I’d like to use this thread to post arguments that I’ve read relating to libertarianism, conservatism and Austrianism in general. These are arguments that I’ve found challenging to refute mainly because they seem to come from all directions and argue so many things at the same time. I’d be interested in having members here help me out in refuting them. If this thread seems very general, well, it is. But it will become more nuanced the more I find specific arguments.
I’d really like to play devil’s advocate here and point you all to this comments section of this discussion:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/05/milton_friedman_11.html
Specifically these arguments in various order, including all comments by the user Boonton. For one topic, I think these are specific arguments used by liberals and any left leaners to discredit the idea of what they call “free association” or a market solution relating to Jim Crow and the atmosphere in the South. They also seem to be general arguments against libertarianism in the form of Rand Paul’s candidacy.
To them government is the only answer and only the government could have solved these problems.
Now this is not really about Rand Paul, but about many of the ideas he holds, and arguments being used against them.
I’ll start with two arguments I’ve seen and would really like somebody to refute them as they’ve been bothering me. Yes I should be able to refute them myself, but lack the knowledge. I am still new to this community and to understand them from somebody more learned is my intention.
First argument.
David Hoffan writes:
Actually, baseball tried keeping more blacks out of MLB even AFTER Jackie Robinson had been signed.
This article from Biz of Baseball outlines the memo that circulated while Robinson was playing in Montreal. They didn’t want the NAACP to use baseball as a way lightning rod for integration elsewhere and cited protecting black baseball interests and a fear of “violence” by the increasing number of black fans as reasons to avoid it.
So yeah, let’s believe naively that “freedom of association” would’ve worked out. In hindsight, no it would’ve made things even worse than they are now.
Argument two, more along the general lines:
Boonton writes:
What are the functions of governments?
Do constitutions exist to answer that question?
The US Constitution says it exists to, among other things, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. It would appear to me that the Civil Rights Laws are quite libertarian in those lines and the rights of the Bill of Rights exist to bolster the Constitution’s preamble.
Now let’s go back to the ‘unfair’ charges of racism on Rand Paul. Perusing his positions, I notice the following are probably not part of libertarian orthodoxy:
1. Supports gov’t banning all abortion.
2. Does not support open borders and opposes any amnesty for illegal aliens. He offers no practical way for Mexicans to take jobs in the US or employers in the US to hire them nor does he offer the many illegals here a sensible way to become legal without impoverishing themselves and their families.
3. While he seems to support decriminalizing pot for medical purposes, he does not support drug legalization nor legalized prostitution. While he would allow individual states to persue these policies he doesn’t seem to think there’s any inherent right for these things to be legal either through the commerce clause or general notions of individual rights to property or trade.
To date I’m not aware of any serious criticism of Paul as racist. That’s a red herring, IMO, deployed by his supporters. Most liberals understand Paul’s odd back and forth on Civil Rights stems from his ideological blinders conflicting with his desire to get elected and not an attempt to send a signal to white racists that he is one of theirs.
But I think that both liberals and blacks (not that they are interchangeable) have a right to ask if noble libertarian principles are able to be selectively compromised for political practicality then why the refusal to play “Cafeteria Catholic” on civil rights? Drug legalization, an issue that would do much to enhance the cause of liberty by allowing Americans to be drastically less likely to have their lives abused by the criminal justice system, is ditched because that might cost some votes from orthodox Republicans…but ditching Civil Rights, a stance that will cost votes from all sides and no one serious wants to entertain must be kept in the name of principle?
A full blown orthodox libertarian might be worthwhile to elect to the Senate just for the sake of having an offbeat POV. But if libertarians want to go beyond ‘token clown’ status they should move beyond raw theory and start looking at the practical side of their positions.
(If a mod would show me how to quote, that’d be swell. Also I’ll continue posting arguments against a market solution for Jim Crow and general arguments that the market “could not solve” the problem of racism in the South).