Russell - excellent observations. I think we have all become more engaged in the realm of somewhat abstract ideas whole becoming at the same time less engaged in more tangible, human capacities. The link between the two is where things become more foggy.
Dennis, all very good points. The tech and communications gains provide an interesting counterpoint to other centralizing forces to be sure and one we are still trying to fully understand.
I'm not sure your analogy quite holds up though there is truth to it. I think it makes more sense to think of local governments and communities as families who know best how to deal with their own problems. Sometimes these may include feeding the hungry; sometimes too this will mean looking to the 'extended family's for help.
Actually, I think I am essentially more of a squishy sort of Burkean conservative who has come to libertarianism via a long series of concessions to my own doubt. Or, rather, I think libertarianism - decentralization, federalism, free markets and so forth - is the best way to implement a more autonomous, stable society at least in a country with few traditions of its own.
Freddie, I think that's exactly right. I think I mentioned as much, at least in passing, in the post itself. No, I'm basically with you on your premise. There is no serious left-wing contingent in the bloggysphere. And I do tend to think that this is a fine thing if it's occurring organically; if there were some systematic attempt to write that voice out of the debate, I wouldn't want that - but I think there are just truly not very many leftist voices on the internet in America right now.
Tom, if I am a libertarian than yes, I am probably a 'compassionate libertarian' just like I would likely be a compassionate conservative or a compassionate anarcho-capitalist. I am a softy. I can't help it. But that is rather informed by my religious beliefs, and my conviction that a stable society is important and cannot be achieved without some social assistance for the poor vis-a-vis the state.
Tom - I disagree with Yglesias on a number of things; I think I would fall quite a bit to the right of him on most issues. I think redistribution is inevitable when a society decides to have a government that they'd like to keep - even a flat tax would be redistributive. Regressive tax systems can function alongside progressive ones, but not on their own. At least not in the modern age.
But whatever the flaws of his argument, Yglesias is still illustrative of the libertarian influences on the left and of the various convergences of leftist, progressive, and more classically liberal ideas. The latter, I would argue, comes out pretty strong in his thinking, even if he does place way too much faith in the ability of the state to achieve its manifold other ends.
I think there is genuine concern with deregulatory capture - the power structures erected at this point are as likely to take advantage of deregulation as they are regulation. So everything must be done carefully. No easy answers.
The short answer is competition. Also, decentralized regulation. I will have to get back to you with the long answer. Suffice to say centralization of the state is not a sure bet against corporate excess and abuse, and often quite the contrary.
I was wondering about that...
Also, I've had decent experiences with customer service at some big companies like Verizon and Best Buy. And with government employees at schools and libraries. It just depends I suppose.
Koz, I think you and Bucky are off-base here. Liberals and conservatives have both contributed to all sorts of good and bad in this country. I would give liberals and religious activists credit for the Civil Rights movement, for instance. Abolitionists were a mixed bunch - some liberals, yes, but also a number of very socially conservative Christians. The political spectrum was obviously much different in that time. The Republican Party ended slavery, after all.
It's much more common to write off libertarianism as purely Utopian or free markets as "myth" than to invoke 19th century laissez faire economics. I think this is because it's easier to name names. So Stalin is invoked because he is a recognizable figure, and far more the villain, than any of the 19th century capitalists. In any case, I dislike any of these poor uses of history to justify current politics.
Of course it's the same sort of argument. And falling back on either of these - blaming Stalinism for socialism's problems, or claiming that the days of tycoons and robber barons were the golden age of free markets - is to utilize not history but a black and white, shallow, two-dimensional view of history. Yes, we can use Stalin to skewer socialism at its worst; then again, Norway and Sweden and other similar countries make a much better case for socialist policies. We can use the 19th century to lambast free markets; but hell, again, we could look at the economic (if not redistributive) policies of Denmark or the Netherlands, where free trade and a hands-off government do pretty well. We could even look at our current system and compare it to a number of other countries with less free markets and surmise that yes, freer markets lead to greater prosperity and a more flourishing economy and culture. Not everything is a zero-sum game. Using these sort of extreme examples and then pretending that it means history is on your side is like rolling up history into a club and mauling one another with it. It does nobody any good.
And calling it a myth is little more than a lefty talking point now. Hey, want to write libertarians out of the debate? Use words like Utopia and myth and you're set!
Also, Alex, this is an uncharacteristically broad brush you're painting with. I don't know any libertarians who think they'd be Andrew Carnegie in a truly free market system. Not one. Do you really think all the people you're arguing with in this thread want that? Do you think this is a fair way to characterize your opponents?
I could say "All modern welfare liberals imagine they'll be Joseph Stalin" and be just about as accurate.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Little Republics & Little Platoons”
Thanks Christopher!
"
Picking at nits doesn't really address the larger point though does it?
"
NCLB is a horrible federal power grab. I think its repercussions will be felt by parents and non-parents alike.
"
Francis, one can be both romantic and practical. Also, one can favor structural changes while still voting for the lesser of two evils.
"
Nice twist on the teach a man to fish saying, Mike. I like.
"
Thanks Russell! I'll add the book to the ever-growing list....
"
Russell - excellent observations. I think we have all become more engaged in the realm of somewhat abstract ideas whole becoming at the same time less engaged in more tangible, human capacities. The link between the two is where things become more foggy.
"
Dennis, all very good points. The tech and communications gains provide an interesting counterpoint to other centralizing forces to be sure and one we are still trying to fully understand.
"
I'm not sure your analogy quite holds up though there is truth to it. I think it makes more sense to think of local governments and communities as families who know best how to deal with their own problems. Sometimes these may include feeding the hungry; sometimes too this will mean looking to the 'extended family's for help.
On “Reclaiming Liberalism”
Actually, I think I am essentially more of a squishy sort of Burkean conservative who has come to libertarianism via a long series of concessions to my own doubt. Or, rather, I think libertarianism - decentralization, federalism, free markets and so forth - is the best way to implement a more autonomous, stable society at least in a country with few traditions of its own.
"
Good point.
"
Freddie, I think that's exactly right. I think I mentioned as much, at least in passing, in the post itself. No, I'm basically with you on your premise. There is no serious left-wing contingent in the bloggysphere. And I do tend to think that this is a fine thing if it's occurring organically; if there were some systematic attempt to write that voice out of the debate, I wouldn't want that - but I think there are just truly not very many leftist voices on the internet in America right now.
"
Tom, if I am a libertarian than yes, I am probably a 'compassionate libertarian' just like I would likely be a compassionate conservative or a compassionate anarcho-capitalist. I am a softy. I can't help it. But that is rather informed by my religious beliefs, and my conviction that a stable society is important and cannot be achieved without some social assistance for the poor vis-a-vis the state.
"
Tom - I disagree with Yglesias on a number of things; I think I would fall quite a bit to the right of him on most issues. I think redistribution is inevitable when a society decides to have a government that they'd like to keep - even a flat tax would be redistributive. Regressive tax systems can function alongside progressive ones, but not on their own. At least not in the modern age.
But whatever the flaws of his argument, Yglesias is still illustrative of the libertarian influences on the left and of the various convergences of leftist, progressive, and more classically liberal ideas. The latter, I would argue, comes out pretty strong in his thinking, even if he does place way too much faith in the ability of the state to achieve its manifold other ends.
"
I think there is genuine concern with deregulatory capture - the power structures erected at this point are as likely to take advantage of deregulation as they are regulation. So everything must be done carefully. No easy answers.
On “Gene Wolfe interviewed”
Pessimistic conservatism is the only kind for me. Good stuff, thanks for the link.
On “Reclaiming Liberalism”
I'm not sure anyone is "writing the GOP out" of anything, Tom. How about this - what are your economic goals?
Question number two: How can you have a government and not have redistribution at the same time? Even a flat tax is redistributive.
"
The short answer is competition. Also, decentralized regulation. I will have to get back to you with the long answer. Suffice to say centralization of the state is not a sure bet against corporate excess and abuse, and often quite the contrary.
On “The bureaucratic mindset”
I was wondering about that...
Also, I've had decent experiences with customer service at some big companies like Verizon and Best Buy. And with government employees at schools and libraries. It just depends I suppose.
On “Progressives vs. Libertarians”
Maybe a really really weak monarchy - a figurehead monarchy - overseeing a night watchman state.
"
Koz, I think you and Bucky are off-base here. Liberals and conservatives have both contributed to all sorts of good and bad in this country. I would give liberals and religious activists credit for the Civil Rights movement, for instance. Abolitionists were a mixed bunch - some liberals, yes, but also a number of very socially conservative Christians. The political spectrum was obviously much different in that time. The Republican Party ended slavery, after all.
"
It's much more common to write off libertarianism as purely Utopian or free markets as "myth" than to invoke 19th century laissez faire economics. I think this is because it's easier to name names. So Stalin is invoked because he is a recognizable figure, and far more the villain, than any of the 19th century capitalists. In any case, I dislike any of these poor uses of history to justify current politics.
"
Of course it's the same sort of argument. And falling back on either of these - blaming Stalinism for socialism's problems, or claiming that the days of tycoons and robber barons were the golden age of free markets - is to utilize not history but a black and white, shallow, two-dimensional view of history. Yes, we can use Stalin to skewer socialism at its worst; then again, Norway and Sweden and other similar countries make a much better case for socialist policies. We can use the 19th century to lambast free markets; but hell, again, we could look at the economic (if not redistributive) policies of Denmark or the Netherlands, where free trade and a hands-off government do pretty well. We could even look at our current system and compare it to a number of other countries with less free markets and surmise that yes, freer markets lead to greater prosperity and a more flourishing economy and culture. Not everything is a zero-sum game. Using these sort of extreme examples and then pretending that it means history is on your side is like rolling up history into a club and mauling one another with it. It does nobody any good.
"
Bucky:
And calling it a myth is little more than a lefty talking point now. Hey, want to write libertarians out of the debate? Use words like Utopia and myth and you're set!
Here's another myth: economic equality.
"
Also, Alex, this is an uncharacteristically broad brush you're painting with. I don't know any libertarians who think they'd be Andrew Carnegie in a truly free market system. Not one. Do you really think all the people you're arguing with in this thread want that? Do you think this is a fair way to characterize your opponents?
I could say "All modern welfare liberals imagine they'll be Joseph Stalin" and be just about as accurate.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.