When push comes to shove libertarians always manage to come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is less evil than the Democratic one.
Some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is less evil than either of them.
And some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr and then they go off and vote for Charles Jay.
Democrats, however, still defend stuff like Obama's targetted assassinations or signing statements or increased troop presences with arguments like "I didn't hear you complain when Bush was president!" despite, of course, all of the complaining when Bush was president.
But most libertarians hate ObamaCare.
Some of them see Congress's Affordable Care Act as regulatory capture given that the bill was written by insurance companies.
How do we get around that given our current predicament? It's not like we can say "we just need Democrats to take the House and Senate and then we can avoid such things as federal bailouts".
In the end, I am more and more in agreement with Kevin Carson that many of the gains for the corporate class in this country are due to artificial scarcities, subsidies, and rents they have captured with the help of the state.
This seems to hit the nail on the head.
Where I knit my brow is how laws that won't be yet another example of regulatory capture get passed. I don't see how that is going to happen.
I'm not trying to define it away. I am, however, trying to figure out the *NATURE* of the fundamental problem.
If we establish that the problem is one of distribution of wealth, that things would be much better if we redistributed, I'd be fine with that... but, if it comes out that we redistribute and, for some reason, much of the redistribution was rotted away by graft before it got to its final destination and, once it got there, was used in such a way that did not address the problem we were hoping to address (for example, if we gave a periodic sum of money to a homeless person who went on to spend the money on drugs and alcohol rather than on a bachelor's degree)... maybe we could agree that what we are doing is not accomplishing the things that we are hoping to accomplish and we should try something else rather than doubling down on what we're doing.
What do we want to accomplish?
Is what we are doing accomplishing what we want to accomplish?
If the answer to the second question is "no", is the main reason because of insufficient funding?
Too much focus on the collective at the expense of the individual has been done a handful of times in history as well.
Scylla and Charybdis seem a decent metaphor. Sure, let's say that life, civilization, The Children, and etc requires a balance of both.
Over time, have we drifted more to Charybdis than we have in the past?
Even if you want to criticize those for wanting to be sooooo close to Scylla that it be certain that folks be eaten, can we still acknowledge that maybe we ought to be a little less close to Charybdis than we happen to be right now?
(And if we are to err on who we are closest to... isn't it best to err closer to Scylla?)
Or would only a barbarian consider such an analogy apt?
But that’s not a very useful idea of equal, is it?
I don't know that there are plenty of different definitions of equal with some of them being more useful than others.
I can't help but think that if "equal" isn't the word you want, you probably want a different one rather than saying "I'm using the word differently, and more usefully, than you are".
It seems to me that the fundamental question of how many parts and pieces of Maslow's Pyramid am I responsible for making sure that you have has the answer of "more".
Always more.
Or, I suppose, the answer to the question of how many parts and pieces of Maslow's Pyramid you guys are responsible for making sure that I have is "more".
Always more.
That doesn't seem "fair" to me.
I agree that there is a floor. Sure. Now we're haggling. Okay.
But I would like it hammered out where the floor is and if it comes out that the floor is always, always moving, I don't see how it's not a decent counter-argument to point out how the floor has always, always been moving.
But I’ll turn the question on you and ask “Where” would people behind the veil of ignorance choose to be born? According to the literature roundups of the OECD and Australian Treasury, and the Human Development Index, people in the Original Position would not select the USA.
Dude. That's an awesome point. Well worth fighting over.
*WHY* would they not pick here? What could we do as a country to make sure they would do so?
At any point in the past, if given the opportunity, would they pick here? WHY? Does it have to do with our intrinsic properties or our relational ones?
I have *NEVER* been in a situation where I had wished that the government had taken me away from my parents.
Having been in such a situation would most likely change every single one of my world views. I know that.
I am taking a world view from the position of someone who is in a more or less (ask me about Watership Down) healthy relationship with his parents (one deceased, age 11).
It seems to me that the relationship between parenting and the government be one of the benefit of the doubt being given to parents pretty much every time there is any shadow of a doubt.
When Maribou and I lived in "Our First Apartment" ($300 + utilities/month; since boarded up), we lived next door to a family who had their children taken away. We had the benefit of listening to them, thanks to the thin walls, reunite after the children came back home from running away from their foster parents.
They fought to get away from their fosters to get back to their "real" parents (two pieces of work, I can't begin to tell ya).
It told me that what the government was doing, with the best of intentions, was misguided at best.
If we are going to take children from their parents, we need a much better foundation than the one we have now.
The fact that most people are broke doesn’t make them more equal.
My mind just blew.
What does "income equality" mean if not "most people in the country, certainly the ones who have to interact with each other" mean if not "most people having similar incomes"?
Wouldn't the majority of people being broke fit this model?
Historically, why wouldn't India, China, and Russia fit this model?
Given the equality of India, China, and Russia and comparing to the inequality of the, oh to pick a country out of a hat, ...se United States, I don't know that that is accurate.
Life can be hard. The answer is to do the best you can for yourself, your family, and your neighbors with what you’ve got. Never expect any gifts from on high, and make sure those gifts you do receive bear fruit that feeds many.
This is beautiful.
For my part, with the kids that I am blessed to be an "uncle" to, I try to buy books on Christmases and Birthdays. They explain to me that the Hulk toys are better than the children's collections of Wallace Stevens (this really happened!!! amazon.com/Poetry-Young-People-Wallace-Stevens/dp/1402709250 ) but I buy books for them anyway.
For some reason, of the eight children in our "tribe", all eight (!!!) are boys. Half have turned seven. The half that have, have received copies of Peter Frampton's Comes Alive! and a cd player if, for some reason, they don't already have one.
I cannot save every starfish. But I can do what I can with this one.
I don't know that it is. My ancestors lost their tobacco farm in Kentucky when the crops failed two years in a row. They had an outhouse. My great-grandmother could not read the Bible that she loved so much. They had to move to Michigan, of all places, where they were mocked as Hillbillies and made a new life there with indoor plumbing and everything.
There were a lot of things that happened to Detroit.
There were a lot of things that happened to Michigan.
There were a lot of things that happened to my family.
Perhaps my observations are outliers. Sure. I assure you, they're based on things that I've seen with my own eyes.
I'm just going to copy and paste my comment from 107 (it's 107 now, it may change later) here:
Have I ever said that you weren’t allowed to complain?
My God, man. Do you know me at all?
Jesus Christ. I have no idea where these people see my posting a comment on a blog post saying “here is how I see the world” as me dictating to them that their freedom of speech be squelched.
Hey, let me ruin your day and make you feel like your 4th Amendment rights have been violated: I had a really good dinner last night. Nachos.
Seriously, this is not helping me come to any conclusion but that it’s about how people feel inside as opposed to what’s actually happening.
Anyway, it seems to me that my responsibility to you, if any, has to do with me not infringing on your first level Maslow's needs and with me contributing to the existence of institutions that protect your access to the stuff we've in place to deal with the second level of Maslow's stuff.
For the most part, society has done that and done that quite well.
Where we have failed is primarily in provision of crappy education (and I have theories about how to make that better, believe me) and in societal cultivation of and reward for arrested development/prolonged adolescence (of which I am exhibit A).
It's not that I'm crazy about the status quo. It's that, historically, there are people who would *DREAM* of the level of poverty that we have achieved for our lowest quintile. There are those who still do. They die trying to get here.
That's an achievement.
I'm not saying we should rest on our laurels and stop trying to be better. Of course we should always try to be better. I don't know that where we are is necessarily immoral.
Also, it’s the bear, not the other thing ;)
I'll try to take as my duty to be more serious in these discussions.
First off, know that I don't have any kids. My wife and I are childless by choice. As such, my ideas about childraising are all speculative.
So, when you say "so why would I think you think the homeless should be entitled to anything but your scorn for not having the perfect parents?", let me ask you what any given child out there is entitled to.
Let's say that my wife and I have a kid. Mazel Tov! It's a mitzvah!
What are your responsibilities toward my child?
Asking the question makes me feel weird because my inclination is to say that my child is not any of your business.
Indeed, for all of the scorn you're heaping on me for not seeing The Children as entitled to the jetpack that I have not invented (and, most likely, will not invent), I wonder what else are The Children entitled to that I haven't invented.
Your anger is not directed at me for not paying taxes (which I do) and it's not for me not doing my best to be a good "uncle" to my friends' children (which I try to do)... it's for me not seeing The Children as entitled to something that doesn't exist.
For the life of me, I honestly don't see how in the hell they can be entitled to such a thing.
Should you have access to a government appointed attorney regardless of whether or not you can afford it, as of right? That’s what I meant about the less meaningful exercise of your right to due process without this complimentary positive right.
That's a good way to look at it. I suppose I would agree with this. The problem is that anybody who can afford it knows that they'd be better off with a private practitioner who hasn't gone out of business yet than a government-appointed one. Which likely indicates a problem right there. (Additionally, if someone is a prosecutor for 20 years, it likely means that they're very good at their job... if someone is a court-ordered defense attorney for 20 years, I don't know that it necessarily means the exact same thing.)
Did you mean on balance you favor more social mobility to more wealth/income equality?
Yes. Absolutely.
Because I think social immobility is in tension with equality, more social mobility requiring more equitable distributions and more unequitable distributions reinforcing social immobility.
Really? Because it seems to me that there's a lot more "equality" historically in places like India or China (entire swaths of the country in penury!) with a lot more "sticky" social strata. There is less equality, historically, in, oh to pick a country out of a hat, the US. I suspect that the same is true in Europe. The more equality in the country, the stickier. Now, of course, if you're stuck in the resoundingly large middle middle class, maybe you don't see this as such an imposition. That's a fair take too.
When it comes to phone, at least, he has an embarrassment of riches. Does he want an iphone? Does he want a land line? Does he want a cheap clamshell? Does he want to pay $20/month? $30/month? $99/month?
Is there any coherent way to look at this that isn’t a zero-sum game?
One can put oneself behind a veil of ignorance.
Let's say that you live in America. You don't know whether you'll be rich or poor, black or white, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Miscellaneous, Atheist, male, female, or other. You just know that you will be born in the US. You don't even know where, particularly. Maybe Alaska, maybe Wyoming.
What year would you most like to be born in, knowing that you might be poor and black? Knowing you might be female? Knowing you might be gay?
When I shuffle through the various upsides and downsides, I come to the conclusion that I'd always (without exception) rather be born later than sooner. The kids being born today? Man, they're going to have access to a lot of stuff that I'm never going to have access to. I have access to a lot of stuff my grandparents couldn't dream of dreaming of when they were my age.
Heck, let's not limit it to America.
Let's put you anywhere in the world. Maybe rich, poor, red, yellow, black, white, male, female, straight, gay, tall, short, or whtevs.
All you get to pick is the year.
Wouldn't you pick, at least, the year you were born and not before? Aren't you more likely to pick more recently than that than before?
Doesn't that indicate that there is more going on than rich people picking the pockets of the poor?
On “On the language of assumption”
When push comes to shove libertarians always manage to come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is less evil than the Democratic one.
Some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is less evil than either of them.
And some of them conclude that the Libertarian candidate is Bob Barr and then they go off and vote for Charles Jay.
Democrats, however, still defend stuff like Obama's targetted assassinations or signing statements or increased troop presences with arguments like "I didn't hear you complain when Bush was president!" despite, of course, all of the complaining when Bush was president.
But most libertarians hate ObamaCare.
Some of them see Congress's Affordable Care Act as regulatory capture given that the bill was written by insurance companies.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
That's Cecilia. I will likely write a post about her someday.
"
That makes sense I guess.
How do we get around that given our current predicament? It's not like we can say "we just need Democrats to take the House and Senate and then we can avoid such things as federal bailouts".
On “Liberal academics (part 2)”
If you're teaching continental drift accurately, what difference does it make if you're a young earth creationist?
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
What is political equality?
I assume it doesn't mean merely voting rights.
The ability to run for office? The ability to get a law passed? The ability to be appointed to a position?
On “On the language of assumption”
In the end, I am more and more in agreement with Kevin Carson that many of the gains for the corporate class in this country are due to artificial scarcities, subsidies, and rents they have captured with the help of the state.
This seems to hit the nail on the head.
Where I knit my brow is how laws that won't be yet another example of regulatory capture get passed. I don't see how that is going to happen.
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
I'm not trying to define it away. I am, however, trying to figure out the *NATURE* of the fundamental problem.
If we establish that the problem is one of distribution of wealth, that things would be much better if we redistributed, I'd be fine with that... but, if it comes out that we redistribute and, for some reason, much of the redistribution was rotted away by graft before it got to its final destination and, once it got there, was used in such a way that did not address the problem we were hoping to address (for example, if we gave a periodic sum of money to a homeless person who went on to spend the money on drugs and alcohol rather than on a bachelor's degree)... maybe we could agree that what we are doing is not accomplishing the things that we are hoping to accomplish and we should try something else rather than doubling down on what we're doing.
What do we want to accomplish?
Is what we are doing accomplishing what we want to accomplish?
If the answer to the second question is "no", is the main reason because of insufficient funding?
On “Labor Roundtable: Dreams of a Libertarian-Labor Alliance”
Too much focus on the collective at the expense of the individual has been done a handful of times in history as well.
Scylla and Charybdis seem a decent metaphor. Sure, let's say that life, civilization, The Children, and etc requires a balance of both.
Over time, have we drifted more to Charybdis than we have in the past?
Even if you want to criticize those for wanting to be sooooo close to Scylla that it be certain that folks be eaten, can we still acknowledge that maybe we ought to be a little less close to Charybdis than we happen to be right now?
(And if we are to err on who we are closest to... isn't it best to err closer to Scylla?)
Or would only a barbarian consider such an analogy apt?
On “The Middle Class Isn’t Dying”
Dude, nice post.
"
But that’s not a very useful idea of equal, is it?
I don't know that there are plenty of different definitions of equal with some of them being more useful than others.
I can't help but think that if "equal" isn't the word you want, you probably want a different one rather than saying "I'm using the word differently, and more usefully, than you are".
Because, at that point, I'm sooooo lost.
"
It seems to me that the fundamental question of how many parts and pieces of Maslow's Pyramid am I responsible for making sure that you have has the answer of "more".
Always more.
Or, I suppose, the answer to the question of how many parts and pieces of Maslow's Pyramid you guys are responsible for making sure that I have is "more".
Always more.
That doesn't seem "fair" to me.
I agree that there is a floor. Sure. Now we're haggling. Okay.
But I would like it hammered out where the floor is and if it comes out that the floor is always, always moving, I don't see how it's not a decent counter-argument to point out how the floor has always, always been moving.
"
But I’ll turn the question on you and ask “Where” would people behind the veil of ignorance choose to be born? According to the literature roundups of the OECD and Australian Treasury, and the Human Development Index, people in the Original Position would not select the USA.
Dude. That's an awesome point. Well worth fighting over.
*WHY* would they not pick here? What could we do as a country to make sure they would do so?
At any point in the past, if given the opportunity, would they pick here? WHY? Does it have to do with our intrinsic properties or our relational ones?
These things are important!
"
Dex, please understand:
I have *NEVER* been in a situation where I had wished that the government had taken me away from my parents.
Having been in such a situation would most likely change every single one of my world views. I know that.
I am taking a world view from the position of someone who is in a more or less (ask me about Watership Down) healthy relationship with his parents (one deceased, age 11).
It seems to me that the relationship between parenting and the government be one of the benefit of the doubt being given to parents pretty much every time there is any shadow of a doubt.
When Maribou and I lived in "Our First Apartment" ($300 + utilities/month; since boarded up), we lived next door to a family who had their children taken away. We had the benefit of listening to them, thanks to the thin walls, reunite after the children came back home from running away from their foster parents.
They fought to get away from their fosters to get back to their "real" parents (two pieces of work, I can't begin to tell ya).
It told me that what the government was doing, with the best of intentions, was misguided at best.
If we are going to take children from their parents, we need a much better foundation than the one we have now.
"
The fact that most people are broke doesn’t make them more equal.
My mind just blew.
What does "income equality" mean if not "most people in the country, certainly the ones who have to interact with each other" mean if not "most people having similar incomes"?
Wouldn't the majority of people being broke fit this model?
Historically, why wouldn't India, China, and Russia fit this model?
"
Given the equality of India, China, and Russia and comparing to the inequality of the, oh to pick a country out of a hat, ...se United States, I don't know that that is accurate.
"
I don’t think we’re in much danger of achieving “wealth equality” any time soon
Given that wealth inequality is seen as a problem, yea, a *MORAL* problem, I think it's a point worth addressing.
"
Life can be hard. The answer is to do the best you can for yourself, your family, and your neighbors with what you’ve got. Never expect any gifts from on high, and make sure those gifts you do receive bear fruit that feeds many.
This is beautiful.
For my part, with the kids that I am blessed to be an "uncle" to, I try to buy books on Christmases and Birthdays. They explain to me that the Hulk toys are better than the children's collections of Wallace Stevens (this really happened!!! amazon.com/Poetry-Young-People-Wallace-Stevens/dp/1402709250 ) but I buy books for them anyway.
For some reason, of the eight children in our "tribe", all eight (!!!) are boys. Half have turned seven. The half that have, have received copies of Peter Frampton's Comes Alive! and a cd player if, for some reason, they don't already have one.
I cannot save every starfish. But I can do what I can with this one.
"
I don't know that it is. My ancestors lost their tobacco farm in Kentucky when the crops failed two years in a row. They had an outhouse. My great-grandmother could not read the Bible that she loved so much. They had to move to Michigan, of all places, where they were mocked as Hillbillies and made a new life there with indoor plumbing and everything.
There were a lot of things that happened to Detroit.
There were a lot of things that happened to Michigan.
There were a lot of things that happened to my family.
Perhaps my observations are outliers. Sure. I assure you, they're based on things that I've seen with my own eyes.
And if life is absurd, take that up with God.
"
I'm just going to copy and paste my comment from 107 (it's 107 now, it may change later) here:
Have I ever said that you weren’t allowed to complain?
My God, man. Do you know me at all?
Jesus Christ. I have no idea where these people see my posting a comment on a blog post saying “here is how I see the world” as me dictating to them that their freedom of speech be squelched.
Hey, let me ruin your day and make you feel like your 4th Amendment rights have been violated: I had a really good dinner last night. Nachos.
Seriously, this is not helping me come to any conclusion but that it’s about how people feel inside as opposed to what’s actually happening.
Jesus.
"
non sequitur
"
It wasn't completely irrelevant! (pounds table)
Anyway, it seems to me that my responsibility to you, if any, has to do with me not infringing on your first level Maslow's needs and with me contributing to the existence of institutions that protect your access to the stuff we've in place to deal with the second level of Maslow's stuff.
For the most part, society has done that and done that quite well.
Where we have failed is primarily in provision of crappy education (and I have theories about how to make that better, believe me) and in societal cultivation of and reward for arrested development/prolonged adolescence (of which I am exhibit A).
It's not that I'm crazy about the status quo. It's that, historically, there are people who would *DREAM* of the level of poverty that we have achieved for our lowest quintile. There are those who still do. They die trying to get here.
That's an achievement.
I'm not saying we should rest on our laurels and stop trying to be better. Of course we should always try to be better. I don't know that where we are is necessarily immoral.
Also, it’s the bear, not the other thing ;)
I'll try to take as my duty to be more serious in these discussions.
"
Hey, Dex. I'll try to address this now.
First off, know that I don't have any kids. My wife and I are childless by choice. As such, my ideas about childraising are all speculative.
So, when you say "so why would I think you think the homeless should be entitled to anything but your scorn for not having the perfect parents?", let me ask you what any given child out there is entitled to.
Let's say that my wife and I have a kid. Mazel Tov! It's a mitzvah!
What are your responsibilities toward my child?
Asking the question makes me feel weird because my inclination is to say that my child is not any of your business.
Indeed, for all of the scorn you're heaping on me for not seeing The Children as entitled to the jetpack that I have not invented (and, most likely, will not invent), I wonder what else are The Children entitled to that I haven't invented.
Your anger is not directed at me for not paying taxes (which I do) and it's not for me not doing my best to be a good "uncle" to my friends' children (which I try to do)... it's for me not seeing The Children as entitled to something that doesn't exist.
For the life of me, I honestly don't see how in the hell they can be entitled to such a thing.
"
Should you have access to a government appointed attorney regardless of whether or not you can afford it, as of right? That’s what I meant about the less meaningful exercise of your right to due process without this complimentary positive right.
That's a good way to look at it. I suppose I would agree with this. The problem is that anybody who can afford it knows that they'd be better off with a private practitioner who hasn't gone out of business yet than a government-appointed one. Which likely indicates a problem right there. (Additionally, if someone is a prosecutor for 20 years, it likely means that they're very good at their job... if someone is a court-ordered defense attorney for 20 years, I don't know that it necessarily means the exact same thing.)
Did you mean on balance you favor more social mobility to more wealth/income equality?
Yes. Absolutely.
Because I think social immobility is in tension with equality, more social mobility requiring more equitable distributions and more unequitable distributions reinforcing social immobility.
Really? Because it seems to me that there's a lot more "equality" historically in places like India or China (entire swaths of the country in penury!) with a lot more "sticky" social strata. There is less equality, historically, in, oh to pick a country out of a hat, the US. I suspect that the same is true in Europe. The more equality in the country, the stickier. Now, of course, if you're stuck in the resoundingly large middle middle class, maybe you don't see this as such an imposition. That's a fair take too.
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
When it comes to phone, at least, he has an embarrassment of riches. Does he want an iphone? Does he want a land line? Does he want a cheap clamshell? Does he want to pay $20/month? $30/month? $99/month?
Options, options, options.
On “The Walker Roadmap”
Is there any coherent way to look at this that isn’t a zero-sum game?
One can put oneself behind a veil of ignorance.
Let's say that you live in America. You don't know whether you'll be rich or poor, black or white, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Miscellaneous, Atheist, male, female, or other. You just know that you will be born in the US. You don't even know where, particularly. Maybe Alaska, maybe Wyoming.
What year would you most like to be born in, knowing that you might be poor and black? Knowing you might be female? Knowing you might be gay?
When I shuffle through the various upsides and downsides, I come to the conclusion that I'd always (without exception) rather be born later than sooner. The kids being born today? Man, they're going to have access to a lot of stuff that I'm never going to have access to. I have access to a lot of stuff my grandparents couldn't dream of dreaming of when they were my age.
Heck, let's not limit it to America.
Let's put you anywhere in the world. Maybe rich, poor, red, yellow, black, white, male, female, straight, gay, tall, short, or whtevs.
All you get to pick is the year.
Wouldn't you pick, at least, the year you were born and not before? Aren't you more likely to pick more recently than that than before?
Doesn't that indicate that there is more going on than rich people picking the pockets of the poor?