[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

All the hip liberals are dogpiling on libertarianism this month, and skillfully missing the point. Apparently the lure of libertarians potentially voting Democrat in the face of Bush’s overspending is too much for some.

The question is not “would it be OK to let everyone in the world own nukes right now?” That’s a very easy one. “No, it would be pretty much completely not be a good idea.” The question is “Would this be a better world, and if so, what do we need to do to get there?”

In the debate which is the primary target of mockery, Richard Epstein is taking precisely that approach. Randy Barnett and David Friedman are not, mind you, which goes a long way towards explaining why I don’t self-identify as a libertarian.

But it is important to remember that a hundred years ago, concepts such as welfare seemed hopelessly utopian. Things change.

Comments

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Could it be because libertarians are incredibly inconsistent in their logic?

[bryant]

Sure, but that's like saying Republicans are incredibly inconsistent in their logic. Any group of people larger than ten is incredibly inconsistent in its logic.

[carelessflight.livejournal.com]

Surely there are degrees of libertarianism. But "missing the point?" Anybody who wants the style of government the Scottish Highlands had is, sorry, an idiot, whether he wants to go there slowly or quick.

I welcome libertarians who want to vote against Bush, and I don't expect them to be excited about Kerry. But I do hope I'm not doing the equivalent of the center-right Republicans who embraced the neocons and religious right in their drive to get votes against Clinton and Gore.

Now, times do change, and there are lots of ways to be human. I object to libertarian solutions in the here and now, recognizing that in a different society, somewhere/somewhen else, people will feel and think differently, and find different solutions to social issues. (And like most of history, if you plucked me from here and now and dropped me there, I'd rapidly figure out that from my perspective the society sucked. So would you.)

From what I see, libertarians are essentially equivalent to communists in their misunderstanding of the complexities of human interactions and in their ivory-tower belief that one simple principle -- however intuitive and self-evident -- can guide all human interaction, whether they think they can go there straight or indoctrinate everybody first. (Individual ownership of nuclear weapons? Only in a society that doesn't include anything descended from an ape. Sorry. But go ahead, prove me wrong. Just not for a really long time. And not until there are humans on some other planets that have different ideas about what constitutes essential human liberties.)

Ls also seem essentially equivalent to the communists of the 19th century in that their ideology stands a fair chance of biting off a third of the planet and masticating it for a century before vomiting it back up. And I seem to be living on that third of the planet.

[bryant]

I imagine that is the way you see it, yes. You are, however, continuing to miss the point.

[carelessflight.livejournal.com]

I don't see Epstein offering a defense for most of what government does, even as a short-term recognition of the current need for these programs, and a discussion of how to eliminate the need (presumably through increased overall wealth) -- which is what you seem to be claiming he says.

Would the world be better off if we didn't need 'minimum wage, antidiscrimination law, collective bargaining statutes, and mandatory pension and insurance regulation'? Yes, but that's not the world we're in, and Epstein offers nothing about how to get there. Oh, he airily says that libertarian ideals will magically make everyone rich, after which no one will want for anything and nothing will be redistributed, but he still says -- if I understand him -- "the state [even the present state] should keep its hands off the substantive terms of labor contracts". So all forms of worker and hiring abuse are fine. Laws in these areas don't actually address real problems, do they. They're the result of misguided people voting against their own self-interest, which libertarians know better than they do.

I could argue that Epstein's position is worse than the the rest of the debaters. Eminent domain for public projects is one thing -- if you don't like the public works the government is confiscating property to build, you vote to replace the government. But private corporations appealing to the government to force holdout property owners to sell below freely negotiated prices is a form of government-business agglomeration that many non-libertarians find terrifying. The people lobbying for the government to seize property for the public good should be the *people*, not the large corporations -- because large corporations don't care about the public good and never will.

According to Epstein, the government should only step in to take property away from small owners on behalf of large ones, in other words.

The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of individuals against abuse by those more powerful, and Epstein parodies it. Would he similarly favor governmental regulations saying you must install Windows on your home PC and eliminate Linux, because only then can our computers interoperate to the benefit of all -- and this is because Bill Gates successfully lobbied for this law? This is like a libertarian's dark fantasy of how governments operate -- at which I should perhaps not be surprised, but which I will still freely mock.

Epstein lives somewhere far away from me, with a lot more elephant tusks.

[bryant]

It's very easy to win philosophical arguments if you put words in the mouth of your opponents.

Epstein did not say that "the government should only step in to take property away from small owners on behalf of large ones." Consider what led you to assume that only large owners could be building railroads, and only small owners could own property along the way. That's certainly a possible case, but what makes you think it's the only case?

"That's how libertarians think" is not a good answer.

In all seriousness, I would sincerely recommend considering how the anarchist belief in the potential of enlightened self-interest relates to the Rawlsian state of nature.

You do know Rawls, right?

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Consider what led you to assume that only large owners could be building railroads, and only small owners could own property along the way. That's certainly a possible case, but what makes you think it's the only case?

Has it happened any other way in history?

Libertarianism, like communism and many other -isms, seems to assume that people are spherical sheep. Enlightened self-interest is a lovely idea, but the enlightened part is difficult to achieve at best.

[bryant]

No, but social welfare was not exactly common before Roosevelt introduced the Great Society, either.

And I agree; the enlightened part is difficult to achieve. I am not possessed of any illusions.

The thing is, carelessflight is possessed of nothing but illusions. There is the good -- modern liberalism -- and there is the bad -- all else. The guy accused me of wanting to hurt his children when I mentioned I was an anarchist. It gets very wearying.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Social welfare is a transfer of noblesse oblige from the 'nobles' to society in general. It may have been a 'private virtue' that depended on the whim of the rich prior to the Great Society, but it existed. I have no idea where to look for evidence that small companies or groups of people could coerce larger companies or wealthy individuals to give up land or money without violence or government. As I don't believe you're interested in harming my children and you claim that you're interested in a society without government, I'd be interested in hearing what third option you envision.

From the parts of the debate I managed to read, the answer provided there was either that everyone would agree on what's in the public good, or that a (microscopic) government would exist to force the recalcitrant to agree.

[bryant]

Noblesse oblige was a myth that existed for the sake of the noble classes, though. Nobody was taking care of serfs and peasants who found themselves unable to work.

And yeah; libertarian thought calls for a small government, not no government at all. It's sort of anarchocapitalism with a safety net. The debate was over the proper role of said government. Epstein's advocating enough government to force contracts when it's in the public interest, which is not clearly a good thing to me but it's an interesting approach.

I.e., eminent domain for the private sector. In the middle of confusing neocons and libertarians, carelessflight did point out some of the issues with that tactic.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Er, pretend you're talking to an idiot and explain to me what the point that's being missed is. I think i'm having a case of the Mondays.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

You and I both.

I read a little bit of the referenced debate.
"No person may use force or deception against other people, either for his own advantage or for the advantage of third persons."

Well, yes, but if that's the case, why are Libertarians so frequently in favor of eliminating ways for people to check, or even find out about, other people using force or deception to further their own interests?

There was also a remark about survival in an environment of scarcity, which made me chuckle. There's as much evidence that we evolved in an environment of abundance, as that we evolved in an environment of scarcity. Certainly our simian relatives aren't living in an environment dominated by chronic scarcity, except where we're destroying their environment.

[bryant]

The point in my weird eyes is that the debate was a serious debate about pragmatic questions of libertarian society. But the linked liberal blogs can't seem to get past "HA HA NUKES SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS THEY'RE SO IMPRACTICAL."

I exaggerate, of course.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

LJ ate a long, reasoned response to this. Rather than try to reconstruct, I'll just ask: Do you really think it's reasonable to expect outsiders to accept that a debate about pragmatic questions of any society can start with a statement that essentially assumes that everyone in the society is capable of determining and willing to abide by their long-term self-interest?

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I think it's more reasonable than accepting a debate that starts with the assumption that a majority of people in a society aren't capable of such a thing. It might be a realistic assumption, but how do you start a debate on such an assumption? You're poisoning the discussion.

I see where you're going and i sympathize, but i'm not sure if there's a better way to do it.

[bryant]

Yes. Substitute "the overwhelming majority" for "everyone," but yes.

I mean... yes. I think it's reasonable to ask people to consider the possibility that humans might be capable of being more rational than they are now. To be honest, I always find it rather sad that everyone's so quick to write people off.

I also think it's reasonable to ask people to consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Go back five hundred years: no reasonable person would have accepted the idea that democracy might be a viable method of government. If everyone had said "well, it's not reasonable to expect outsides to accept that a debate about pragmatic questions of society can start with a statement that essentially assumes that everyone in the society is capable of using their vote wisely," we wouldn't have the far superior method of government we have today.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Most people did think it was ridiculous to think that everyone was capable of using their vote wisely. That's why extending the vote to the point where nearly everyone can vote has taken so long. We're still not at the point where everyone is expected to use their vote wisely, since we don't require people to use their votes at all.

[bryant]

Yes. That's precisely my point.

People thought that was ridiculous. You think it's ridiculous to think that people might be capable, as a general rule, of enlightened self-interest.

I think you're making the same mistake as the people who wanted Washington to be King. Humanity progresses. Not quickly, not immediately, often with slips along the way. But we do get better.

Why should we assume that we can't get any better at this than we are now?

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

I don't assume that we can't get any better at enlightened self-interest than we are now. I'm highly skeptical of 'pragmatic' debates that focus on how it will work once nearly everyone attains enlightenment. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we can't think about what life might be like if nearly everyone were enlightened. But I don't think such discussions have any claim to being 'pragmatic'.

Early communists could spend days arguing about the details of what life would like once the state faded away. Unfortunately for their ideals, they forgot to put as much effort into preventing totalitarianism from creeping in before the state faded away.

Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists can spend as much time as they like debating what their version of nirvana will look like, but I won't consider it a pragmatic disucssion until there's some evidence that the people debating understand that we're not in nirvana yet, and that there are dangers along the sketchily proposed route no less scary than Stalinism.

[bryant]

That's fair.

Nozick is really the best place to start as far as libertarianism goes. It's a little heavy on the theory, and not oriented towards practical issues as much as it is towards theories of justice, but it's still an important work.

On the anarchist side, I'm a sucker for Robert Paul Wolff's In Defense of Anarchy. He's a Marxist, which I am not, but his approach shapes a lot of my thoughts on the matter.

There's a Wolff excerpt which is directly applicable here. But really, you ought to read the book.

I will now contentedly await the evidence that the Democratic Party has addressed the dangers of big government; I don't particularly feel the need to demand that they reiterate the necessary safeguards and protections before every internal discussion of their goals, but maybe that's just me.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

How recent a reiteration would you consider sufficient? Also, who is authorized to speak for the Democratic Party in this debate? Are you limitting it to DNC functionaries, or will the ACLU, for example, suffice as a substitute?

For the record, I don't see anything in the text you link to that makes a 'small government' claim the way I've usually seen it used. That is, nothing in that text makes any reference to what seem to be the modern Libertarian ideals of unregulated market economics and 'buyer beware' attitudes.

[I'm also wary of the offhand mention of chaos in the immediate wake of the introduction of direct democracy. That's a fine thing to dismiss, unless you happen to be part of a minority the majority seems to have no objections to vilifying. I hope you don't think that my desire not to be burned for being a witch or stoned for my taste in sex toys means that I'm in favor of every suggestion for expanding government ever proposed.]

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I hear you and i agree.