I don’t see any difference between conservative or progressive. Neither annoys me more than the other.
It’s like a football game. The taxpayer is always on defense. The offense takes turns between Republican interventionism and Democrat socialism. The ball is always moving down the field against the taxpayer. The taxpayer continues to get pushed back with no rest. The R’s and D’s can at least tag team.
As for the R’s being more warlike, what about: Wilson (unnecessary), FDR (the last declaration), Truman (Korea, remember that one?), Johnson (how did his war turn out)?
Make no mistake, D’s love war. They say anything to get elected, just like R’s. As the economy continues to crumble, they will beat the drum for war like R’s do when it’s their turn. The D’s will say war is good for the economy when it comes to that.
I don’t know if I’d attribute prohibition to conservatives only. I think that’s both parties. Wilson was president when the 18th amendment was ratified. But then again FDR was president when the 21st was ratified. Possibly the only good thing he ever did.
So what of (1) society is in gradual evolution towards market anarchism and (2) people need to be cultured towards anarchism and (3) belief that the role of the State is to ensure the first two, at this point in the game.
I’m not really sure. But I will relay to you all a story.
"The future of humanity lies out in the stars. However, advances in technology also mean advances in weapons. It is unimaginable the kind of atrocities that can be performed with planet-busters.
“The best route to our own safety is as such the extermination of all extraterrestrial life. The prospects of allowing another race to reach a level to be a threat to us are far too dangerous. They must be wiped out before that can happen.”
“But that’s what we have, so it must be the best, right?”
We’re a social democracy?
If so a very weak one.
certain philosophers want to make all men equal to each other… -thereby pleasing people by putting nothing beyond their will. In the meantime rightists would write things like “egalitarianism as a revolt against nature” (which puts a limit on how far freedom can be taken and consequently proves offensive to man’s desires), and “democrcacy: the God that failed” or even more “the syllabus of errors”. All these latter works can be taken to glorify limitation and if I were a liberal -it would bespeak a certain stinginess and pessimism that could not possibly be the ideal of man
Well put (except the part I removed of course). That ^ is not something I would run from.
It’s like a football game. The taxpayer is always on defense. The offense takes turns between Republican interventionism and Democrat socialism. The ball is always moving down the field against the taxpayer. The taxpayer continues to get pushed back with no rest. The R’s and D’s can at least tag team
Whatever the Fed can get the government to spend money on. Dems spend more over time (Social Security, various welfare programs, some small cheap wars unless “provoked.” Reps spend more in very large bursts (Reagan/Bush, Bush II).
The most annoying philosophy to me, is one that is ignorant of the role of the Federal Reserve, and other central banks.
I think that people who are truly libertarian, are libertarian. Ultimately, that depends on what the definition of libertarianism is.
I don’t think it is possible for a libertarian to be someone who strives for maximum liberty, yet is not an anarchist, without them denying that anarchism is libertarian, in which case, I would say that tradition and logic are not on their side.
I tend to dislike any form of extremism in ideas (even libertarianism), but what really gets to me is forced egualitarianism; more specifically when they take something from the have’s just for the sake of making everything “equal”, even if the poor don’t benefit directly.
I recall a conversation with a friend of mine who was against using vouchers for schools (i.e. think M. Friedman) in favour of the current system (or, rather, Obama’s amazing new plan - notice the sarcasm). At any rate, she was initially worried that some parents would sell the vouchers to buy drugs (!?) for their kids. She eventually gave up on the nonsense and insisted people NOT have choice. why? because everybody would choose private schools since they are so much better. She then went on to say that we need to give more money to public schools to make them more competitive against private schools (basically to equal the “playing field”). Or, of course, the left who insist in raising taxes for the rich to “help” the poor (read this article and notice the sense of disdain the author has against lowering taxes for the poor - because the rich can also benefit!).
then, of course, there are the ultra conservatives who have to invoke the name of God for everything (rolls eyes)
Being predominantly free market (e.g., Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman) while also allocating a space for government is not necessarily contradictory and it’s most certainly not “dishonest.”
You are reducing thinkers of political economy to either “statists” or “libertarians”; you’re leaving out the nuance and the substantive disagreements that actually define these thinkers. I don’t believe, for instance, that someone that claims to be a libertarian and also favors a carbon tax is a “statist.”
Do you consider Gary Becker, for instance, a libertarian? If not, what other term (besides “statist,” since the ambiguity alone leaves it useless) would you use?
I think LS means he has a problem with buffet libertarians, who defend what they feel comfortable defending, and then default to the orthodox view on other issues. They seem to prefer safety to intellectual rigor. The Block/Friedman open letters is a good example. http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_4.pdf
You are right that a “minarchist” may have some sophisticated theory that leads him to support free markets under some circumstances and government in others, but he probably shouldn’t be identified as a free marketeer.
Thanks for that link! It’s immensely interesting so far.
Milton Friedman:
Your tone is that of a theologian examining scripture, not a social scientist tackling existing institutions to improve them, or an open-minded analyst of partial improvements. You treat Hayek as if he didn’t understand the simple largely a priori principles of economic analysis that constitute your armory. Truth to tell, he was trying to analyze a far more complex reality than you are prepared to admit exists. There are indeed market failures, externalities, conflicts of “ultimate” values, ruled out by logic but not by imperfect human understanding. Every question does not have a simple logical answer.
Gladly, a small cadre of theorists cannot centrally plan how communities define and use words; your severe limitation on how to use “free marketeer” (essentially, applicable only to anarchists) is an idiosyncratic usage; nothing more. Many people, for example, would consider Milton Friedman a “free marketeer” (who doesn’t even qualify as minarchist, probably).
My strategy with moderates is to point out that they are actually extremists compared to moderates in other countries and especially with moderates of other time periods. There is no safety in being a moderate from the perspective of history.
you either see government as a disease that must be flushed or you are part of the disease itself (a statist). Miniarchists and socialists are only different by a matter of degrees. Specifically, how much money they think “the government” (whoever that is) can steal from your pockets.
this is the only view one can hold and be logically consistant.
from an economics perspective, we know that government intervention can ONLY lead to outcomes that are inferior to market solutions. so there we have the “positive” argument for a stateless society. if you honestly believe that markets are not complete or that externalities and transaction costs exist, then you probably have not read MES.
and I have no need to rehash the “normative” arguments for a stateless society. quite simply, if you support the state then you are supporting death (loosely defined to be the state of disagreeing with me). This is a secret all students of philosophy know, but most are too dim or scared to admit it!
the only question is why does no one else i know agree with me? I mean this seems like a perfectly pleasent and understandable argument. The only conclusion I can think of is that everyone i know is either evil or stupid. of course they would never admit it (even when i asked). that’s exactly why i hate nuanced positions. those are basically ways of hiding the immortality or complete stupidity of one’s arguments.