Via Tyler Cowen
Well that’s quite a leap.
The article is quite stupid.
The article is quite stupid.
Cowen is a welfare statist. Not surprising.
Yeah, civil libertarians waste the time on the wrong sort of freedoms. Of course, it’s only people as decadent, greedy, and hedonistic as leftists who do waste time on frivolous civil liberties.
You don’t have a fundamental right to swim in some river or lake, when somebody owns it. Even if it is state-owned, it is owned by somebody who has the authority to make the rules there. A taxpayer as any other property owner does not want to see his scarce resource wasted by outsiders.
The tragedy of civil libertarians is that they don’t understand the basics of rules and authority where they are a genuine unchangeable part of life. Where leftists are hedonistic and greedy enough to demand cosy public sector jobs to take care of them and everything they need at taxpayer’s expenses, they will rush into demands of civil liberties to smoke in front of children and walk in G-strings in public once they are the ones who are asked to behave responsibly.
Hey Prateek,
and all socialists go to bed with plans of taking away all your money and spending it on lazy poor people, right?
Anyway; if you look to the bigger picture - ignoring the fact that he calls for regulation in stead of free market water supply - he makes a valid point. Given the world that we live in; more civil rights would be a good idea and the culture of suing people for your own silliness is a big problem in the USA.
The bigger problem I have with the article is more related to his central point: thinking that ‘the fear of liability’ that would drive in a more free market is the same as the current system. And even if it was; it would still be better then regulation. Because we have regulation now and still stupid litigation lawsuits.
“To generalise: for risks I can assess myself, I don’t want regulations that prevent me from doing as I please just because I might end up suing the government. For risks I can’t assess myself, I do want regulations that give me the confidence to do as I please.” <= If that were the general case; we would be one hell of a lot closer to liberty.
Firstly, I am not given to such alarmist thinking, and I find it petty among mainstream right-wing thinkers.
Secondly, that’s not even the definition of socialism, since socialism was just about having resources in a voluntarily organized community.
And thirdly, I’d be more than glad if my money was being given to poor people, “lazy” or otherwise, but it seems that governments across the world don’t even do that, and would rather waste that money in the military and thousands of useless programs. Most genuine socialists also know that neither the bureaucratic public sector nor the welfare state have helped the poor (socialist theory is primarily about increasing productivity).
Lastly, I understand libertarians pride themselves on their lack of manners, but I am astonished by such a statement with such a blatantly prosecutorial overtone, not to mention in its accusatory derisive nature.
Well, I share your criticism. And I would add that your post on civil libertarians is one prime example of it. 