"The market is not the best part of America. Not even close. Our government is the best part..."

Miscellaneous General
21

Yea, brain fart. My bad. I meant vertical. I prefer something along the lines of the spectrum Walter Block proposed in his speech on socialism and fascism. Which is basically “up” and “down”, where “up” is liberty" and “down” is tyranny, whereas “left” and “right” are just muddled inconsistancies or irrelevancies in between. The only real axis is liberty vs. tyranny or voluntaryism vs. coercivism. This makes a lot of sense to me. I also kind of agree with his “thin” libertarian analysis made in Block’s paper on libertarianism and culture, although I also tend to agree with Roderick Long’s “thick” libertarian approach on a more personal level.

I personally prefer voluntaryist “capitalists” to voluntaryist “socialists”, but in my political analysis I’m neutral to them. Because I don’t necessarily think that voluntary socialism would objectively or necessarily be less “free”. I always try my best to take a voluntaryist or anarchist without adjectives approach to matters, despite my clear preferance for more “capitalist” forms of organization. But then, stepping outside of the realm of economic organization, I tend to personally prefer much of what would be considered “leftist” tendencies (I.E. open or inclusive policies, resistance to racism, secularism, etc.). In either case, it should be quite obvious that I go out of my way to distinguish between the personal or preferential and the political. The more they mix or overlap, the more of a danger there is of subjugation in my view.

I’m not sure if “rightist” policies don’t create classes of dependants. I think they do, it’s just a matter of different interest groups being dependants. In the case of more “rightist” policies, the dependants just so happen to more likely be rich people, corporations and various select private interests. Of course, it could be argued that the “leftist” policies create larger groups of dependants made up of more “common” people. But I don’t necessarily see that as being worse. Why is corporate welfare better than peasant welfare? I don’t see how a dependant class of corporate elites is better than a dependant class of peasants or serfs. And I don’t conflate such elites with “natural elites”, which is an entirely separate thing, especially considering that “natural elites” would be in opposition to currently existing “corporate elites” in my understanding.

22

BrainPolice: Inquisitor understood (though disagreed) with my point about comparing policies.

If faced with the choice this election cycle, I’d take continuing the Iraq war over nationalized healthcare any day. Wars are ended much, much more easily than nationalized healthcare.

Before I go any deeper into the right-left debate, am I correct in assuming that you believe one is just as free under socialism as under capitalism? Or was that a typo?

23

We have different approaches to politics. I wouldn’t make such a pragmatic choice in the first place. I’d rather abstain entirely than choose between the two. I’m a proud non-voter. I also disagree that wars are better than national healthcare. Wars directly lead to the murder of people. National healthcare, of course, would probably lead to some deaths as well, but not in the same direct way in which a war would. The current war we are in has a huge price tag not only in dollars and debt but in blood. Wars are among the most expensive endeavors that a government can persue, and the warfare state essentially is a great big nationalized military industry. This site is full of information explaining how bad the warfare state really is from an Austrian economic perspective. Mises himself, of course, was fairly strongly anti-war.

I see no reason why to prefer foreign policies over domestic policies. And I don’t see how wars are ended easily at all. The majority of people in this country have turned against the Iraq War long ago yet it still goes on and probably will continue for many more years to come. The establishment, including the Democratic Party, has no interest in ending the warfare state anytime soon. It is an essential part of their bread and circuses and they depend on it for their very livelyhood. And even if the official war ends, military occupation will technically not end, as we have built the largest military base in the world over there. This will function as an incentive for more hostility against the U.S., which may very well lead to future wars. The warfare state is no light matter. It is arguably the central problem right now.

That really depends on which definition of “socialism” one is using. I reject “socialism” and “capitalism” as anti-concepts (hence my constant usage of quotation marks around the terms). I don’t necessarily accept the singular or cliche definition of socialism as government ownership of the means of production or a transitional stage towards state-communism. I grant that voluntary socialism is possible in the context of an anarchist society if everyone involved explicitly consents to join such a form of organization. I don’t personally prefer that, but if I would eggregiously violate my own principles if I opposed people’s liberty to voluntary organize into unions, co-ops, communes or what have you. They can go live as primitivists for all I care. So long as they don’t force me into it, I’m fine with it. Live and let live.

24

Amazing. It reminds me…

‘Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don’t care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!’

To put it another way, when asked what’s worse ? robbery or mass murder&robbery ? you answer : robbery. That must be some new kind of libertarianism…

25

I essentially agree with BP on most of the above. I think voluntary socialism is fine, just that it will not fare very well, and that a total system of socialism would collapse entirely. But if someone wishes to attempt it anyway, as they say, it’s their funeral. I agree with him that vested corporate interests can be every bit as difficult to “tear out” of the system as can be those of the common man. However, I do think that it is much harder to justify terminating welfare programmes to the average man than it is to justify ending corporate favoritism. I also prefer free market conservatives to most leftists, who haven’t a clue of even the most rudimentary economics. BTW, I think it is an understatement to say national healthcare will just kill some people. The inefficiency, distortions and corruption it will introduce will cost a lot of lives, or at the very least much well-being. However, war is still the worst of all possible evils.

26

It’s not as simple as “murder” vs “robbery”.

It’s “short-term murder and robbery” vs “never-ending robbery and never-ending subtle murder”.

Throughout history, there have been hundreds of thousands of wars, and all of them eventually come to an end. I don’t know of any cases of nationalized healthcare coming to an end (actually, privatizing of any industry is rare).

27

Privatizing of the military industry isn’t rare in modern times too?

28

“Short term murder” ? Do you mind explaining what’s that supposed to mean ? Frankly, you don’t seem to realize that you’re talking about people being killed. Try using your imagination. You come back home and find your house gone and your family and friends dead. How about it ?

Also, you should think about this :

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison.

29

I completely agree. It is much easier to convince a rightist than a leftist that sweatshops are a good thing or the minimum wage is a bad thing.

30

Then again, in contemporary politics, it is much easier to convince a “leftist” than a “rightist” that a war, a patriot act, a prohibition on an unpopular activity (such as drugs, prostitution, sodomy or gay marriage) or a government contract to a corporation is a bad thing. Unless one wants to confine oneself to anti-welfarism, I don’t see how the average “rightist” is particularly close to favoring laissez-faire or libertarianism at all (and quite clearly, strictly economic issues are not all there is to libertarianism).

Furthermore, in my experience, many sections of the paleo right are also firmly rooted in anti-capitalism. In particular, they love protectionism and unions. The likes of Pat Buchanan scare me. And the neocons? Ha! They may as well be called “foreign policy socialists”. As I’ve stated, the consensus on the right largely appears to be in favor of corporatism or corporate “socialism” and neo-mercantalism, not laissez-faire “capitalism”. Let us not be decieved by the conservative’s rhetoric.

31

Dating back to an earlier period than their names, the two political parties at first stood respectively for two opposed types of social organization, broadly distinguishable as the militant and the industrial — types which are characterized, the one by the regime of status, almost universal in ancient days, and the other by the regime of contract, which has become general in modern days, chiefly among the Western nations, and especially among ourselves and the Americans. If, instead of using the word “co-operation” in a limited sense, we use it in its widest sense, as signifying the combined activities of citizens under whatever system of regulation; then these two are definable as the system of compulsory co-operation and the system of voluntary co-operation. The typical structure of the one we see in an army formed of conscripts, in which the units in their several grades have to fulfil commands under pain of death, and receive food and clothing and pay, arbitrarily apportioned; while the typical structure of the other we see in a body of producers or distributors, who severally agree to specified payments in return for specified services, and may at will, after due notice, leave the organization if they do not like it.

Spencer - 1884.http://www.constitution.org/hs/manvssta.htm

32

That particular writting by Spencer plus Rothbard’s “Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty” is every illuminating on this topic. Also, Roderick Long’s speech “Left and Right: 40 years later”, which is a retrospective on the whole thing, is very illuminating as well.

33

Which government program is more likely to end: The Patriot Act or Social Security? The war in Iraq or (future) universal healthcare? I think in each case, it’s the former.

I agree 100% that neocons are scum (especially neocons who call themselves libertarian). Still, because voters aren’t receiving dollars from neocon programs, it’s much easier to end those programs. Why do you think it is that Social Security hasn’t ended yet?

34

Mises : It is noteworthy to remember that British socialism was not an achievement of Mr. Attlee’s Labor Government, but of the war cabinet of Mr. Winston Churchill. What the Labor Party did was not the establishment of socialism in a free country, but retaining socialism as it had developed during the war and in the post-war period.

This is interesting too : http://mises.org/daily/1450

35

I generally tend to agree with the conversion argument; that a fiscal conservative is more likely to be converted into a libertarian than is a social liberal (this is, of course, based on a subjective view of what’s more libertarian and what’s not).

BP, you make a good point, namely, that to say which politicial philosophy is “less” libertarian purely depends on what libertarian principles you or I hold above others (humor the idea of ranking various libertarian principles).

I tend to sympathize with capitalist for a couple of reasons. First, I find it far easier to relate and have intelligent conversation with the average conservative than with the average liberal. While you make a good point in stating that conservatives harbor just as many anti-libertarian views as the typical liberal, e.g. drug prohibition or war; like capitialist, I distinguish between the “quality” of the anti-libertarian views held by conservatives versus liberals.

As I see it, those anti-libertarian views held by liberals are even further from reason than are those same types of views held by conservatives. I perceive the deep-rooted nature of emotional irrationalism to be far greater in socialistic type policies like welfare, etc. While emotional irrationalism also exists among those who favor war it seems to me that it is not as ignorantly rooted as are those beliefs in socialism.

The argument of the socialist, in my view, tends to be as superficial and indefensible as is conceivable.

This whole argument is simply a judgement call, that is, at least, if you’re willing to argue for on or the other. For me it simply boils down to one rather simple fact. The typical liberal abhors the free market where as the typical conservative does not (at least less so). As it is this principe which I hold to outdistance any other, I tend to sympathize with conservatives more than liberals. While war is against libertarian principles it does not, at least fully, contradict a belief in the magnificence of the free market. The whole motto of the typical liberal is anti-free market.

It is clear that the concept of war is far more important than the free market to many self-proclaimed libertarians. I don’t think it would be an over-statement to say that much of Ron Paul’s support came from such “libertarians”. What I find so dissapointing however, is that many of these “libertarians” could care less about the free market nor what it entails.

36

Yet the modern imperial warfare state is in opposition to the free market. It does contradict a belief in the free market because it is not a free market phenomenon or activity. It is a great big nationalized industry that is maintained through the exact same kind of mechanisms as the welfare state. It requires the imposition of taxation, the use of monetary inflation and a policy of perpetual borrowing. It involves the exact same kind of socialism as domestic policy because it involves the building of the exact same type of infastructure overseas, and what amounts to welfare benefits for those involved in the military. Its effects also bleed over into domestic policy, making us less free at home. It is “military socialism”. It involves just as much central planning and government bereaucracy as any domestic program.

Opposition to the warfare state has always been a fundamental feature of libertarianism. Was Walter Block wrong in quite boldly and repeatedly proclaiming that favoring pre-emptive war basically makes one cease to be a libertarian, as it is a blatant violation of the non-aggression principle? Is libertarianism not a broad political philosophy, rather then merely an economic doctrine? What does a rhetorical devotion to laissez-faire mean when one actually advocates perpetual war, theocracy, mercantalism and “social” authoritarianism? That’s how I see contemporary conservatism for the most part. A great big contradiction in terms that tries to sell itself with libertarian-ish rhetoric.

As far as I can tell, many conservatives actually do believe in state-socialism in terms of the substance of the positions that they advocate. In the name of anti-communism and anti-terrorism, they seem quite content in supporting what amounts to a leviathan socialist state involving all sorts of economic meddling. The economic meddling gets a green light in the present so long as the goal is to defeat the bad guys. So what happens? The state grows just as much, if not more so, than it would have if “liberals” would have been at the helm. What happens when one boogeyman has gone away? A new boogeyman is erected in its place and the cycle of interventionism repeats itself and continues.

To me, there is no real reason to separate the issue of war from the free market. The state’s warfare apparatus can easily be opposed using free market principles, especially considering that it’s a great big “socialist” experiment and product of the progressive era. But furthermore, I see no reason why libertarianism should be treated as if it were solely a matter of utilitarian economics. It most certainly is not so confined or limited. It is a broad political philosophy that involves far more than economic ideas. Sometimes such a strict and limited devotion to economics neglects an ethical and broader philosophical treatment of matters. I may take a lot of flack for saying this, but perhaps sometimes we should take our free market caps off for a moment and use our noggins as libertarians rather than economists.

37

BrainPolice, I don’t think that we’re going to agree.

In a democratic system, it’s easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is “government money” that should be spent on welfare!

38

I don’t see any reason why it should be easier to dismantle the warfare state. It involves just as much government meddling, central planning and bereaucracy. Furthermore, I don’t consider the imperial warfare state not to be a social welfare system in and of itself. It’s just one that happens to benefit different groups or interests (wether that be the generals, soldiers, select corporations, foreign dictators, government bereaucrats, etc.). Why should it be any easier to ween these interest groups off of their welfare than the domestic peasantry? And are they somehow more deserving of it?

39

Block’s point that if one is to believe in pre-emptive war than he shall seize to be libertarian is some sort of objective ultimatum which lacks a certain insight.

I think it less admirable to knowingly despise and abhor the free market because of its ostensible horrific effects on humanity than it is too believe in a war which you perceive to be a necessary evil for the preservation of freedom. At least in the second case freedom, in the true sense, is still the ultimate end of the individual in question. True, their perception of the proper means for that end may be in error but the end, freedom, is present nonetheless; in the former case it is not.

I agree that many conservatives, perhaps most, are far from free market advocates in the true sense, although on the whole, I would say closer than the average liberal.

40

Please. Public support for an active war (excluding foreign occupation) tires much easier than its support for the welfare state. It’s consequences are far easier to perceive.