Unfortunately, to accomodate the coalition with the Right, libertarians largely dropped their emphasis on liberty and individualism (which is completely incompatible with many elements of the modern coalition of the Right), settling instead for an emphasis on small government (which is less a principle than a hypothetical means of achieving any number of ends that were - and often still are - compatible with the other elements of the coalition of the Right). And so you wind up with self-described libertarians emphasizing things like states’ rights when it comes to government-sponsored discrimination (since ending that discrimination would entail the growth of federal authority) while largely ignoring the effects that state-level government discrimination has on individual liberty.
Mark, it sounds to me like you are describing paleolibertarians (or Ron Paul). The paleolibertarians (i.e. Rothbard) were never part of the coalition with the Right.
If I am incorrect, then can you please be more specific as to who you are describing? I certainly don't see this mindset coming out of the Cato Institute or from the folks at Reason.
I was debating whether or not I'd put that comment in there. I like trying to maintain some sort of intellectual facade (as much as a non-intellectual type like me can) but sometimes need to call it like I see it in as nice and blunt a way as possible.
I assume your "false flags" statement was made with respect to Hannity and Limbaugh, correct?
I just don’t see libertarians all that willing to look beyond their econ dogmas. just the use of the term economic freedom suggests a moral superiority that will never think of anything but your particular beliefs of economics as anything but dictatorship.
First of all, neo-classical and Austrian economic theory, while you may disagree with many of their principles (and some were rendered more than questionable when the markets imploded), are not mere dogma.
Second, I happen to believe that there is much blame to go around in the private sector and certain regulatory decisions contributed to it. I also happen to believe that it was Alan Greenspan's manipulation of short-term interest rates that put us on this path. I would also say that interest rate manipulation by central bankers has nothing at all to do with free markets.
As far as the aftermath of this mess, I see plenty of areas where I can be flexible. What about you?
Third, economic freedom is not about moral superiority. It's the recognition that within certain areas of mutually beneficial transactions there is a scope of private activity that government has no legitimate interest in interfering with.
Between one of our other discussions, a post I need to finish and a completely unpleasant real estate market that is not cooperating with me, I'm a bit occupied at the moment. :)
I figured that it may be an either/or proposition and just wanted your perspective.
I do have a general understanding of what has taken place and am aware of the low private sector union membership (7%ish). That does not change my concerns about EFCA though or my views on organized labor as an interest group. That may be a topic deserving of its own thread though.
I agree. There were also comments that even as collateral damage towards me should be addressed. I need to address those at some point although Mark covered a good chunk of it.
That such “East-Coast Elites” should rally behind this woman signifies either ideological blindness at an unprecedented level, or a rather disingenuous, sardonic approach to politics that deserves little more the snark and derision from its critics.
That is probably being a little too generous. A sophomoric rant that absurdly claims that 1) a rejection of Sarah Palin is a rejection of "the people" and 2) that I hate the "hicks in the sticks" because they are better than I am is worthy of nothing more than mockery and derision, to the extent it is even worth time wasting the three brain cells I have left contemplating this tripe.
There is no point in using logic and reason to create a counterargument to a claim that lacks both. It's lose-lose no matter what happens. Given a few recent experiences in this area, my patience for this sort of discourse is gone.
This is not to say I worry about the pugilistic aspects because I don't. I like brawlers. They lead with their chin and end up on their backs shortly thereafter. :)
Matoko, as a matter of principle, do you support the decision in Lochner?
Mark, as a quick point, I think there was an article written by David Bernstein commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lochner and his argument was that Lochner did not take center stage as an example of "judicial activism" (an awful an intellectually bankrupt term if there ever was one) until AFTER Roe.
If I remember Howard Gillman's work in the The Constitution Beseiged (one of the best works on pre-1937 14th Amendment jurisprudence despite excluding any discussion of Meyer and Pierce), Lochner was basically overturned by 1915 or so. By that time, the last major hurdle was minimum wage laws.
Lochner was not the Progressive rallying cry that Adkins was or even Hammer v Dagenhart with respect to child labor laws.
I think that it will be news to my friends who are currently fighting for marriage equality that the culture war is over. It is not over.
Do you think the fight over school prayer is over for those who are fighting to overturn over 60 years of Establishment Clause precedent? Frankly, it doesn't matter what either of us think if they think it isn't.
You and I may have agreement in principle on these matters but you significantly underestimate your opposition or its will to fight for what it believes in, regardless if you or I agree with those positions.
I have a post in process on this that will go in greater detail on a few points above but I wanted to comment on rortybomb's post:
1. The cutting of dividends did not give Wall Street free rein. That was done by a combination of a) the SEC, who in 2004 allowed the Wall Street i-banks to relax leverage requirements, allowing them to lever up like hedge funds, b) the Fed, who cut the fed funds rate down to 1% and held it there for a year, which not only flooded the market with liquidity but also, indirectly, made investments like mortgage backed securities and CDO's attractive, c) absolutely no one in our government taking note of the mess that was being made in the subprime mortgage business going back as far as 2003, and d) the lack of any sort of regulations that would have helped foster transparency in the credit derivatives markets (this I place directly on Greenspan's shoulders).
2. Paul Krugman has already beaten you to that with his arguments of wage stagnation (or something to that effect). I'm sure there have been others as well but I do not recall them off the top of my head.
The Left already has enough to make hay about with idiot politicians and Alan Greenspan trumpeting the "self regulatory" aspects of free markets. I don't believe in "self regulation". I believe that people, if given the opportunity, will act in their self-interest with little regard for others. This can have catastrophic consequences. Limiting this is important.
On “Republican Hypocrites”
I get it. We shouldn't criticize Bush because Obama is worse.
Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
Go AMD!
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Nihilism won't be tolerated. How dare you.
On “The Tone-Deafness of the “Statism” Charge”
Unfortunately, to accomodate the coalition with the Right, libertarians largely dropped their emphasis on liberty and individualism (which is completely incompatible with many elements of the modern coalition of the Right), settling instead for an emphasis on small government (which is less a principle than a hypothetical means of achieving any number of ends that were - and often still are - compatible with the other elements of the coalition of the Right). And so you wind up with self-described libertarians emphasizing things like states’ rights when it comes to government-sponsored discrimination (since ending that discrimination would entail the growth of federal authority) while largely ignoring the effects that state-level government discrimination has on individual liberty.
Mark, it sounds to me like you are describing paleolibertarians (or Ron Paul). The paleolibertarians (i.e. Rothbard) were never part of the coalition with the Right.
If I am incorrect, then can you please be more specific as to who you are describing? I certainly don't see this mindset coming out of the Cato Institute or from the folks at Reason.
On “Not quite there yet…”
You mean the fundamentals of the economy aren't really strong?
Pray tell... ;)
"
I was debating whether or not I'd put that comment in there. I like trying to maintain some sort of intellectual facade (as much as a non-intellectual type like me can) but sometimes need to call it like I see it in as nice and blunt a way as possible.
I assume your "false flags" statement was made with respect to Hannity and Limbaugh, correct?
On “Liberaltarianism in a Liberal Age”
I just don’t see libertarians all that willing to look beyond their econ dogmas. just the use of the term economic freedom suggests a moral superiority that will never think of anything but your particular beliefs of economics as anything but dictatorship.
First of all, neo-classical and Austrian economic theory, while you may disagree with many of their principles (and some were rendered more than questionable when the markets imploded), are not mere dogma.
Second, I happen to believe that there is much blame to go around in the private sector and certain regulatory decisions contributed to it. I also happen to believe that it was Alan Greenspan's manipulation of short-term interest rates that put us on this path. I would also say that interest rate manipulation by central bankers has nothing at all to do with free markets.
As far as the aftermath of this mess, I see plenty of areas where I can be flexible. What about you?
Third, economic freedom is not about moral superiority. It's the recognition that within certain areas of mutually beneficial transactions there is a scope of private activity that government has no legitimate interest in interfering with.
Last, where do you think you can be flexible?
On “Never Go In Against A Libertarian When Phallacy Is On The Line”
It's too bad Andre the Giant isn't around to clothesline those idiots.
On “Stimulation After (Economic) Climax”
Another one of these? I'm just finishing up the Bloggingheads episode with Jeff Madrick (which was quite good). I can't keep up. :)
On “Madrick on Case for Big Gov’t”
I'm working my way through this as we speak and will try to comment on it at some point.
On “A Quick Note on A Rigged Game”
Wonderful Mark.
Between one of our other discussions, a post I need to finish and a completely unpleasant real estate market that is not cooperating with me, I'm a bit occupied at the moment. :)
"
Freddie,
I figured that it may be an either/or proposition and just wanted your perspective.
I do have a general understanding of what has taken place and am aware of the low private sector union membership (7%ish). That does not change my concerns about EFCA though or my views on organized labor as an interest group. That may be a topic deserving of its own thread though.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Did someone say something?
On “eating my vegetables”
Freddie,
I agree. There were also comments that even as collateral damage towards me should be addressed. I need to address those at some point although Mark covered a good chunk of it.
On “In defense of snark”
That is probably being a little too generous. A sophomoric rant that absurdly claims that 1) a rejection of Sarah Palin is a rejection of "the people" and 2) that I hate the "hicks in the sticks" because they are better than I am is worthy of nothing more than mockery and derision, to the extent it is even worth time wasting the three brain cells I have left contemplating this tripe.
There is no point in using logic and reason to create a counterargument to a claim that lacks both. It's lose-lose no matter what happens. Given a few recent experiences in this area, my patience for this sort of discourse is gone.
This is not to say I worry about the pugilistic aspects because I don't. I like brawlers. They lead with their chin and end up on their backs shortly thereafter. :)
On “Roe and the Culture War Morass”
Mark,
I know of the Ely law article but haven't had the chance to read it. It seems like I need to go back and check on a few things.
"
Matoko, as a matter of principle, do you support the decision in Lochner?
Mark, as a quick point, I think there was an article written by David Bernstein commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lochner and his argument was that Lochner did not take center stage as an example of "judicial activism" (an awful an intellectually bankrupt term if there ever was one) until AFTER Roe.
If I remember Howard Gillman's work in the The Constitution Beseiged (one of the best works on pre-1937 14th Amendment jurisprudence despite excluding any discussion of Meyer and Pierce), Lochner was basically overturned by 1915 or so. By that time, the last major hurdle was minimum wage laws.
Lochner was not the Progressive rallying cry that Adkins was or even Hammer v Dagenhart with respect to child labor laws.
On “D. Linker on Culture War-Abortion”
14th Amendment problemmatic? Maybe another topic post. I'd be in this one for sure. :)
"
Matoko,
I think that it will be news to my friends who are currently fighting for marriage equality that the culture war is over. It is not over.
Do you think the fight over school prayer is over for those who are fighting to overturn over 60 years of Establishment Clause precedent? Frankly, it doesn't matter what either of us think if they think it isn't.
You and I may have agreement in principle on these matters but you significantly underestimate your opposition or its will to fight for what it believes in, regardless if you or I agree with those positions.
On “Economic Crisis”
I have a post in process on this that will go in greater detail on a few points above but I wanted to comment on rortybomb's post:
1. The cutting of dividends did not give Wall Street free rein. That was done by a combination of a) the SEC, who in 2004 allowed the Wall Street i-banks to relax leverage requirements, allowing them to lever up like hedge funds, b) the Fed, who cut the fed funds rate down to 1% and held it there for a year, which not only flooded the market with liquidity but also, indirectly, made investments like mortgage backed securities and CDO's attractive, c) absolutely no one in our government taking note of the mess that was being made in the subprime mortgage business going back as far as 2003, and d) the lack of any sort of regulations that would have helped foster transparency in the credit derivatives markets (this I place directly on Greenspan's shoulders).
2. Paul Krugman has already beaten you to that with his arguments of wage stagnation (or something to that effect). I'm sure there have been others as well but I do not recall them off the top of my head.
The Left already has enough to make hay about with idiot politicians and Alan Greenspan trumpeting the "self regulatory" aspects of free markets. I don't believe in "self regulation". I believe that people, if given the opportunity, will act in their self-interest with little regard for others. This can have catastrophic consequences. Limiting this is important.
On “re:ratiocination: mexican drug insurgency edition”
Test
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.