one that is familiar to most folks. As you say, we do our best.
    Um. Ok, other than being dismissively phrased, how is this different than ‘liberal’: Government should do the things we think are important, but spend less money on defense and not legislate sex.
    It probably isn’t.
    Protip: We all agree (a) the government should exist and (b) should have some powers and (c) not all powers.
    Sorry, I didn’t realize I was dealing with a professional.

83. NomVide:
    “Thanks, yes, this really was the gist of what I was trying to get at”
    Ok, glad we’re getting into something. I still think we are probably circling each others points a little.
    And I think this really sums it up:
    “being a bright line between a mob consisting of the majority of the citizens and the gov’t”
    I have trouble seeing that bright line as well. Let me elaborate:
    (a) mobs are bad. Mob rule is bad. There is an utter lack of protection for the nonmajority.
    (b) In the case of a simple majoritarian democracy and a state that has otherwise unchecked powers (e.g. anything people can vote for goes), this is mob rule. The mob takes a vote first, but its still mob rule.
    We don’t have that. We have a system where the people have assumed rights and the gov has limited powers.
    Congress, for example, can’t vote to take all of my money and give it to Bob. Even if everybody in the nation hates me and really likes Bob. Or vice versa.
    I’m not arguing that mob rule is good. I’m arguing that people exercising freedom of association is very different than people getting together and voting to fine/imprison/execute, etc etc.
    My understanding is: Neither of us see a bright line between mob rule and simple majoritarian voting. Because there isn’t one.
    I’m sure you see the need for limits on government powers. I do as well. One of the main reasons for this is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. We probably disagree about the scope of the limits. That’s fine.
    “state actors are at least in principle bound by defined and formal structures”
    As are citizens. I can’t exercise violence to resolve conflicts, I have to pay taxes, I have to register for the draft, etc etc.
    I would also point out that for both citizens and state actors the principles and the practical limits are very different.
    A state agent isn’t by definition good. Nor right. Neither are citizens.

84. As are citizens.
    Because…?

85. Turb–
    Maybe our libertarian cohort can read the wikipedia article on libertarianism before they speak authoritatively about what libertarians believe.
    Surely you’re not trying to imply that all libertarians must ascribe to all the various subdivisions of libertarian philosophy? That would be crazy, right? To say nothing of self-contradictory?
    I think I met an anarcho-capitalist once. It was 1981, as I recall. He also wanted to do away with the FAA and put a private air traffic control system in place. Is it OK if I classify him as somewhat outside of the mainstream of libertarian thought?
    Somewhat off-topic, here’s an interesting survey on how those with libertarian views correlate with other political and religious groups. Since most libertarians don’t self-identify, the survey’s classification methodology is based on the answers to a set of bellweather questions. The questions seem like they’re in the ballpark to me, but no doubt there’s plenty of room to quibble.
    I doubt I’m going to make much headway blunting your urge to paint libertarians as extremist. But it might be nice for the few of us out their who do self-identify as libertarian or libertarian-leaning if you’d give us the benefit of the doubt that we’ve given this a moment or two of thought. After all, it’s not like our labeling ourselves as libertarian is gonna let us eat lunch at the cool kids’ table.

86. In my view of libertarianism, the state lacks the power to punish Loftus for being a terrible person.
    What state are you thinking of that has the power to punish people for “being terrible”? The federal and state governments have the power to punish people for crimes.
    If all it takes to be a “libertarian” is to oppose government “having the power to punish people for being terrible people”, maybe I should join up.
    My point upthread was that “Libertarians” don’t seem to want to commit to any specific set of policies. I find it interesting that you, thompson, can’t name a politician whose views you can endorse. Are you such an original thinker that you can’t find anyone to vote for? How do you expect to participate in a Democracy if so?
    I’m a Democrat. Although it’s true that there are minor policy issues advocated by some Democrats that I disagree with, I can wholeheartedly say that I endorse Obama’s policies. I deeply admire and agree with Pelosi. Many people vote for more or less conservative Democrats, but for the most part, they can find Democrats that they’re reasonably comfortable with. Libertarians don’t seem to have a coherent philosophy that’s workable enough for anyone to run on. Ron or Rand Paul seem to be people who endorse libertarianism, but you’re not willing to embrace them as champions.
    Maybe you just have commitment issues.
    By the way, I understand that being a Democrat is not the same as adhering to a particular political philosophy. I don’t really embrace a “philosophy”. However, I think that American government was organized (in theory) 1) to allow people to participate in government, 2) to respect a certain degree of individual autonomy, 3) to create institutions for domestic stability and broad economic prosperity, 4) to provide for civil defense. Government doesn’t usually step in until it’s obvious to most people that something is wrong with how things are going without government intervention. This was true with health care, with food safety, with environmental regulation – you name it. During most of the 20th Century, and so far in the 21st, Democrats have been the ones to suggest the most effective and worthy goals for Government. Libertarianism, on the other hand, usually means what was going on that needed fixing.

87. “are not really considered to be accurate examples of what we would consider capitalism nowadays.”
    Fair. Really, my only point was that there was private capital. Not that the system was capitalistic.
    “resolve conflicts of any significance without resort to coercion by law and government.”
    I’m not arguing for a lack of coercion by law. I’m just saying that just because I think the government is needed sometimes, doesn’t mean its always the answer.
    “operated under libertarian principles”
    Which principles does the US operate under? Liberal? Conservative? A blend of many? Depends on who you ask?
    You’re right, I can’t point to Liberteria, where everybody is libertarian.
    I just don’t really see how that leads to libertarian ideas being unworkable by definition.
    Especially considering the overlap with other political thought.
    Take the NSA. I agree with many liberals that this is an example of gov overreach and they should be audited and then restricted. Oddly enough, I also DISAGREE with many liberals who think it is not an example of government oversight.
    “It probably isn’t.”
    That’s my point. Everytime someone says libertarian, it invites comparisons to Somalia, mob rule, etc etc.
    The basics are pretty much the same for the vast majority of libs, libers, and cons: we all have things we think are important for the gov to do and ways we think it should be done.

88. “are not really considered to be accurate examples of what we would consider capitalism nowadays.”
    Fair. Really, my only point was that there was private capital. Not that the system was capitalistic.
    “resolve conflicts of any significance without resort to coercion by law and government.”
    I’m not arguing for a lack of coercion by law. I’m just saying that just because I think the government is needed sometimes, doesn’t mean its always the answer.
    “operated under libertarian principles”
    Which principles does the US operate under? Liberal? Conservative? A blend of many? Depends on who you ask?
    You’re right, I can’t point to Liberteria, where everybody is libertarian.
    I just don’t really see how that leads to libertarian ideas being unworkable by definition.
    Especially considering the overlap with other political thought.
    Take the NSA. I agree with many liberals that this is an example of gov overreach and they should be audited and then restricted. Oddly enough, I also DISAGREE with many liberals who think it is not an example of government oversight.
    “It probably isn’t.”
    That’s my point. Everytime someone says libertarian, it invites comparisons to Somalia, mob rule, etc etc.
    The basics are pretty much the same for the vast majority of libs, libers, and cons: we all have things we think are important for the gov to do and ways we think it should be done.

89. ” I find it interesting that you, thompson, can’t name a politician whose views you can endorse.”
    Gary Johnson. I voted for him.

90. HSH:
    “Because…?”
    Because citizen’s have to follow the law?

91. “It seems that, as long as the town is willing to unite, libertarians would be fine with them telling Loftus who to marry, or what religious practices to observe, or whether he can own a firearm, etc. He’s a free man! Free to do exactly what the other inhabitants of his town tell him to do, that is.”

    No. That is the opposite of what I (at least) am saying. The townsfolk are fine to associate with Loftus, or not, for pretty much any reason they want. They can’t compel him into action using threats of force.
    Misunderstanding- Im saying that it appears to be fine with libertarians for the townspeople to compel Loftus to change his religion, not marry a black person, etc, via the application of *economic* coercion. That one type of threats to one’s health (punching) is unacceptable as a lever, but another threat to one’s health (starvation) is just peachy.
    They don’t seem that different to me, from a practical perspective; the majority of people in your town can tell you what to do or force you to leave. And they can even do that in the middle of winter, when ‘leaving’ might mean ‘dying’. Killing you versus starving you out in winter is about the same level of coercion in my book.
    Your car gets stuck on a winter road. A tow truck comes by. But rather than $200 for the tow, the driver demands that you sign over every possession you own and 50% of your earnings going forward, or your family will freeze to death. And he gets to screw your daughter whenever he wants (prostitution being legal).
    Coercion, or just good business?
    My other point is that this prarie situation isn’t one we’re going to find ourselves in. What we’re really arguing about is modern society. And while in prarietown the distinction between the crowd’s threat, boycott, and something like ’eminent domain’ is entirely blurred, in our modern economy this distinction does have a huge difference: some types of coersion (ie state force) are labeled bad, while others (ie economic pressure) are good. Thus, it appears to me that this debate isn’t about Loftus at all, it’s about privileging some types of coercion over others, to the benefit of one group and the disadvantage of another.
    

    “Let’s agree to disagree on whether stealing food from a price-gouging merchant to feed a starving child is moral or not, shall we?”

    Carleton, I didn’t say that. Nobody said that. Bluntly, its a little offensive.
    You said: Alternatively, the sheriff can take his stuff and lock him in prison…. None of these things would be legal, or moral, for the masses to do.
    I read that as- it would be immoral for the townspeople to take his food under any circumstances. Maybe you mean that it’d be entirely moral for them to take his food, but immoral of them to lock him up afterwards? Apologies if that seemed offensive, but it looked to me like the plainest reading. Especialy you’ve been saying that *any* threats are a “bright lin”e for you- but we are already talking about starving people in this example, so if threats from starving people are a red line then presumably using force to prevent starvation is also over the line?
    So Im not clear on your position here. Ok to take food by force to prevent starvation, or not?
    I’m honestly baffled. Are you arguing that a boycott is the same thing as prison? Because that’s ridiculous.
    Im arguing that they’re both potentially profoundly coercive. And that objecting to one as real coercion while treating the other as just fine is IMO like saying Ive got the freedom to wave my arms around and ignoring the subset of those times when Im swinging my arm around and punching someone in the face.
    My view on freedoms, both economic and not, is that they all are limited where they run up against other freedoms. Speech rights can’t be allowed to trample property rights. Religious rights can’t be allowed to trample privacy rights. And property rights are subject to the same principle- so it’s wrong IMO to say we should respect property rights to the point of allowing Loftus to use the threat of starvation and the fact that he cornered the grain market to compel farmers to eg give up their farms or watch their families starve.
    Because *if* this is a libertarian parable, it’s not hard to alter it that way. At which point, is it still a libertarian parable? Of how getting to the seed grain first ought to reward Loftus with all of the property of the town? That trying to help others (as the folks who went to get the grain did) is a suckers play when there’s money to be made?
    Of course, there’s another way to view this as a libertarian parable: when the white people making up the backbone of the community are threatened by economic activity, they’ll be able to utilize the threat of mob violence and economic exclusion to negate the threat. This won’t be available to (as HSH pointed out) some Sioux on the reservation next door, or some black people living on the fringes of town. The parable in that case is: we can let economic coercion run rampant because we know that if it knocks on our door we can change the rules and everything will still be Ok.
    It seems, almost, that getting together to VOTE horrible things onto Loftus is a good thing in your mind. But I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
    Yeah, I didn’t say that. If the town is a microcosm of society, then I note that the majority can enforce their will via several methods. Finding one an offense against freedom and the other not appears to be an entirely arbitrary line; the result is the same in either case.
    So, to be crystal clear, I think forcing Loftus to eg practice a certain religious is bad in *both* cases, either via legal/physical coercion or via economic coercion. Forcing black people out of town via economic coercion is *bad*, and the state *ought* to use force to prevent it from happening.

92. Because citizen’s have to follow the law?
    Why?

93. I just don’t really see how that leads to libertarian ideas being unworkable by definition.
    What it does lead to is a severe lack of evidence that libertarian ideas are workable, which isn’t the same thing as leading to their being unworkable by definition, but it’s still pretty damned compelling.

94. I’m a little disappointed that you had a politician you voted for, Thompson, because on that point I was going to defend you against sapient. I don’t think a person has to feel comfortable with either of the two major political parties or feel committed to one of the lesser parties–I vote for the Democrat in most elections, but am not necessarily happy about it. There’s probably some obscure third party person I’d agree with more in any given election, but until such candidates can gain a critical mass of support there’s usually no point in voting for them, even as a protest vote.
    I’ve heard of Gary Johnson, but that’s about it–my vague impression is that I might agree with him on some foreign policy issues and probably find him very wrong on economic issues, but would have to do some reading to be sure.

95. I didn’t realize I was repeating Carleton’s earlier argument about how boycotts could be used against minority groups. Gotta read the thread more carefully before posting.

96. Carleton:
    I think a lot of what you’re asking has been answered elsewhere…but honestly I’m not following your points.
    Unless its something along the lines of systems break down in extreme conditions? I’d agree.
    Do I think someone stealing some wheat to stave off starvation is immoral? Eh, not really. I wouldn’t turn them into the police. I probably would acquit them if I was on a jury.
    But do I think that barring extreme situations, theft should be illegal? Yes.
    Do I think in general mobs should be able to threaten people? No.
    “And he gets to screw your daughter whenever he wants (prostitution being legal).
    Coercion, or just good business?”
    Coercion, and illegal.
    “majority can enforce their will via several methods. Finding one an offense against freedom and the other not appears to be an entirely arbitrary line”
    I view the right to boycott something as a distinct method of action to imprisonment or fines, and I think they laws surrounding those two methods should be distinct. If we disagree on that, we disagree.
    “So, to be crystal clear, I think forcing Loftus to eg practice a certain religious is bad in *both* cases, either via legal/physical coercion or via economic coercion.”
    I agree. But I don’t think not patronizing a store should be illegal, even if you are applying coercion.
    I think the key distinction resulting in us talking past each other is that there are things I find upsetting that I don’t think need a legal solution.
    I wouldn’t join a boycott of a store if they didn’t share my religion. But I wouldn’t vote for the government to have the power to break a boycott if it was for the wrong reasons. Even if I hold nothing but contempt for those reasons.

97. Donald:
    I voted for Johnson because he best matched my views and was good enough that I didn’t feel the need to write in.
    I didn’t feel compelled to vote for him because he was libertarian. He’s pretty moderate (in my mind anyway), which is also important to me.
    “no point in voting for them, even as a protest vote. ”
    I disagree. I think its very important. I understand, and respect, why people disagree with me on that.
    I don’t map my views to politicians, but I always try to find the one that best agrees with me. Electable or not.

98. I read the story as Ingalls trying to prevent a food riot.
    Just going back to this (Posted by: Chris Gerrib | January 08, 2014 at 11:54 AM), which I think is an accurate reading, particularly in light of the additional context revealed in later comments – If this is a libertarian parable, it’s a pretty crappy one, given that, but for Pa Ingalls, the grocer wouldn’t have gotten a dime for the grain, possibly would have gotten the sh1t beat out of him, and people might not have distributed the grain evenly, possibly leading to further violence and/or some number of people starving.
    So the community was lucky to have a guy like Pa Ingalls around – an extraordinary man, possessing wisdom, kindness, and some amount of charisma. He’s a natural leader who is easily liked and respected. He knows how to handle things, it seems. I’d guess that his being extraordinary is one of the biggest reasons the Little House series was written and what makes the stories compelling.
    It’s easy to imagine another little town on the frontier without someone like Pa Ingalls, facing the same situation. That town isn’t so lucky, and the lack of state action might not have led to anything resembling a parable supporting minimal government.
    Is the libertarian lesson here that we should eschew government in favor of luck?

99. I always try to find the one [politician/candidate] that best agrees with me. Electable or not.
    That works as long as either a) the one you most agree with is electable or b) the two most likely candidates are close enough together that there isn’t any significant difference compared to your favored candidate.
    But suppose your favored candidate is not electable. And of the two who do have a chance, one is massively further away from your views than the other. Do you still just vote for the one who agrees with you? Or do you engage in tactical voting, and pick the electable one who is “least bad”?
    Someday we may try out the “single transferable vote” system. Until then, we will frequently have a choice between tactical voting and irrelevance.

100. Ok, glad we’re getting into something. I still think we are probably circling each others points a little.
     We most certainly are. And while I’m tempted to answer hsh’s most recent “Why” to tighten the circle a bit, I’ll leave that for you to do (or not). I think I need to step back for a minute to compose myself before my inner anarchist breaks its chains and start spouting Proudhon.

101. (…and also ’cause Carlton is already doing a magnificent job of talking past you on more-or-less the same points.)

102. just because I think the government is needed sometimes, doesn’t mean its always the answer.
     who disagrees with this?
     libertarianism, as you articulate it here, is nothing more or less than a preference, in any given situation, for less government influence and intervention, if that’s practical and possible.
     and, the particular bright line for “practical and possible” will vary, from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance.
     All of which brings me back to this, which you found so objectionable upthread:
     “it seems to me that libertarianism is basically a preference that government not do stuff that bugs particular libertarians.”
     I guess I’m just not clear on how “libertarian” differs from “government shouldn’t do things I don’t like”.
     And, in fact, I take back my comment upthread as regards a comparison to liberalism. I don’t particularly identify as a liberal, but it seems to me that at a minimum liberalism has a firmer theoretical basis – a more thorough and more clearly articulated sense of what it is about – than does libertarianism as you (or frankly anyone else I can think of) present it.
     Also, FWIW, Gary Johnson seems like a reasonable and not-insane guy, if libertarians (whoever they might be) are interested in getting more people to see things their way, they would do well to support folks like him rather than palpable oddballs and eccentrics like the Pauls.
     Not saying I agree with him or would vote for him, just saying he doesn’t strike me as a hypocrite and a nutjob.
     Just my two cents, and worth every penny.

103. RM, that’s a very interesting survey you provide a link to (2:19 PM). But I have to seriously question their methodology for deciding who counts as a libertarian.
     The survey reports that 59% of libertarians are opposed to gay marriage. Can someone explain to me the libertarian case for being opposed to gay marriage? (Not, mind, just a case against gay marriage. A libertarian case against it.)

104. i’m going back to my first comment: without a state that scrubbed the original inhabitants off the land – life, liberty and all – there would be no “DeSmet” Dakota in which this story could take place. the Europeans who settled there were only able to do so because the US coerced the Sioux into oblivion.
     if Little House is a ‘libertarian’ story, it’s a perfect one: it’s the story of a bunch of people who, entirely thanks to the big coercive state, are able to make it on their own.
     bah

105. Wow. I do believe I just dropped a tiny, one-line, link-free comment into the spam trap. I am impressed. Confused at what would have doomed the poor little thing, but impressed.
     [Rehash – addendum to the above: I also see no strong need to refrain from bowing out momentarily because Carlton is doing a magnificent job of talking past you in pretty much the exact way I’ve been trying to, only more articulately.]

106. <>they would do well to support folks like him rather than palpable oddballs and eccentrics like the Pauls.
     ‘cept that Johnson apparently supports Ron Paul. Not sure how that reflects on his reasonableness.

107. Hmm, okay, maybe it didn’t go in the spam trap. I’m extra-confused now. Never mind…

108. cleek wins.

109. Not sure how that reflects on his reasonableness.
     Poorly.

110. “All of which brings me back to this, which you found so objectionable upthread: “it seems to me that libertarianism is basically a preference that government not do stuff that bugs particular libertarians.””
     Yeah, I should have been more careful. I don’t think that’s *wrong*, I just don’t think its specific to ‘libertarianism’ (and I think you agree on that point). I think its basically a definition of political opinion.
     As that, I don’t feel it’s a useful definition of libertarianism. I think ‘libertarian’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ imply a certain set of political beliefs, although the specific adherents will disagree with each other about some or all of those beliefs. As such, the terms can be useful for identifying people, although specific policy beliefs are likely to vary significantly.
     For example, libertarian generally indicates that they are less enthusiastic about using state power than average. Specific cases and extents are going to vary with the specific people.
     wj:
     “Can someone explain to me the libertarian case for being opposed to gay marriage?”
     No, I can’t. I don’t have one nor have I heard one. Beyond the “there should be no state definition of marriage at all”. Which, depending on how the question is phrased, may be an appropriate response.

111. NomVide:
     I don’t think we are actually talking past each other at all. Which is rare for me. Although, maybe this indicates that we really are talking past each other and I’m just totally missing it?

112. HSH:
     I missed your second ‘why’
     Because we have laws, and we grant the state limited power to use force against fellow citizens in order to maintain the law.
     This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought.
     We may disagree about when the law should be used, and to what extent.

113. Because we have laws, and we grant the state limited power to use force against fellow citizens in order to maintain the law.
     Okay. So, when I see this:
     “state actors are at least in principle bound by defined and formal structures”
     As are citizens. I can’t exercise violence to resolve conflicts, I have to pay taxes, I have to register for the draft, etc etc.
     I can’t quite understand why noting that citizens are bound by defined and formal structures as a response to state actors being bound by defined and formal structures makes any sense, when the only reason citizens are so bound is because there’s a state in the first place.
     It seems like you’re saying you don’t need a state that is bound by defined and formal structures because citizens are already bound by defined and formal structures and must act within those constraints. Except those constraints don’t exist but for the state.
     So I guess I’m not sure what the point of that is.

114. “And he gets to screw your daughter whenever he wants (prostitution being legal).
     Coercion, or just good business?”

     Coercion, and illegal.
     Many libertarians think prostitution should be legal- guess you’re not one of them… Anyway, the rest of the towing example stands without ovjection as a good business practice? Or a ‘bad’ business practice that you still think should be legal? Im not sure if your pronouncement was meant to cover the prostitution bit or the whole bit. If the latter, what’s the distinction between that and Loftus?
     I view the right to boycott something as a distinct method of action to imprisonment or fines, and I think they laws surrounding those two methods should be distinct. If we disagree on that, we disagree.
     Again, Im not saying they are the *same* thing. Im saying that either can, in the correct circumstances, be so coercive as to be compelling. And that while society ought to protect private property rights as it protects religious freedom or speech rights, those protections don’t need to extend to the extreme of enabling that sort of coercion. Why? Because Im a practical guy, and when there are 1)bad outcomes that are 2)easily avoided, I like to do that thing rather than adhere too strongly to any single principle. Doubly true when we can draw a clear line around the exclusion beforehand and everyone can understand that eg price gouging in a crisis is off-limits, but developing a business and selling goods for a profit is fine (thus hopefully ameliorating concerns about it bleeding over into other day-to-day activities).
     Thus, I think it’s Ok eg for the government to demand that establishments serving the public serve *all* of the public, and not exclude by race. Rlatively easy to enforce, good outcome, very little blowback, super-clear lines around it.
     I agree. But I don’t think not patronizing a store should be illegal, even if you are applying coercion.
     I think the key distinction resulting in us talking past each other is that there are things I find upsetting that I don’t think need a legal solution.
     Well, sure. That’s the sort of general point I think most people can agree on. Only a totalitarian mind could argue for this (and only an anarchist could argue that there are no cases where legal solutions ought to apply).
     And it’d way more trouble from a rights perspective to *force* people to shop at a store than it’d be worth; I don’t see a way to make that workable, enforcement-wise. So even if I found the behavior highly objectionable (eg farmers stop patronizing the store when Loftus marries a black woman), I don’t see a way to fix it without causing more trouble.
     To be clear, my objection to this as a libertarian parable aren’t that the farmers should be compelled to shop at Loftus’s store even if he gouges them. They are:
     -this solution is only available to the backbone of the white community, not to eg the Indians next door. So as a parable, it tells me that libertarianism protects the strong, but not the weak. It protects those with economic clout.
     [Bonus: imagine the US Army response to the starving farmers knocking Loftus out and just taking his grain. Now imagine the US Army response to the starving Native Americans from next door coming and taking the grain…]
     -it depends on a very specific set of circumstances to work, market-wise. What if Loftus demanded the property of every farmer who needed food? Assuming they don’t resort to mob violence, he could potentially make more profit than years of operating his store. And then move elsewhere a richer man, if desired.
     -it’s not actually about potentially invoking government force, since the government is excluded by the weather. Afaict it’s about a mob, and a man moderating that mob and giving everyone a face-saving way out. And, mostly, about a community sharing effort to endure a natural disaster.
     -it doesn’t show Loftus working harder or smarter while the farmers goofed about or made mistakes; it shows him almost defrauding the men who braved the blizzard to get the grain (since they thought they were helping the community, not enriching him). I think a libertarian parable would be better off emphasizing property rights over what one earned by effort or genius or risk rather than cornering a market via subterfuge or luck. The Ant And The Grasshopper style.

115. …and also ’cause Carlton is already doing a magnificent job of talking past you on more-or-less the same points.
     If talking past people were an Olympic event, Id tell you a story about this guy I know who worked at a warehouse.
     I guess I’m just not clear on how “libertarian” differs from “government shouldn’t do things I don’t like”
     Similarly, I often find “taxation is theft” to mean “taxation *for stuff I dont want to fund* is theft, taxation for stuff I think we ought to fund is unicorn barfing a rainbow wonderful a necessary evil”.
     if Little House is a ‘libertarian’ story, it’s a perfect one: it’s the story of a bunch of people who, entirely thanks to the big coercive state, are able to make it on their own.
     Great, Ill just print this document out again since the first copy has tea all over it. Thanks buddy.

116. I just don’t think its specific to ‘libertarianism’ (and I think you agree on that point).
     No, as noted above, I don’t agree. I initially made a reply to you indicating that I did agree, but I retracted that.
     As you are defining libertarianism in this thread, it seems like just a general, not particularly specific, personal preference for “less government”.
     That’s quite different from either liberalism or conservatism, both of which are rooted in a fairly well articulated set of principles, even if many of folks who identify as either may differ on which of those principles they embrace, and to what degree.
     If there is more to libertarianism than “generally indicat(ing) that they are less enthusiastic about using state power than average”, perhaps you could explain what that is.
     Or, perhaps somebody could.
     In any case, citing the passage from the Ingalls novel as an example of “libertarianism in action” seems kind of weird to me.
     The folks in question were operating in a context where there was, basically, just not a lot of government around. Because there were just not a lot of people around, and what nominal government there was, was pretty far off.
     They didn’t choose to self-organize and act in the absence of state coercion. There was no alternative, it was get their sh*t together or die. The action they took did not represent an alternative to coercive government, it was the strongest form of government they could muster.
     It’s like somebody taking a walk in a remote and underpopulated area, being attacked by somebody who wants to steal their gear, fighting them off with their walking stick, and offering that as a demonstration for why we don’t need cops.
     See, I took care of it myself!
     The situation in the story turned out sort of well because of the personal leadership qualities and credibility of some of the folks involved, and in the willingness of everyone else to go along with what was proposed. They were very fortunate to have those things available, things don’t always turn out so well.
     As was mentioned upthread, they were lucky.
     How that applies, in a general way, to the world that 99.9% of us live in, here, today, is really not clear.
     It’s certainly not a compelling basis for an overall stance on how to organize public life. Not because it’s an unappealing story, but because it doesn’t reflect the conditions that we live in.

117. Alright, Carleton, I’ll try one more time. But I think we’re just completely talking past each other.
     “Anyway, the rest of the towing example stands without ovjection as a good business practice? Or a ‘bad’ business practice that you still think should be legal?”
     No. It’s coercion. Legally. Or in contract law or laws regarding sexual consent, I think its generally considered “duress”. But IANAL.
     Take that as you will, and apply it to the book anyway you like. I’m tired of discussing a book I’ve never read.
     “Well, sure. That’s the sort of general point I think most people can agree on. ”
     Good. Perhaps we should stick with this narrow shred of agreement for now?
     I’m really tired of talking past you (not blaming you for that, but it’s very clear to me that I’m not understanding your points and you’re not understanding mine), but this thread has spread into (1) is it a parable (2) how does the parable apply to modern life (3) how does the parable include things like Sioux that weren’t mentioned in the post (4) who is a libertarian (5) what is a libertarian (6) what happens to contract law in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, etc etc etc
     Which is just to much for me to keep track of, let alone have a useful discussion about. So I’m going to bow out as gracefully as I can and jump in on the next one.
     In summary:
     Never read the book, but I can see how its could be considered a libertarian parable, as it shows people resolving a conflict without needing help from the state, which is an important aspect of libertarianism, in my mind (conflicts will exist, and need to be resolved).
     It’s a parable, so it’s not really something that can be stretched to explain all of governance.
     I think people should have the right to boycott.
     Libertarianism is broad, much like other political thought. Having read both the wiki page for libertarianism and liberalism, I don’t really see much distinction in breadth or foundation. Could be there and I just don’t see it.
     Anyway, I’m out, I’ll catch up with you all next time.

118. “Anyway, the rest of the towing example stands without ovjection as a good business practice? Or a ‘bad’ business practice that you still think should be legal?”

     No. It’s coercion. Legally. Or in contract law or laws regarding sexual consent, I think its generally considered “duress”. But IANAL.
     I know you’ve ended your participation, but this seems backwards. You’re saying what the law is, where a contract can be voided due to economic duress (IAANAL), see eg here.
     But I thought I was clearly asking you what you *thought* should happen, not asking a general question about contract law. If Loftus is ok raising the price because he’s cornered the market in an emergency, how is that not similar? Because hoarding and price-gouging in an emergency are also illegal today.
     Seems to me that a legal solution either finds both Loftus and the tow truck driver in the wrong, or both in the right. I don’t see a line to draw between the two. And I think if Loftus is breaking the law, then this falls apart as a libertarian parable; the moral is “when people break the law but the law can’t get to you because the trains are snowed in, pressure the bad guy into backing down by any means necessary. Also, if you have to beat him up and take his food because you’re starving that’s Ok too.”
     it’s very clear to me that I’m not understanding your points and you’re not understanding mine
     I think part of that is talking to several people at the same time on the same subject, especially when one picks up a thread that another started. We all start kinda looking the same, and then if we’re actually taking different positions or arguing different points it just starts looking like a wall of noise. Actually, some of my longer comments kinda look that way on their own I guess.
     In summation:
     -bad parable for libertarianism for several reasons (insofar as we want to take the lessons of a parable and apply them elsewhere)
     -insofar as libertarians think it’a a good parable I think it exposes flaws in the thinking that can be exposed by varying the scenario along several lines.
     -I dont find the proposed “sometimes people solve problems without government” to be much of a moral, more of a truism that doesn’t support any particular governing ideology.
     -property rights are very important, but not more than other rights and shouldn’t supercede them. I dont think you explicitly took the opposite position on that point, but then I dont think you really delineated what sort of libertarianism you support, so that was maybe argued against no one in particular after all.
     -I think we agree that preventing a boycott, even for ugly reasons, is probably not a workable solution under most circumstances, and that more generally not all problems can be solved by government action. Others can. “Which ones?” is trivial and left as an exercise for the student.

119. There are moral, and possibly legal, differences between coercion by co-mission: force, direct threat, blackmail, etc.; and omission: refusing to associate with, boycott, refusing to render aid, etc.

120. I’ll engage a little bit more, Carleton. I have a lot of downtime while code executes.
     “But I thought I was clearly asking you what you *thought* should happen, not asking a general question about contract law.”
     That wasn’t clear to me (again, doesn’t mean that you were unclear, I just didn’t get it). And where I stand on this probably leads to more confusion.
     I think a lot of things are wrong yet making a law about it would do more harm than good. I don’t think this is unique to me. So depending on whether I think I’m answering a question about ‘is something bad’, or ‘should there be a law about bad thing’ my answer will change.
     A core point of confusion may be that I was generally evaluating the actions of the townsfolk, and you are apparently evaluating the actions of Loftus, which I missed. Is that a fair descriptor of our conversation?
     If your point is limited to Loftus, and using your hypothetical where he gets unrealistic concessions from the townsfolk, I would say that that contract is executed under duress, and generally would not be considered valid.
     I think those facets of contract law are important.
     Most of what I was saying, however, concerned the townsfolk, who, at least in the snippet of text in the original post, were not threatening violence. They threatened boycott to persuade Loftus to sell the grain at cost. I think that’s a reasonable action, and it resolved the issue in the story. I don’t think less of the townsfolk for that.
     Now, if we extend another hypothetical, where Loftus refuses, the townspeople are starving, and they turn to violence: I wouldn’t describe that as “good”. Predictable, maybe. I wouldn’t condemn them for it, sure.
     Regarding whether or not its a useful parable: yeah, I wouldn’t say its that useful of one. Then again, I don’t think many are, so I’m not likely a good judge. But the original post left me with the implicit question as to WHY its considered a libertarian manifesto. Not having read the book, but just the summary of that scene…that’s kinda what jumped out at me and I offered it up as an explanation of why people may consider it such.
     But if I suggested to you that this was THE parable that TOTALLY EXPLAINS why libertarianism is awesome…that was definitely not my intent.
     Does any of this help explain what I was trying (and failing) to express to you?
     Finally, I found your summary helpful (and I pretty much agree with it) but I just want to touch on one point:
     “-property rights are very important, but not more than other rights and shouldn’t supercede them. I dont think you explicitly took the opposite position on that point, but then I dont think you really delineated what sort of libertarianism you support, so that was maybe argued against no one in particular after all.”
     I’m not arguing for the primacy of property rights over all others. The problem with me ‘delineating what type of libertarian I am’ is kind of like you ‘delineating what type of liberal you are’ (or however you describe yourself, I’m not trying to pin a label on you). The answer is that it probably depends issue by issue. I’ve met ‘liberals’ that are anti-abortion and pro-gun, but they still felt the liberal tag fit them better overall.
     I use the libertarian tag because it generally fits me better than other tags. To give you a flavor in general…I’m anti-corporate/government partnership because I think it leads to corruption, pro-transparency because I think it leads to a better informed electorate and less corruption, and I’m pro-privacy because I think its an important check against government intimidation.
     That’s not a roadmap for how to run a government, but its a suggestion of how I might weigh the pros and cons of, say, warrantless tracking of cell phone metadata.

121. Libertarianism is broad, much like other political thought.
     In some ways it bleeds into socialist thought at the edges: minarchism, anarcho-capitalism, even some kinds of communitarianism. Some of this stuff is quite interesting and thought provoking. However, the bulk of what constitutes “libertarianism” (and those professing this label) as observed in practice and day to day politics revolves around a totally uncritical worship of the system of private property, so-called “free markets”, and an extremely ideological and aggressive defense of the private prerogatives and unbalanced private power relations one observes in the actually existing private sector (cf. the recent trend of making employees pee in a cup for drug testing–but not CEO’s–just one of many examples). But hey, your boss in no way “coerces” you, right?
     Thus, in the main, Libertarianism is a cramped and cranky subset of Social Darwinism which, in turn, is vaguely related to classical liberalism (Locke, et.al). It is, frankly, a joke.
     This would not be so bad except for their tendency (much as they deny it) to hang around the furthest of right wing extremist political elements such as states-righters, militia groups, etc.(“libertarianism” is very popular with those types). That they tend to espouse standard issue GOP talking points about economics and fiscal policy is just further proof that they are simply capitalist lickspittle with a thin veneer of “liberty” talk thrown out there to appeal to the rubes.

122. I’m anti-corporate/government partnership because I think it leads to corruption, pro-transparency because I think it leads to a better informed electorate and less corruption, and I’m pro-privacy because I think its an important check against government intimidation.
     I endorse every single thing in this list, without reservation.
     I self-identify (curious verb, that) as some kind of communitarian leftist. Of course, that’s in the US, where these days Eisenhower would probably identify as a communitarian leftist, so adjust with whatever grains of salt are required.
     After I, personally, apply the seasoning, I find that what “communitarian leftist” actually means is that I’m in favor of self-government under the rule of law, in the tradition of the commonwealth as the ideal polity. Liberty and Union, the odd cognitive-dissonant ideal of hardscrabble Yankeedom.
     “a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.”
     So, maybe not so much Eisenhower as John Adams or Daniel Webster.
     Although personally I find both of those guys more than a little too anti-democratic for my taste. So who, Daniel Shays?
     In any case, for all of the reasons bobbyp cites (and more), I DO NOT self-identify as a libertarian.
     What I take away from this is that the labels are nigh unto useless.

123. “In any case, for all of the reasons bobbyp cites (and more), I DO NOT self-identify as a libertarian.”
     Eh. It’s useful for me. I used to be a “conservative democratic” before I took a look at the dems and repubs and only saw people working for the moneyed interests, with a few notable exceptions.
     I think, perhaps wistfully and with rose-colored glasses, that the libertarian movement is moderating, driven by disenfranchised independents. My personal experience bears that out…the only libertarians I’ve ever met IRL are fairly moderate. Trends country wide may be different. And I’d like to help push towards moderation, because I don’t see many in DC fighting for things that I find important, such as ending foreign wars of aggression, auditing and restricting our intelligence/security apparatus, reducing our prison population, etc etc
     “What I take away from this is that the labels are nigh unto useless.”
     It really depends on how you use them, in my mind, although YMMV and apparently does. I think they are good for indicating generalities, but tell you nothing about specifics. If that’s useless to you, well, yeah. You’re not going to describe 300 million people with a dozen or so descriptors with any level of granularity.
     I don’t latch onto anybody who says they are libertarian, but I often find myself agreeing with people who describe themselves as such.

124. I used to be a “conservative democratic” before I took a look at the dems and repubs and only saw people working for the moneyed interests, with a few notable exceptions.
     Libertarians cash checks, too. Trust me on that.
     I think they are good for indicating generalities, but tell you nothing about specifics.
     That’s a better, and more accurate, expression of what I had in mind.
     I’d still be interested in an explanation of how a minimal, non-coercive state works in a population of a scale like the US.
     For example, who gets to use the water from the Colorado River?
     That’s far from a trivial example, nor is it in any way difficult to come up with about a million more.
     People talk about ‘excessive government’ as if it’s the product of some evil will to power on the part of the state. As sapient very aptly notes upthread, historically government has gotten involved because (a) there was a problem and (b) government was the actor that could actually address it.
     In other words, government got involved because people wanted it to. In many if not most cases, demanded that it do so.
     If people have a general preference that government stay out of things if possible, and want to characterize that preference as being ‘libertarian’, fine.
     But the actual principles that libertarians claim to be operating from are not, as best as I can tell, workable in communities that are too large for everyone to know and interact with each other more or less directly.
     They’re not really workable in communities that have any kind of population density, for that matter, there are just too many opportunities for folks to get in each others’ way. People have too much stuff to do other than negotiate every trivial disagreement each and every time they come up.

125. I’m anti-corporate/government partnership because I think it leads to corruption, pro-transparency because I think it leads to a better informed electorate and less corruption, and I’m pro-privacy because I think its an important check against government intimidation.
     This statement is a bit short on analysis and specifics. Corporations are, by nature, a government created entity. Corporations are enabled by government from the get-go. Being anti-corporate/government partnership doesn’t mean anything. I’m sure that any examples that might be put forward would be those where a “partnership” hasn’t worked out very well.
     I’m against corporate financing of elections. In fact, I’m against wealthy people financing elections. Corporations are a legitimate form for people to engage in business, and government sometimes has a role in encouraging business. Obviously, corruption can occur in a number of ways, but if it weren’t for buying political influence, I wouldn’t have a beef with “corporations”.
     “pro-transparency” – great in theory. Most people are “pro-transparency” except when they realize that there’s a legitimate national security interest, or when privacy is at stake. The trouble with proving a “legitimate national security interest” is that you have to blow the classified aspect of what you’re doing in order to explain. I’m “pro-transparency” with some exceptions, but frankly, we seem to know a whole lot about government policies that we disapprove of (or not), and little is done to change them. Maybe we can change the world with the “transparency” that we already have first?
     Pro-privacy? Where’s your transparency? For many of the same reasons that individual human beings need a certain amount of privacy, so do institutions. For the same reasons institutions need a certain amount of transparency, so do individuals. That’s how we live together in an interdependent, complex society.
     The question is where to draw the line. Making simplistic statements about “anti-corporate/government partnership to avoid corruption” or pro-transparency or pro-privacy? Nobody wants corrupt government. Nobody wants the government to abuse individual rights, or to act beyond its authority. Nobody wants someone snooping around their home. It’s not a huge revelation that “libertarians” don’t either.

126. Interesting that an important example of “government-corporate partnership” is the creation of the Internet, that place where we want the NSA to be transparent, where we’re happy to sell our souls to corporations, but we want ultimate privacy.

127. “…where we’re happy to sell our souls to corporations.”
     A little piece of me goes somewhere to die every time I click the little box that says “I agree” on the screen. But I’m not being coerced…nosirreee!!!

128. For example, who gets to use the water from the Colorado River?
     The solution is obvious. First the government (yes, yes…we’re off to a bad start here, but bear with me)assigns a deed to every citizen of the US and Mexico for a small (but equal) part of the river’s annual flow. Then let the market work its wondrous magic. If it would help things, we could all meet at Rocky Mtn. National Park (damn, government again!) in the dead of winter to assist with this magical process.
     We could do the same thing with air to solve global warming or the collapse of ocean fishing stock.
     As Thomas Frank wrote, “The Market is God”.

129. ” such as ending foreign wars of aggression, auditing and restricting our intelligence/security apparatus, reducing our prison population, ”
     I go along with that. It’s the sorts of things russell points out that make libertarian candidates a non-viable option for me.
     “the Internet, that place where we want the NSA to be transparent, where we’re happy to sell our souls to corporations, but we want ultimate privacy.”
     I’m annoyed by all the intrusions and possible surveillance conducted by government and non-government entities into my personal life, but for me at least, that’s not the main issue and I wish people would talk about this in terms other than their own petty personal lives that nobody gives a damn about unless you annoy someone powerful. Neither the government nor any huge corporation is likely to blackmail me or do some terrible thing to me with whatever info they have, at least not at present. I’m not a threat. I don’t have any inside info on how they go about choosing their drone target list or who did what in Iraq or who knew what about torture. But they might watch people who do, or about activists who try to find out about such things. They might care about people who might leak things about governmental wrongdoing. I think leaking to investigative journalists (those few that exist) about serious wrongdoing by the government is going to be more and more difficult unless the leaker is willing to go to prison or into exile. The rules are different if the leaker leaks something that makes the government look good.
     MLK was spied on and threatened by the FBI with the crude old methods of the 60’s. For some odd reason I don’t think the behavior and attitudes that existed then will have changed now that much more sophisticated surveillance techniques are available. The DC world seems much much more outraged by leakers than they are by torturers. That doesn’t seem likely to ever change.

130. ok, trying it again…
     COINTELPRO.
     Which was exposed when some folks broke into an FBI field office, stole documents, and gave them to the newspapers.
     Deja vu.
     Jeebus, people have short memories.
     This is where I put out the bat signal for Mr. Gary Farber, in case he’s interested in weighing in.
     Donald is correct, this is not a matter of worrying about some NSA dude listening to my wife remind me to pick up some salad greens and a bottle of wine on the way home.
     Thanks Donald.

131. Which was exposed when some folks broke into an FBI field office, stole documents, and gave them to the newspapers.
     What was exposed in that case was illegal activity. What Snowden exposed was not. So not quite deja vu.

132. What Snowden exposed was not.
     First, whether the activities of the NSA are legal or not remains something of an open question.
     Second, my point of comparison is in how the activities came to light.

133. I think a lot of things are wrong yet making a law about it would do more harm than good. I don’t think this is unique to me.
     Again, I think I was unclear. We probably all agree that the tow truck driver’s actions are immoral, the question is: under your ideal legal code, would there be any consequences for this, either civil or criminal, or is he just a bad man? And if there are consequences, are the lines between ‘bargaining’ and ‘economic coercion’ similar to current ones, or are they different?
     [btw, this seems to go against the Libertarian Party platform: “…we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals…. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders…. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates… We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade.”].
     A core point of confusion may be that I was generally evaluating the actions of the townsfolk, and you are apparently evaluating the actions of Loftus, which I missed. Is that a fair descriptor of our conversation?
     Hmmm, yeah probably. I think I said above, if Loftus is considered to be breaking the law, then I don’t see the value of this as a libertarian parable- if we agree that price-gouging would be illegal (ie that it would justify action backed by the threat of force by the state), then the only moral I can get from it is “sometimes you can use economic coercion to get what you want”. Or maybe “people can work together towards a shared goal without governent guidance”. Either of those are basically platitudes IMO.
     If Loftus is acting legally, then the parable is much more libertarian: “even in the face of people acting badly we don’t need restrictive laws or threats of force to reach a good outcome”. Which I would argue is too dependent on specific parameters of the scenario being in the right place to make a good parable- or it becomes a parable about how libertarianism only works under special sets of circumstances, which is maybe not the parable that libertarians would be looking for.
     “But if I suggested to you that this was THE parable that TOTALLY EXPLAINS why libertarianism is awesome…that was definitely not my intent.
     Fair enough, you got roped into defending someone else’s interpretation of a book you havent even read. 🙂
     The problem with me ‘delineating what type of libertarian I am’ is kind of like you ‘delineating what type of liberal you are’…. I use the libertarian tag because it generally fits me better than other tags.
     Yeah, I feel a lot like that. I think there are two tendencies in political thinking- using grand unified theories, and balancing competing forces on a case-by-case basis. Like you, I tend to the latter (although I do think it has the danger of ending up being ‘what I want’ from a policy perspective based on how I do the balancing…)
     In my limited experience, most libertarians tend to the former way of thinking. So Im imagining that you have to fight that particular battle quite often. :\
     (That’s also why I think I tend to probe political beliefs by using examples rather than asking grand questions about eg whether all rights derive from property rights).
     Since the Theme Of The Day appears to be people saying why they are/arent libertarians: I think free markets are awesome tools for distributing goods. They work great most of the time, but sometimes fail. I don’t think free markets are moral or immoral, or that interfering in the market is immoral. I don’t think private property rights are more important than other rights.
     More than most libertarians Ive talked to, I think our lives overlap too often and too significantly to be handled exclusively by private means- if there were no such thing as pollution or traffic or noise or wildlife or groundwater etc I could limit my interactions with my neighbor to exactly what we both wanted (if we lived in adjacent space habitats, maybe). Some libertarian ideas appear unworkable (eg using private property rights to handle pollution) and others appear to me to be very bad policy (getting rid of all public education funding and standards), so despite my general tendency towards markets, minimizing government, civil rights, etc, I can’t see myself joining the LP.

134. ” my point of comparison is in how the activities came to light.”
     My turn to compliment. Exactly right. It seems that a good portion of the time when we find out that our government has done something shady, we don’t find it out through normal legal channels, but as the result of someone illegally making off with some classified material .
     The government doesn’t police itself very well and the DC world seems far more concerned about illegal leaking (or rather, illegal leaking that makes the government look bad) than it is about its own (far more consequential) illegal acts.
     Anyway, on the issues Thompson mentioned I felt some kinship with some libertarians starting during the Bush era. Jim Henley, for one, though I think he’s gone back to being a liberal. Before that my impression of most libertarians is that they seemed mainly to be techy affluent white guys who wanted all the benefits of living in the US but didn’t want to pay taxes. I don’t think that was an inaccurate impression in many cases.

135. I self-identified as a libertarian in my younger days, mainly because of what I now see as stunted emotional development, which left me lacking in empathy. I also think there was some sort of macho element to it. Liberals seemed like sissies to me at the time. I honestly don’t write this to insult libertarians. It was simply my experience.

136. At lot was said and I don’t have to to fully answer (even when its deserved), so sorry for that. But briefly:
     Carleton:
     “under your ideal legal code, would there be any consequences for this, either civil or criminal, or is he just a bad man? ”
     To answer your question (and I think I did, but perhaps unclearly). The tow truck driver is *coercing*, in a legal sense. As I said, that is an important part of contract law. And one that pretty much has to be sorted out by courts. Not only is coercion illegal (even in my crazy libertarian paradise), if he actual had sex with an unconsenting child, he’s guilty of rape. Also a crime in my libertarian paradise.
     “btw, this seems to go against the Libertarian Party platform: “…we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.”
     I would disagree, although you’d have to get the author of the platform to give his interpretation. I view contracts executed under duress as non-voluntary, and, IANAL, but I think that’s pretty consistent and long rooted concept in common law. Or at least is was explained to me as such by a lawyer.
     If that interpretation is not the party line, I would disagree with the party line, but I don’t think my reading is out in left field.
     “I think there are two tendencies in political thinking- using grand unified theories, and balancing competing forces on a case-by-case basis”
     Can you point to anybody, of any political stripe, that actually structures a government based on the “grand theory”? I’m not saying you’re trying to, or claiming they exist. I’d be curious to hear about it if you can, just as an odd thing.
     I can’t imagine a government or societal system that wasn’t case-by-case. I really can’t. I can’t think of any system that doesn’t break down in some way at some point, at which point we try to fix it.
     The unified theories are guiding principles. What is important, and how important, when balancing all the variables of a problem. There is simply no way of extending any political theory to every explicit problem without evaluations done on a case-by-case basis.
     This can be witnessed by liberals disagreeing with each other about policy, or conservatives, or whoever.
     To use someone else’s example (russell, maybe?): I don’t see how the precepts of liberalism, or conservatism, or libertarianism, actually lead to codified law for water rights along the Colorado river.
     But I (feel like I’m) being slammed when I speak specifically (townsfolk did X, I think that’s ok), because I’m not revealing general policy, and also slammed when I speak generally, because general theory isn’t determining water rights along the Colorado.
     Not complaining here, there’s a lot going on and I, like everybody else, is trying to contribute constructively. Just trying to explain where I’m coming from.
     I also agree, to get a little specific, that I don’t think you could deal with pollution through property rights easily. Because diffusion and distribution are very hard to predict and model. I’d agree that some libertarians think that is the best way to do it. I don’t agree with them.
     “In my limited experience, most libertarians tend to the former way of thinking. ”
     That’s not my experience, but I’m not going to tell you what you have experienced. Your experience seems in keeping with some forum comments I’ve read, so I’d believe that is representative of some libertarians.
     HSH:”I honestly don’t write this to insult libertarians. It was simply my experience.”
     Which is great, and I’m sure however you label yourself you probably find accurate and helpful. I’m not offended by your personal political odyssey, unless you mean to imply that I am emotionally stunted and lack empathy simply because I identify as libertarian.
     And finally, Donald (I think) brought up MLK. Yes, exactly, that’s why I have privacy concerns. I’m not really worried that some NSA drone is snickering every time I log onto my-little-pony.com. I’m concerned that large amounts of backward searchable information is an incredibly dangerous tool for applying pressure to activists and their associates.
     If it was balanced by an incredibly compelling need to combat terrorism or whatever, my analysis (case-by-case) might change. But I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
     Also, I don’t get how call logs of every verizon customer over extended periods of time to find terrorists is anything BUT a general warrant.

137. Finally clicked with me, I have seen this before, on another blog I read. Haven’t read it in depth (never read the books, so it’s not something I cared to delve into), but anybody interested in getting a libertarian perspective on the original subject could go here:
     http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13/-little-house-is-not-a-big-libertarian-conspiracy.html
     I generally like McArdle, don’t always agree with her but I find her style very coherent.

138. …unless you mean to imply that I am emotionally stunted and lack empathy simply because I identify as libertarian.
     I do not, and I would imagine some of the policy preferences I had when I identified as a libertarian, you would find completely looney. I was pretty much a social Darwinist, even though I probably hadn’t yet heard the term.

139. I would disagree, although you’d have to get the author of the platform to give his interpretation. I view contracts executed under duress as non-voluntary, and, IANAL, but I think that’s pretty consistent and long rooted concept in common law…
     That’s definitely true of contracts with a gun to the head. Or, basically, anytime physical force is used or threatened.
     Contracts where there’s economic duress, I think it’s a pretty murky area (under libertarian thinking, I mean, not current law); certainly Ive seen libertarian defenses of price gouging as the market working properly, and the standard prohibiting only ‘fraud, force, or the threat of force’. If ‘economic coercion’ is actually against the LP’s platform, then Id be mightily curious to know where the line between economic coercion and ‘a hard bargain’ is, and how it’s justified given their views of the market.
     Anyway, we agree that economic coercion invalidates contracts, and I dont mean to saddle you with defending the LP’s views on the matter (or even figuring them out).
     Can you point to anybody, of any political stripe, that actually structures a government based on the “grand theory”? … I can’t imagine a government or societal system that wasn’t case-by-case.
     Example: the LP party platform calls for an end to public financing and standards for education, based on theories about private property, taxation, etc. Im mildly sympathetic to the idea of not having public schools, but only with the very practical caveat that we continue to fund and set standards for education- because I care a great deal about the practical outcome.
     I suppose that most LPers would claim that their proposal would really give the best outcome, too- but that seems like a consequence of their belief that all market outcomes are optimal outcomes rather than on an analysis of this particular proposal or what its consequences would look like.
     That’s what I mean by grand theory. I suppose everyone has guiding principles, that’s true: no one is all principles or all practicality, but some are certainly more to one side or the other. Libertarians, in my experience: generally way on the principle side. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but Im much more on the practical outcome side. You should me a healthcare reform proposal I wanna know how it’s going to work, how we’re going to move from where we are to there, how it’s going to impact various stakeholders, etc.
     [Occurs to me that part of that is that any likely mainstream healthcare proposal *already* meets my theoretical requirements eg is science-based, doesn’t discriminate by race, or demand compliance with a religious doctrine. I like my preconceptions, but maybe Im privileging them?]
     To use someone else’s example (russell, maybe?): I don’t see how the precepts of liberalism, or conservatism, or libertarianism, actually lead to codified law for water rights along the Colorado river.
     I think that some libertarians would say that there should be no public property (or, with a nod to practicality, as little as reasonably possible). Ive seen the argument that the river should be privatized, and that seems like the genuinely libertarian, let-the-market-decide solution.
     Honestly, you don’t strike me as a libertarian so much as someone who practically finds themselves agreeing with a lot of libertarian positions (or at least, you disagree with current practices in the same direction as the LP much of the time). Like an atheist who sends their kid to Catholic school because they think the discipline is good for kids. *Not* trying to define you, just that’s my impression.

140. I don’t see how the precepts of liberalism, or conservatism, or libertarianism, actually lead to codified law for water rights along the Colorado river.
     Then there’s not much point in discussing whether, or how, libertarianism scales to large and complex communities.

141. Sorry, we’ve had a few comments go into the spam bin that shouldn’t have in this thread that I should have caught, but I haven’t been following it cause it doesn’t really interest me so much and the term finishing up here. One question I do have, is there any other country in the world that has a notion of a libertarian party? I’m trying to think of at least one, but am coming up blank.

142. Carleton:
     Some good points. Not much to add but some minor things:
     “you don’t strike me as a libertarian so much as someone who practically finds themselves agreeing with a lot of libertarian positions”
     I find your distinction interesting. I suppose I could describe myself as ‘agreeing with some libertarians in many cases’, but that seems wordy.
     Kidding, really. I think I see your point, I just don’t know that I really see as much a distinction as you do.
     “think that some libertarians would say that there should be no public property”
     Yeah, I’d agree, some would. I don’t have polling numbers so I can’t give you amounts.
     “Libertarians, in my experience: generally way on the principle side.”
     I’d say there a few reasons for that. As mentioned by other posters, libertarianism is still a pretty new movement in the US. I don’t view that as a bad thing. Also, hasn’t really had a seat at the table politically.
     If you read blogs by libertarians, or a book by a theorist, or whatever, you might get several examples of policies, but its pretty unlikely you’re going to get the USC rewritten libertarian style.
     I don’t think that’s because libertarian’s are generalist by definition, but until there are more libertarians in legislative and executive bodies, a lot of the tough balancing acts that need to be done on a case by case basis, will not be done by with libertarian influence.
     But any new ideas, offered by any party, are generally difficult to judge.
     If you look at the last presidential campaign, every candidate offered up some guiding principles for policy, but not the text of every law they would sign or wouldn’t sign. I liked many, but not all, of those offered by Johnson. I found Romney’s and Obama’s unconvincing.
     Not saying people should have seen what I saw, just that turning principle into policy is a long and very hard path, and the specific policy is rarely exactly described before congress votes on it.
     “You should me a healthcare reform proposal I wanna know how it’s going to work”
     So do I. For my specific ideas I brought up in another thread and that tired argument doesn’t bear repeating. But in general, yes, I think a law needs to work.

143. I don’t see how the precepts of liberalism, or conservatism, or libertarianism, actually lead to codified law for water rights along the Colorado river.
     But not, dare I say it, LaRoucheism!.
     And he’s calling himself a Democrat these days. Yes, we too have our crosses to bear.

144. Maybe we need a word for what would fit here
     “As a socialist is to a communist, an X is to a libertarian”
     We could call it “a thompson” but that already means something & if we did that’d screw up Miller’s Crossing something serious for me. 😉
     I tend to think of communists (and theocrats, anarchists, probly some others) as being single-principle-driven. Whereas eg socialists are all over the spectrum in balancing the public sphere against the private- and therefore a particular formula needs to be *justified*. Someone tells me they’re a socialist, I have a vague idea of where they are in terms of political beliefs. They tell me they’re a Dominionist, I get a much clearer picture I think.
     On the other hand, we don’t have that word for theocrats or anarchists, so maybe it’s not so necessary.
     [Also, not to say that ‘practical’ folks are the good guys, afaict fascism as practiced is mostly results-driven; I certainly can’t articulate a single principle behind it that dictated specific results).

145. “”As a socialist is to a communist, an X is to a libertarian””
     A moderate libertarian? A classical liberal?
     I mean, you can increase the granularity of your naming scheme, but really, all of these are pretty relational.
     American ‘liberals’ does mean something to me and can be useful descriptor…but it can diverge substantially from ‘liberals’ in Europe for example.
     When someone tells me they are libertarian, it generally indicates to me that they draw the public/private balances more towards the ‘private’ side than mainstream. The extent can vary dramatically, but I rarely find them to be raging authoritarians.

146. …, is there any other country in the world that has a notion of a libertarian party?
     List of libertarian political parties

147. “Although these parties may describe themselves as “libertarian,” their ideologies differ considerably and not all of them support all elements of the libertarian agenda.”

148. …but I rarely find them to be raging authoritarians.
     When it comes to the workplace, yes, they are exactly that.

149. Thinking about names- why we have socialist and communist and other more specific descriptors of economically left positions- maybe this goes back to what thompson said about libertarian being aspirational and idealistic until it can get close enough to power to have to describe the details of implementation etc. In Marx’s day socialism might be viewed similarly- a general idea about how to do stuff that would be fleshed out (and split into numerous interpretations) once it became popular enough to affect change.

150. Carleton:
     That sounds reasonable, but I’m hardly an expert on political history. So I’m easy to convince.
     If you’re right, maybe there will be a similar expansion in the names for libertarian branches.

151. “”Although these parties may describe themselves as “libertarian,” their ideologies differ considerably and not all of them support all elements of the libertarian agenda.””
     Shocking. And next you’ll tell me North Korea isn’t Democratic or a Republic.
     Meant in humor.

152. A quote I captured off Usenet about twenty years ago :
     Gordon’s Restatement of Newman’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law:
     Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source

153. To follow up on joel’s comment, it occurs to me that debating libertarianism on the internet is much like Ingalls et al insisting on their status as free and independent people, while facing starvation because the train couldn’t run.
     Our modern day Loftus.
     Price gouging – the signal flare of liberty.

154. The sheer amounts of crap Stossel emits from his mouth keep the price of bullsh*t low at all times for bullsh*t consumers everywhere, even during emergency bullsh*t shortages.
     I imagine one could make the case that raising the minimum wage will permit Stossel-approved price (the price of labor) gouging by those working at minimum wage, but of course that’s not the kind of price-gouging Stossel approves of.
     If we place Stossel in Loftus’ place in our story, forget a Sioux attack, I’ll be hoping for a Comanche attack in full warrior regalia to settle the market.
     It’s a little far north for the Comanche, but a person can dream.

155. Hilary Bok has a book out called Freedom and Responsibility that spends some time (in Chapter 1, at least) talking about libertarians, in case anyone is interested.
     At the link there are a few pages available for reading. I have it in electronic copy, but I proved unequal to the task of reading & understanding.

156. Looks like an interesting book. I wonder if Ms. Bok would ever consider blogging.

157. Is she talking about libertarians in the political sense, though? From just reading the Amazon blurb it looks like she’d be strictly addressing metaphysical libertarians (i.e., proponents of free will) rather than their homophonic political cousins…
     (Yes, yes, I know I should read the available sample portions or support Hilzoy by grabbing a copy – especially given my long-standing interest with the philosophical literature regarding determinism and free will – rather than asking this question of you…)

158. I’m just glad I had the opportunity to find out what a compatibilist was, but maybe that was just bound to happen.

159. That’s a decent point, NV, and my failure to grasp that distinction properly was likely a component of my having given up on making sense of it. No context, you know.

160. Wow. A guy goes away for a few days…
     Too much here to really comment on, so I’ll just pick this:
     “Every self-described libertarian I have ever met expressed nothing but contempt for organized labor.”
     Ok, this self-described libertarian has, a couple of times, been a member of organized labor. The aspects of these experiences which I found objectionable, and think not inherently part of the notion of “organized labor” were:
     1. Neither I nor my employer had a choice in the matter: He couldn’t, legally, hire me outside the union, and I, legally, could not work there outside the union.
     2. Both cases involved strikes. In both cases, the strikes were not enforced on the had no choice in the matter members by appeals to sweet reason, but by threats of violence.
     So, from a libertarian perspective, what’s not to like about an organization you’re compelled by a third party to join, which enforces obedience by threatening physical violence against you?
     Now, is compulsory membership an inherent characteristic of labor unions? Is discipline enforced by threats of violence an inherent characteristic?
     As a libertarian, I approve of unions people don’t have to join, which can’t slash tires and threaten people with clubs. Perhaps you consider this approval so attenuated that it constitutes rejection, but if you do, that says a lot about what you regard as essential characteristics of organized labor.
     Oh, and “Little House on the Prairie?” I’ve neither read the books nor watched the show. So I have no opinion about it. But I would say no form of organization shines under threat of starvation.

161. The reasoning behind forcing people to join unions is that if they don’t, then the non-joiners enjoy the benefits of the union without paying dues. Classic freeloader problem. So I don’t sympathize with your point 1. But you’re right about point 2.
     As for the Loftus story, as I understand the story the people did about as well as anyone could in those circumstances. Loftus tried to exploit them and they refused to be exploited, but nobody got hurt.

162. Both times I was stuck in a union, they were summer jobs, earning money for college. Both times I lost more income during the strike, than I gained after it from ever so slightly higher pay.
     So, I didn’t actually have any benefits at all, I had losses.

163. 1. Nobody “forces” people to join unions. The employer and the employees have a mutually agreed contractual relationship governing the workplace. The classic libertarian response to asshole bosses is, “Well, you are free to go somewhere else and work”. Why does this not apply to you?
     2. Unions are democratic structures where majority rules. When you join the union you agree to abide by the decisions of the membership.
     Libertarianism: Freedom for me. You?—not so much.

164. Keen readers of Wilder’s earlier books will remember that in Farmer Boy, Almanzo got a anarchic financial boost in his early years by finding the lost wallet of the town skinflint, returning it, and being given a nickel in reward. The local carriage-maker, a big strapping guy who wanted Almanzo for an apprentice, saw this, and promptly threatened the skinflint with extreme violence unless he ponied up to Almanzo to the tune of $200, quite a sum back then.
     Again, we didn’t feel bad for the skinflint, but it wasn’t the sort of thing we want strapping men to feel like they can do at will, and thus the necessity of the rule of law. Without a system of laws and related enforcement arms, it’s just warlords/strongmen/carriage-makers rule all over.
     Hard to read this discussion without thinking of a long exchange at the Seattle free weekly The Stranger, between their libertarian intern and their readership. The intern never could answer what, in a libertarian world, stops your neighbor with a small army from coming to your house and taking your stuff, your wife, and sending you to work in his fields. Intrepid readers can have a look at
     http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/10/14/why-the-stranger-is-wrong-about-everything

165. Is she talking about libertarians in the political sense, though?
     Folks who might be interested in the philosophical side of this might like to read Robert Nozick. He was a strong advocate of libertarianism, both in the philosophical sense and the practical, political and social senses.
     If I understand his argument directly, he roots his advocacy of libertarianism in the Kantian idea of integrity and autonomy of the individual human.
     In his earlier work Nozick took an extremely strong libertarian position, but even he moderated it later in life.
     I only know his work indirectly, so I can’t really comment about him much more than that.
     My basic thought about all of this is that a strict libertarian understanding of things – that the integrity of an individual person depends on their never being required to do anything against their will, and that that integrity should never be violated – is simply inconsistent with how life actually is. Everyone is born into a number of communities, and derives more than a little of their actual liberty and agency in life through their participation in those communities.
     Participation in some of them is voluntary, but participation in others is simply not, in any practical sense. In either case, they nevertheless make demands on us, and those demands are accompanied by some degree of coercion.
     Briefly, I think all of that is inherent in human nature. Humans live in communities, and if they find themselves in a situation where community life is lacking, they will create it.
     It may be unappealing in some ways to say so, but it is impossible to live as a human being and simultaneously demand that you never be subject to coercion.
     We are not, actually, autonomous. Not only aren’t we, but we apparently don’t really want to be, and it is not in our nature to be.

166. “The employer and the employees have a mutually agreed contractual relationship governing the workplace.”
     I think you don’t quite understand federal labor laws, if you actually believe that.
     “Unions are democratic structures where majority rules. When you join the union you agree to abide by the decisions of the membership.”
     I wasn’t “asked” in either case to join. I was automatically enrolled in the union. No agreement on my part was involved.

167. I believe if we take a page from capital’s playbook on fairness in the labor marketplace, our boilerplate response would be to assert that enrollment was a condition of employment and you did agree to join the moment you agreed to work there. If you disagreed with joining the union, you were free to go work somewhere else. The buyer can set the conditions for the purchases they make, and if the seller doesn’t like them they can sell to someone else, or not at all. Or is it “capitalism for thee, but not for me”?

168. No, it really isn’t part of standard free market capitalism that, if Bob wants to hire George, and George wants to be hired by Bob, Clarke gets to tell them both that George has to join Clarke’s little club.
     And that George will be HIT by Clarke’s little club, if he tries to work anyway.

169. Also, by accepting a unionized job, one is accepting (capitalizing on, one could say) whatever improvements, increases, add-ons, etc, the union has achieved in pay, benefits, workplace rules, etc a priori to one’s arrival at the organization, including the privilege of not working alongside children.
     It may be that one looks askance at these union achievements, but one does not, of course, ask to be born either.
     The fast-food industry, waiting tables, and numerous other non-unionized professions are there for the picking.

170. I’m also the beneficiary of improvements to my working conditions achieved without the intervention of a union. But am I required to pay those who achieved those changes as well? Of course not. So I;ve got to go with Brett on this one.
     The only valid argument that a union would have is this. If I get the option to join the union, and get all the pay and benefits that the union has negotiated. Or I get the optionn to have the same job without joining the union, subject to whatever pay and benefits the employer chooses to give me anyway.
     If everybody then chooses the union, so be it. But if lots of people opt out . . . well maybe the union wasn’t doing much for the employees after all.
     My choice, but at least its a real choice. And everybody gets a clear idea of what is due to the efforts of the union vs what is due to the demands of the labor market.

171. Unions are such an obvious scam – it’s a wonder they exist at all.

172. What I’d like to see is for prospective employees of a company to be able to negotiate with every single owner, individually, to find the best possible deal they can get from among them.
     Then, the company is required to honor whatever deal that individual makes.
     That, my friends, is real individual freedom, for both employer and employee.
     If prospective employees are able to find any person with an ownership stake, or in a position of fiduciary responsibility, who will offer something better than what the CEO or the hiring manager wants to offer, than maybe the CEO or hiring manager wasn’t doing much for the company after all.

173. Except that, if the employer cannot reach agreement with a prospective employee, he hires someone else. Someone who (in most cases) has no relationship whatsoever with the first prospect.
     But if the prospective employee negotiates with several different owners, all of the owners are just different representatives of the same company. They are not representing different and distinct companies.

174. Except that, if the employer cannot reach agreement with a prospective employee, he hires someone else.
     In a unionized situation, the situations are equivalent.
     Which is sort of my point.
     Net/net, don’t like unions, don’t work in a unionized shop. Problem solved.
     In today’s world, I can’t imagine there is any field or profession where a non-union gig is unavailable.

175. In today’s world, I can’t imagine there is any field or profession where a non-union gig is unavailable.
     And the opposite isn’t true: it’s quite difficult to find a union job in my “right-to-work” area of the country.

176. If everybody then chooses the union, so be it.
     So the only time we can have a union shop is when there is unanimity? That is so utterly generous of you. You feel the same way about elections? Perhaps we should just dispense with them and we can all just negotiate our own laws individually.
     You are arguing that you support the individual right to undermine a legal contract and federal law. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
     7% of the private workforce is unionized, and we still get this crap argument. Unbelievable.

177. No, it really isn’t part of standard free market capitalism that, if Bob wants to hire George, and George wants to be hired by Bob, Clarke gets to tell them both that George has to join Clarke’s little club.
     Ignoring entirely that Clarke and Bob may have agreed to a contract as to how this is done, but contracts, like freedom, must first pass the ideologically determined free market test as determined by well who, exactly?
     Insofar as your ideological predilections dovetail nicely with actual power relationships that actually exist in the private sphere you are just fine with the sanctity of contract.
     Otherwise, not so much.

178. And the opposite isn’t true: it’s quite difficult to find a union job in my “right-to-work” area of the country.
     Well just tell the employer that you are a union of one. Let me know when the boss stops laughing.

179. “Ignoring entirely that Clarke and Bob may have agreed to a contract as to how this is done,”
     Ignoring completely that the law in many states doesn’t give Bob any choice in the matter…

180. if that’s the law in those states, it’s because the people in those states wanted it that way.
     or don’t we believe in devolving policy down to the state level anymore?
     at least half the states in the US are right-to-work states. move to one of those. problem solved.
     that’s the solution we recommend to unemployed people, isn’t it? move to where the work is?
     in states that don’t have right-to-work laws, you can most likely find a shop that isn’t a union shop. because there just aren’t that many union shops anymore. go work for one of those.
     or, pick a career where unions are virtually non-existent. those are the rule now, rather than the exception.
     it’s dead easy to avoid joining a union. i’m not getting the pity party here.
     it ain’t coercion if you have a choice. isn’t that the mantra? you had a choice, probably multiple choices. you chose to work in the union shop.
     don’t like unions in general? there’s a simple solution. give labor a share of profits. i.e., pay working people more.
     problem solved. actually, a great big sh*tload of problems solved.
     it ain’t rocket science.

181. In today’s world, I can’t imagine there is any field or profession where a non-union gig is unavailable.
     Practicing medicine for one. There are more.
     Ignoring completely that the law in many states doesn’t give Bob any choice in the matter…
     A statement, unsupported by any evidence, that is simply not true.

182. I don’t approve of the use of violence by union members. In fact, I think beating people up should be illegal.

183. Just to chime in, briefly.
     Brett, can you point me to a legally required union?
     I’m represented by a union, and if I want to work at my employer, I have to pay fees to the union. Which I don’t like, but as was pointed out, I can work elsewhere.
     (I don’t like my particular union, I think it is corrupt and doesn’t work for the good of its members, but that’s an aside.)
     But the union negotiated the status of an ‘agency shop’ with the employer, it is not enforced by law.
     I’m just curious, is that what your objecting to, or can you point to a situation where the employer is *legally required* to hire union?

184. Practicing medicine for one. There are more.
     But, a great many professions, including medicine, require belonging to a guild and/or licensing. Often the requirements are more about protecting people already in the profession from competition than protecting consumers.
     Professional licensing is especially difficult for people, like military families, who have to move often. Every time they move to a new state, they have to spend time, effort and money, before they can legally work in their profession again.
     Professional licensing also creates high entry barriers for people with limited skills and little education. Someone may be great at hair weaving, but, in many states, they’ll have to spend several thousand dollars, hundreds of hours training and taking test for everything but hair weaving before they can legally do hair weaving for money.

185. thompson, does it count as “required by law” if you work for the government (e.g. the state government), and are therefore required by the government (per its contract with the government employees union) to belong to a union?
     Especially in a large state, you may simply be unable to work in your profession anywhere else. Unless you are willing to uproot your family and move across the country. But that’s not really the same as saying that you can just work for someone else.

186. Thompson,
     The situation Brett described is a classic example of a ‘closed shop’ where the employer can only hire those already in the union. Closed shops have been illegal since passage of the Taft-Hartley Act.

187. Closed shops are illegal. But a “union shop” — that is, you don’t have to be a union member to get hired, but you have to either join, or pay the equivelent of union dues, after being hired) is allowed.

188. Often the requirements are more about protecting people already in the profession from competition than protecting consumers.
     Perhaps. More often there is a stated higher “public purpose” that is invoked to justify these arrangements. Similarly, there is a “higher public purpose” to encourage collective bargaining that is clearly written in the Wagner Act, which-by the way-is still the law of the land, much as some here would object to it.
     Clearly, many conservatives, libertarians, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and hair dressers have absolutely no objection in practice to organizations that are encouraged and protected by law and actually work to limit access to the field, control the terms and conditions of the workplace, and raise prices for everybody else. But when it’s electricians, garbage collectors, or teachers, well, high principles of “free markets” and “competitive capitalism” clearly must be invoked because TEH FREEDOM.
     See also our curious broken discussion on immigration law….free markets are great unless I have to deal with Spanish language menus.
     Curious, these conservatives and their principles.

189. Especially in a large state, you may simply be unable to work in your profession anywhere else
     I think that’s the question: what *professions* can one realistically only join if one if willing to join a union? There may be some specialists who can *only* work for government, but a more specific example would help I think.
     The only thing that comes to my mind is some professional sports.
     The other thing I thought of was actors; I don’t know anything about that though. Googling brought me stuff like this– an actress debating the pros and cons of joining the SAG (upside: access to union-friendly gigs; downside: forego non-SAG gigs), which certainly makes it out to be a choice based on markets and opportunity costs rather than a compulsion.

190. Professional licensing is especially difficult for people, like military families, who have to move often.
     Nobody makes anybody join the military.
     Professional licensing also creates high entry barriers for people with limited skills and little education.
     You say that like it’s a bad thing.
     What services are you interested in purchasing from someone with limited skills, little education, and no training?
     Unless you are willing to uproot your family and move across the country.
     If it’s good enough for the long-term unemployed, it’s good enough for slacker bureaucrat government employees.

191. Unless you are willing to uproot your family and move across the country.
     If it’s good enough for the long-term unemployed, it’s good enough for a lazy no-good slacker bureaucrat government employee.

192. wj and bobbyp:
     3 things:
     (1) Closed shops and union shops are agreements between the union and the employer, to the extent that I understand the law in the US. I am familiar with the Taft-Hartley act and understand it outlaws closed shops.
     My question to Brett was to clarify what he was talking about. Was he objecting to the union/employer contract or was he referring to some legal construct I was unfamiliar with, where by law a company must hire union members.
     (2) “does it count as “required by law” if you work for the government (e.g. the state government), and are therefore required by the government (per its contract with the government employees union) to belong to a union”
     wj: That’s a really interesting case, which I didn’t bring up because its quite complicated. In theory, employers enter into contracts with unions because it benefits them. It either simplifies their HR and/or allows them to recruit talented people.
     I think it doesn’t make a lot of sense to ban those advantages to executive departments.
     Having seen unions work from the inside, at least in a few limited cases, I can also say they confer disadvantages to employers. Whether its worth it or not to negotiate with a union I would prefer to leave to the employers, private or public.
     I would be against a law that mandated executive departments from either hiring or not hiring union members. But I’m not familiar with such a law, so I view it as a non-issue at the moment.
     wj: I’m getting that you’re concerned about the influence unions play in our society? If so, I am as well. Organizations that are large enough and rich enough (unions or otherwise) can exert substantial and detrimental influence on politics and society. I’m just skeptical that laws restricting unions are helpful or necessary. (Not saying you are proposing any).

193. But when it’s electricians, garbage collectors, or teachers, well, high principles of “free markets” and “competitive capitalism” clearly must be invoked because TEH FREEDOM.
     Id turn that around: it’s not curious to me that eg doctors enjoy maintaining their control of membership in their guild (and thus their control of the market’s supply). Even conservative doctors aren’t necessarily libertarians and therefore aren’t necessarily being hypocritical.
     What’s curious is that libertarians spend 99% of their collective bargaining energy hating on unions and 1% expressing mild dislike of professional orgs such as this- especially when unions in America are broken compared to 50 years ago while professional orgs such as the AMA are an ongoing impediment to progress. If I google “Libertarian Party” and “American Medical Association” I mostly see links about the AMA and Obamacare, or the AMA and marijuana legalization. If I google “Libertarian Party” and “Unions” I just get a picture of a dog taking a crap on a picture of Jimmy Hoffa.
     See also our curious broken discussion on immigration law….free markets are great unless I have to deal with Spanish language menus.
     In the defense of the LP, they do seem to support freeing the labor market. Not very vocally, but still. But it’s not a popular position among the TPers, and even quasi-libertarian Rand Paul wouldn’t approve freeing this market without getting a bunch of border security in return.
     Ive heard libertarians argue that relaxing controls on the labor market isn’t feasible until they dismantle the welfare state. Which only makes me think that even they (this subgroup) doesn’t believe what they’re selling except as a means to an end, since they’re willing to liberate markets without even a discussion of consequences in other cases, but suddenly discover that consequences are *muy importante* when it comes to brown people.

194. thompson, I wouldn’t say that I am concerned about the influence of unions in our society per se. What I am very unhappy about is the whole idea of government employee unions. There is not, to my mind, any excuse for an organization which has the power to shut down public services as part of its “negotiating” efforts.
     As for unions in the private sector. I don’t care for them particularly, and wouldn’t join one. But I also wouldn’t want to see them outlawed again. As long as they have to earn their membership by providing some benefit to those members (not just to the union leadership), fine. I’d go so far as to call that the free market at work — so long as nobody is required to join.

195. wj:
     “What I am very unhappy about is the whole idea of government employee unions.”
     I’m not particularly happy about them either. I’m just not sure of a practical solution that doesn’t inhibit the right to associate.

196. I could be wrong about this, but I don’t think there’s necessarily much of a difference between certain state employees being unionized and private-sector employees being unionized, in terms of the law, per se. Unless there’s legislation mandating union membership (and maybe there is in some places), it’s simply a matter of whatever state agencies being contracted with unions.
     The fact that there’s a state entity involved doesn’t make union membership a matter of law anymore than it makes their paid-leave policy a matter of law. They’re still employers dealing with whatever labor situation they find themselves in.
     Maybe they’re more friendly to organized labor, depending on the politics of whoever’s in charge, than for-profit entities, but that’s another matter.

197. What I am very unhappy about is the whole idea of government employee unions. There is not, to my mind, any excuse for an organization which has the power to shut down public services as part of its “negotiating” efforts.
     Seems like this would preclude government contracting services out to corporations as well.

198. I’m just not sure of a practical solution that doesn’t inhibit the right to associate.
     You’re open to a ‘practical’ way to get around a principle you claim to hold in the highest regard?
     Swwwwaaaeeeeet. Moral relativism for all.

199. This, from Erik Loomis over at Lawyers Guns and Money, seems timely.

200. bobbyp:
     “You’re open to a ‘practical’ way to get around a principle you claim to hold in the highest regard?”
     I’m open to a practical way to avoid, as wj put it: “shut down public services”.
     As long as it DOESN’T inhibit the freedom of associate, including the right to unionize.
     Of course, your snide comment is no doubt helpful for some reason that escapes me.

201. There is not, to my mind, any excuse for an organization which has the power to shut down public services as part of its “negotiating” efforts.
     so, the House Of Representatives ?

202. Russell: Yes…the Loomis series has been a great read.
     thompson: Please re-read your actual comment mine refers to. You present no such qualifiers there. Thanks.
     cleek: great point. Perhaps we need to find a ‘practical’ way to shut down the Republican Party…just as long as it doesn’t violate their freedom of association. The proprietaries must be observed.

203. “Congress, for example, can’t vote to take all of my money and give it to Bob. Even if everybody in the nation hates me and really likes Bob. Or vice versa.”
     Sure they can. What’s to stop them? Only respect for the norms and rules of society. Which is to say, the rule of law. Which is completely independent of the question of state power.

204. bobbyp:
     Please re-read my comment, and the comment by wj I was referring to.
     Context, its important.

205. Nailed it, cleek! There is no excuse for the current House of Representatives.

206. Context, its important.
     1. You do not like unions much, and you really don’t like public employee unions because of some assumed ability to strike and disrupt public services, as opposed to private sector unions who may also strike vital industries (HS Truman and steel mills which see).
     2. If there were a ‘practical way’ to deny public employees this bargaining power without taking away their right of free association, you’d be in favor of it.
     Now freedom of association is the very essence of organized labor. This attribute has been the heart of all your various comments on this topic. Thus the snide remark. You truly are on the horns of a dilemma. That you would appear to be willing sacrifice this central tenet for some “practical” way to squash public sector strikes strikes me as a willingness to sacrifice high fallutin’ principles on the altar of expediency.
     But let us look, for once, at reality. There are many practical ways to surmount this issue. Let us start with one salient fact: Only about 1/3 of public employees are organized. So there is that.
     As to means and methods, we could….
     1. Pay the employees what they asked for. We pretty much do this already with bankers and CEO’s. Why not others? Why do you support a lop-sided workplace arrangement in the public sphere with management having all the cards?
     2. Invoke the dispute resolution machinery in the contract. The right to strike is just about universally not allowed in the public sector. Instead, contracts generally include provisions for mediation or arbitration.
     3. Public sector strikes tend to be relatively rare and of quite short duration.-i.e., the overwhelming number of public sector employee unions obey the law…a much higher percentage I’d wager than bankers or CEO’s do.
     Because of their contentious nature of the issues and the fall out that could arise from a public sector strike for BOTH sides, all incentives are already in place for the parties to bargain to finality.
     And this is pretty much what we observe.

207. Sure they can. What’s to stop them? Only respect for the norms and rules of society. Which is to say, the rule of law.
     Actually, no. What’s to stop them is the Constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder. So while it is a rule-of-law issue, it’s one involving balance of power between parts of government rather than simple decency and respect for tradition on the part of Congress. Thankfully.

208. bobbyp:
     “1. You do not like unions much, and you really don’t like public employee unions because of some assumed ability to strike and disrupt public services, as opposed to private sector unions who may also strike vital industries (HS Truman and steel mills which see).”
     I never said private sector unions couldn’t disrupt vital industries. Indeed, they can. In large industries the unions can wield power far outside their negotiation with their employer. This is one of the problems with unions (although not one that comes up very much…so I can’t say I think its a big problem).
     However, like I said, I’m not for stripping them of their rights, and there is no other practical way of limiting the disruption a powerful union (public or private) could cause.
     So its just one of those things we live with.
     “2. If there were a ‘practical way’ to deny public employees this bargaining power without taking away their right of free association, you’d be in favor of it.”
     If there was a practical way to limit the disruption of a large strike in an important sector, without limiting the freedom of people to unionize, I’d be all for it. I really can’t think of one.
     I’m thinking you’re trying to have an argument with someone else. I am all for the rights of unions.
     I also think union leadership doesn’t always work for the good of the worker and can have excessive lobbying influence politically (not limited to unions).
     This is unfortunate, but in my mind, the only practical way to prevent this would be to inhibit the freedom of association of union members.
     Which, I’ve stated in various forms, is not acceptable.
     Living in a free society means that you don’t get to dictate how other people use their freedoms. There is a distinction between disagreeing with a specific exercise of a right and the right as a whole.

209. “I wouldn’t join a boycott of a store if they didn’t share my religion. But I wouldn’t vote for the government to have the power to break a boycott if it was for the wrong reasons. Even if I hold nothing but contempt for those reasons.”
     But are you ok with government-sponsored boycotts, as in the novel (in a democracy, I consider a popular assembly like this as equivalent to the state)? Anyone who patronizes an Irish store will be beat up? Presumably not. But that’s how most collective activities work. You seem to model this situation as each member of the town individually weighing the pros and cons of patronizing Loftus’ store, but that’s not what is going on at all. What we’re actually talking about is a community deciding to exile one of its members, and anyone going against that decision is implicitly faced with the possibility of exile themselves. (Moreover, as those above have noted, exile here carries with it the possibility of serious harm or death). You seem to be willing to tolerate this because it’s all done at arm’s length, even though Loftus would probably come out better off if somebody just punched him and ran off with the wheat while he was on the ground. I have a distaste for violence also, but I don’t see other forms of societal coercion as being substantially different.

Comments are closed.