[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

[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.