About Libertarianism

At my Facebook page, I often banter with self-declared Libertarians. This is a comment I recently wrote, attempting to explain my disagreement with a claim that the estate tax should be repealed (and, in fact, the IRS should be abolished): I disagree with your assumption that everything will become the land of milk and honey if only government will just get out of the way. I'm not for bad government, yet much of the federal government today is bad government. But if we dismantle government power, power will re-assert itself, one way or the other. Government HAS gotten out of the way of Wall Street, Insurance Industry, Big Pharma, Telecoms, and they have run rampant -- they are FUCKING the American public. They are like sociopathic gangsters and thugs who have filled the vacuum, thanks to the federal government having already gotten out of the way. We already HAVE libertarian government regarding many major industries, many of whom pay no tax or minimal tax. And we now see their true colors. They don't give a shit about ordinary people--they fuel the short-sighted desires of their boards, officers and stockholders They believe that they live in a amoral oasis--a moral-free zone where commerce is simply a place to make money, despite long term damage to ordinary people or the environment. Most big industries also seek to destroy all competition and steal your money through monopolistic practicers, because the current system invites this, once the "evil" once the government steps out of the way. For instance, large monied industries are in the process of dismantling all consumer protection laws - it's happening right now in Missouri. I'm for smart, self-critical government that serves as a referee to keep the playing field even. I'm not for wild-eyed governmental reallocation of money from those who work hard to those who choose to not work hard. But the government involvement I seek does require funding, and the next question is where this funding should come from. Taking a tiny slice of money from extremely rich dead people does not offend me to the extent that that funding is used wisely to increase opportunities (not guaranteed outcomes) to those who need a hand and who desire to work hard to become taxpaying citizens themselves. I was not born into poverty -- I assume you were not either. Those who were born into poverty cannot be expected to magically do well, although a few of them will, despite the horrible odds against them. We can either cross our fingers and hope (or pray) that they simply somehow become productive members of society, but there are only relatively rare examples of that. To the 8 year old kid who is trapped in a crappy household, school and neighborhood, it is a moral imperative that we lend a hand, not just sit there and let him or her languish. I try to live in the real world--I've avoided any form of gated community, but I need and appreciate public funding to allow good things to happen. I treasure public libraries (which allows me to volunteer to teach ESL) and public parks, which thousands of people in my neighborhood enjoy every day. One of my children goes to an amazing public performing arts school where almost 70% of the kids are on free or reduced meals. I see these kids brimming with potential every day, and thank goodness the government has offered them an incredible opportunity. Shall we yank that food from those kids and tell them to go find food in dumpsters? Should we close down the public schools and tell those families to go find private schools that will give them high quality educations pro bono? Good luck with that plan. There are millions of kids out there who need better food, shelter and schools, and for the great majority of them, no one is stepping up for them. I believe that government has a legitimate roll to play. Can we do better than we are currently doing? Of course, and a huge reason for that is that people from all points of the political spectrum have been trying to grow government to fuel their pet projects and pet ideologies even when those programs have been shown to be counterproductive and destructive. I understand, then, your distrust of government. It is run poorly in many respects. But completely unplugging government funding, which I understand to be your preferred approach, is an experiment I am not willing to partake in. It will turn society over to the mercy of gangsters and thugs, many of them wearing suits and ties. Note that I am not criticizing you for being "selfish." All of us want to keep what we work for. Most of us are wary of altruistic schemes, other than our own pet projects. My concern is that pulling the government out of the picture will lead to massive social disorder many levels of magnitude greater than our current level of social disorder.

Continue ReadingAbout Libertarianism

Genocidal Libertarianism

How much collateral damage are libertarians willing to accept as the price for implementing their policies? In my experience, they avoid this topic by refusing to recognize the existence of collateral damage. Instead, they speak of the Promised Land on the horizon - - the utopian society that will simply occur once government packs up and leaves. At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser discusses the foundation principles of libertarianism set forth by Herbert Spencer. Here's an excerpt:

Herbert Spencer was a popular author during the nineteenth century who supported strict limits on the government and even opposed many forms of charity towards the poor. Nature, Spencer argued, “secures the growth” of the human race by “weeding out those of lowest development,” and he also believed that neither government nor private charity should interfere with this process of natural selection. Though Spencer was not a eugenicist — he actually argued that the poor should be treated much more harshly than nineteenth and twentieth century eugenicists did — he was both a social acquaintance of Sir Francis Galton, the father of the eugenics movement, and a significant influence on Galton’s thinking. Spencer also shaped many of the policies developed by some of the most powerful judges and lawmakers of his era. Reading Spencer’s many works today is an uncomfortable experience — the man devotes hundreds of pages to establishing a philosophical justification for a kind of neglect that most Americans would now view as a moral atrocity. Yet Spencer is also one of the foundational thinkers in the development of the economically libertarian philosophy that drives politicians such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). . . . Not long after we published this piece, two of the libertarian movement’s flagship institutions leaped to Spencer’s defense. Over at Reason, Damon Root does not contest our description of Spencer as one of the foundational thinkers in the development of Rand Paul’s economic libertarianism. He does, however, contest our description of Spencer as a genocidal libertarian. Though we quote Spencer’s 1851 book Social Statics, which opposes “[a]cts of parliament to save silly people” and argues that if a man or woman is “not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die,” Root claims that Spencer “never advocated anything remotely like letting the poor die in the streets.”
Miller quotes Spencer on the roll of charity:
Instead of diminishing suffering, it eventually increases it. It favours the multiplication of those worst fitted for existence, and, by consequence, hinders the multiplication of those best fitted for existence—leaving, as it does, less room for them. It tends to fill the world with those to whom life will bring most pain, and tends to keep out of it those to whom life will bring most pleasure. It inflicts positive misery, and prevents positive happiness. . . . ”
Miller comments on Spencer's disparagement of public (governmental) and private charity:
Spencer called for a near-blanket prohibition on “relief of the poor from public funds raised by rates,” but he also objected to charity administered by “privately established and voluntary organizations.” When a donor gives to such an organization, Spencer reasoned, the “beneficiary is not brought in direct relation with the benefactor” and this increases the likelihood that the money will ultimately be spent on “idlers, spendthrifts, and drunkards” or someone else that Spencer viewed as “worthless.

Continue ReadingGenocidal Libertarianism

Somalia as a libertarian paradise?

Believe it or not, some are claiming that Somalia is doing alright without any elected government, thank you. Somalian have access to fairly good cell phone service and one can hire private bodyguards. Prevalence of AIDS is extremely low compared to many other African countries (though many attribute this to strict Muslim practices regarding sexuality). As this same article points out, however, things are going so "well" that the Somali 2004 presidential election had to be held in Kenya. Consider, also, the BBC's 2009 country profile of Somalia:

Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. Fighting between rival warlords and an inability to deal with famine and disease led to the deaths of up to one million people . . . [Somalia is the] scene of arguably Africa's worst humanitarian crisis: a third of the population is dependent on food aid . . . No effective government since 1991.

Continue ReadingSomalia as a libertarian paradise?

Spotting fake libertarians

Darksyde at Daily Kos presents 10 clues for spotting fake libertarians (Republicans). Here's one of the clues--you are a fake libertarian:

[I]f you think government should stay the hell out of people's private business -- except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman's uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.

Continue ReadingSpotting fake libertarians