[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]

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.