[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

[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.]