The problem I have with philosophical libertarianism a la Boaz is this, what rights are self-evident? Philosophical libertarians believe that negative liberty as they define it are the self-evident rights and positive liberty is not. I and many other people look at the world and determine that positive liberty rights like the right to healthcare and education are self-evident because without them you get some rather horrible social situations and unfree society. I'm a firm believer in FDR's dictum that a necessitous person is not a free person and that great inequality is part of the path to dictatorship.
However, despite my belief that positive liberty is self-evident; I also believe that private property and relatively free markets are also a necessity. While I think that the evidence shows that government is good at providing services like healthcare, education, transport, and certain forms of recreation, its absolutely horrible at providing consumer goods and many forms of entertainment to people. Since people like consumer goods and entertainment, you need markets and commerce to give them to the people. You need private property rights to protect individual rights and privacy. There are plenty of people who do not think that this is self-evident and that the market and private property can be eliminated.
If the GOP wanted to be relevant again and still be conservative than they could do worse than looking back to the GOP during the 1920s. The GOP in the 1920s were largely shed of their liberal faction and were thoroughly corporate and pro-capitalist. At the same time, they weren't necessarily anti-government. They wished to use government to help business who would make America prosperous.
On social policy, the GOP needs to shed their culture war issues. They don't need to embrace libertinism but I'd argue that rather than being against same-sex marriage, they should support it as a tool of social stability. You can argue that same-sex marriage creates stable households for homosexuals and should be encouraged for doing it, turn same-sex couples into family units. Encourage them to adopt, etc. Basically, see it as a way to make them into bouregeoisie. A conservative but not hideous social policy would advocate for stability and social calm.
I agree, the Madisonian system works best when both parties cover a fairly wide ideological spectrum. When the parties get more ideological, the Madisonian system falls apart. When the Democratic and Republican Parties both had conservative, liberal, and moderate factions, our system worked very well. From about Grover Cleveland to very recently, all Presidents could rely on at least some support from the other party. There were Republicans that did support the New Deal. And yes, some issues can't wait. It took us fifty to hundred years, depending on how you count, to get even something resembling a national healthcare system to pass. Thats too long and it passed is barely adequate.
IMO, separating the legislative and executive branches is really stupid. You should either have a Parliamentary system with a Ceremonial Monarch or President or French style Semi-Presidential system. There needs to be some relation between the majority in the legislature and control of the executive though for a system to work.
Like I outlined above, I think that in the short and medium term the GOP doesn't really need to change. They just need to wait and let the American political system bring them back into power. The GOP has quite a lot of power thanks to our system even though they do not control the Presidency and the Senate. Abuse of Senate procedure and control of the House lets them gum up the work of government.
It took well over a decade of loosing elections for the Labour Party to get the message that they need to change in order to win. The UK's political system is more likely to cause a political party to change their ideology and reform themselves becasue the minority party is completely without power at the national level. The American system gives minority parties much more power, especially if they are willing to engage in loophole and rule abuse, lowering the incentive to change. They just need to wait.
I agree with this. The demographics for the GOP are disastorous in the long term but are very good in the short and medium term probably. The GOP's constiuents turn out to vote more regularly than the Democratic Party's constiuents. When you combine this with the voting restrictions and gerry-mandering put into place, the GOP can control several state governments and the House for years. The nature of the American political system, as you noted, makes getting the Senate and Presidency achievable sooner rather than latter. The GOP doesn't need to change to regain power, it just needs to wait. When the GOP does regain power, the results are probably going to be disastorous but thats only a temporary set back in our system.
I meant this to be a more of a country by country system rather than something implemented universally, which isn't really feasible bureaucratically or politically.
The other problem with personal responsibility is that lots of people take personal responsibility, do everything "right" with delayed gratification and hardwork and still fail miserably and have horrible things beyond their control happen to them. Personal responsibility does not protect against the vagrancies of life. It might help somewhat but it does not protect.
My personal belief is that every human should be entitled to a certain lifestyle in terms of material goods, education, and leisure simply because they are human. This minimal life style should be provided by state programs like public education, universal healthcare, public or at least subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. These shoudl be funded by a vigorous progressive income tax. If people want more they can either work for it or inherent the lifestyle if they are lucky and privileged enough.
The other problem with personal responsibility is that lots of people take personal responsibility, do everything "right" with delayed gratification and hardwork and still fail miserably and have horrible things beyond their control happen to them. Personal responsibility does not protect against the vagrancies of life. It might help somewhat but it does not protect.
My personal belief is that every human should be entitled to a certain lifestyle in terms of material goods, education, and leisure simply because they are human. This minimal life style should be provided by state programs like public education, universal healthcare, public or at least subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. These shoudl be funded by a vigorous progressive income tax. If people want more they can either work for it or inherent the lifestyle if they are lucky and privileged enough.
Well, as Paul Krugman put it, "for the wages of sin are death" is a more morally compelling message than "shit happens." Many Americans are of mystical if not religious bent and want the bad and good in life to have meaning. Thats why we react differently than other Western countries.
Adding to what Mike said, the Rabbis weren't interested in theological questions the way that Christian theologians were. The Rabbis were mainly concerned with what God expects of people in general and Jews in particular. Most of the Talmud are debates on the meaning and requirements of particular Mitzvah in the Torah. There is very little on the nature of God. This concern with what God expects is also why Judaism doesn't really focus that much on the afterlife beyond it exists.
I don't think it was better earlier. During the Gilded Age and New Deal, many of the corporate elite were similarly short-sighted. It's just that the politics worked out better for the non-elite for various reasons.
There is a certain amount of merit to this argument, Americans have certainly believed that their destiny is more in their control than many other people. Steinbeck once argued that socialism never took off in America because the American poor view themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. At the same time, fatalism isn't unknown in America nor belief that your fate is in your own hands in Europe. The American poor have demonstrated great capacity for fatalism. The socialist movement wouldn't have thrived in Europe if the European working class did not think that economic forces were out of their control.
DRS, I think the reason that there isn't the same moral discussion in other countries, which I presume you mean other Western countries, is because most European and Canadian conservatives conceded that they lost the 1960s. European and European conservatives were no more happy about the social changes of the 1960s than American conservatives.* Small town France and Germany probably saw the student movement through the same lens as small town America saw the hippies. The difference is that other Western conservatives do not believe that they can turn back the clock and undue the changes. Many American conservatives really do seem to think that the 1960s can be reversed if they wage war hard enough.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Comment Rescue: A Priorism in Libertarianism”
The problem I have with philosophical libertarianism a la Boaz is this, what rights are self-evident? Philosophical libertarians believe that negative liberty as they define it are the self-evident rights and positive liberty is not. I and many other people look at the world and determine that positive liberty rights like the right to healthcare and education are self-evident because without them you get some rather horrible social situations and unfree society. I'm a firm believer in FDR's dictum that a necessitous person is not a free person and that great inequality is part of the path to dictatorship.
However, despite my belief that positive liberty is self-evident; I also believe that private property and relatively free markets are also a necessity. While I think that the evidence shows that government is good at providing services like healthcare, education, transport, and certain forms of recreation, its absolutely horrible at providing consumer goods and many forms of entertainment to people. Since people like consumer goods and entertainment, you need markets and commerce to give them to the people. You need private property rights to protect individual rights and privacy. There are plenty of people who do not think that this is self-evident and that the market and private property can be eliminated.
On “Driving Blind: Crime Fiction and Strange Bedfellows”
And caloric.
"
Plus a million everybody. This gave me a really good laugh.
On “Grand Old Party Needs a Brand New Song”
Why isn't Spitzer a Republican than?
"
Nobody is that much of a masochist.
"
For thel love of all things good and holy, thats a really horrible idea.
"
If the GOP wanted to be relevant again and still be conservative than they could do worse than looking back to the GOP during the 1920s. The GOP in the 1920s were largely shed of their liberal faction and were thoroughly corporate and pro-capitalist. At the same time, they weren't necessarily anti-government. They wished to use government to help business who would make America prosperous.
On social policy, the GOP needs to shed their culture war issues. They don't need to embrace libertinism but I'd argue that rather than being against same-sex marriage, they should support it as a tool of social stability. You can argue that same-sex marriage creates stable households for homosexuals and should be encouraged for doing it, turn same-sex couples into family units. Encourage them to adopt, etc. Basically, see it as a way to make them into bouregeoisie. A conservative but not hideous social policy would advocate for stability and social calm.
"
I agree, the Madisonian system works best when both parties cover a fairly wide ideological spectrum. When the parties get more ideological, the Madisonian system falls apart. When the Democratic and Republican Parties both had conservative, liberal, and moderate factions, our system worked very well. From about Grover Cleveland to very recently, all Presidents could rely on at least some support from the other party. There were Republicans that did support the New Deal. And yes, some issues can't wait. It took us fifty to hundred years, depending on how you count, to get even something resembling a national healthcare system to pass. Thats too long and it passed is barely adequate.
IMO, separating the legislative and executive branches is really stupid. You should either have a Parliamentary system with a Ceremonial Monarch or President or French style Semi-Presidential system. There needs to be some relation between the majority in the legislature and control of the executive though for a system to work.
"
Like I outlined above, I think that in the short and medium term the GOP doesn't really need to change. They just need to wait and let the American political system bring them back into power. The GOP has quite a lot of power thanks to our system even though they do not control the Presidency and the Senate. Abuse of Senate procedure and control of the House lets them gum up the work of government.
It took well over a decade of loosing elections for the Labour Party to get the message that they need to change in order to win. The UK's political system is more likely to cause a political party to change their ideology and reform themselves becasue the minority party is completely without power at the national level. The American system gives minority parties much more power, especially if they are willing to engage in loophole and rule abuse, lowering the incentive to change. They just need to wait.
"
I agree with this. The demographics for the GOP are disastorous in the long term but are very good in the short and medium term probably. The GOP's constiuents turn out to vote more regularly than the Democratic Party's constiuents. When you combine this with the voting restrictions and gerry-mandering put into place, the GOP can control several state governments and the House for years. The nature of the American political system, as you noted, makes getting the Senate and Presidency achievable sooner rather than latter. The GOP doesn't need to change to regain power, it just needs to wait. When the GOP does regain power, the results are probably going to be disastorous but thats only a temporary set back in our system.
On “The Very Weird Tales of Steven Seagal”
Is that a joke or a news article? Its hard to tell these days.
"
Is that a joke or a news article? Its hard to tell these days.
On “Some mansplaining on women’s access to the workplace”
I meant this to be a more of a country by country system rather than something implemented universally, which isn't really feasible bureaucratically or politically.
On “The Very Weird Tales of Steven Seagal”
Moscow Art Theatre Zombies.
"
Segal's ancestors probably came over from the Pale of Settlement. It might be that.
"
Does Steven Segal actually believe any of this? Is he massively self-deluded or engaged in a really elaborate con?
On “Some mansplaining on women’s access to the workplace”
The other problem with personal responsibility is that lots of people take personal responsibility, do everything "right" with delayed gratification and hardwork and still fail miserably and have horrible things beyond their control happen to them. Personal responsibility does not protect against the vagrancies of life. It might help somewhat but it does not protect.
My personal belief is that every human should be entitled to a certain lifestyle in terms of material goods, education, and leisure simply because they are human. This minimal life style should be provided by state programs like public education, universal healthcare, public or at least subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. These shoudl be funded by a vigorous progressive income tax. If people want more they can either work for it or inherent the lifestyle if they are lucky and privileged enough.
"
The other problem with personal responsibility is that lots of people take personal responsibility, do everything "right" with delayed gratification and hardwork and still fail miserably and have horrible things beyond their control happen to them. Personal responsibility does not protect against the vagrancies of life. It might help somewhat but it does not protect.
My personal belief is that every human should be entitled to a certain lifestyle in terms of material goods, education, and leisure simply because they are human. This minimal life style should be provided by state programs like public education, universal healthcare, public or at least subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. These shoudl be funded by a vigorous progressive income tax. If people want more they can either work for it or inherent the lifestyle if they are lucky and privileged enough.
"
Well, as Paul Krugman put it, "for the wages of sin are death" is a more morally compelling message than "shit happens." Many Americans are of mystical if not religious bent and want the bad and good in life to have meaning. Thats why we react differently than other Western countries.
"
Thats only accordign to Kevin Smith. I'm in the George Burns school of thought.
"
Thats only accordign to Kevin Smith. I'm in the George Burns school of thought.
On “Sunday Evening Theism”
Adding to what Mike said, the Rabbis weren't interested in theological questions the way that Christian theologians were. The Rabbis were mainly concerned with what God expects of people in general and Jews in particular. Most of the Talmud are debates on the meaning and requirements of particular Mitzvah in the Torah. There is very little on the nature of God. This concern with what God expects is also why Judaism doesn't really focus that much on the afterlife beyond it exists.
On “Some mansplaining on women’s access to the workplace”
I don't think it was better earlier. During the Gilded Age and New Deal, many of the corporate elite were similarly short-sighted. It's just that the politics worked out better for the non-elite for various reasons.
"
There is a certain amount of merit to this argument, Americans have certainly believed that their destiny is more in their control than many other people. Steinbeck once argued that socialism never took off in America because the American poor view themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. At the same time, fatalism isn't unknown in America nor belief that your fate is in your own hands in Europe. The American poor have demonstrated great capacity for fatalism. The socialist movement wouldn't have thrived in Europe if the European working class did not think that economic forces were out of their control.
"
DRS, I think the reason that there isn't the same moral discussion in other countries, which I presume you mean other Western countries, is because most European and Canadian conservatives conceded that they lost the 1960s. European and European conservatives were no more happy about the social changes of the 1960s than American conservatives.* Small town France and Germany probably saw the student movement through the same lens as small town America saw the hippies. The difference is that other Western conservatives do not believe that they can turn back the clock and undue the changes. Many American conservatives really do seem to think that the 1960s can be reversed if they wage war hard enough.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.