A Letter to a Washington Radio Station

While I agree with your conclusion here I think it's important to note that the following description is not entirely accurate: "'liberals' long for Washington to design and control the economy in great detail. Modern conservatives look to government to engineer the polity’s moral tone..."
Both sides of that conjunction are true however, as is often the case in other descriptions of the two controlling groups in DC, you only ascribe the engineering of a moral tone to the conservatives. Though it is true that they do attempt to prescribe moral behavior through policy making let us not forget or be want to dismiss the fact that the liberals are as guilty if not more so guilty of this moralizing than are conservatives. The entire welfare state is the product of politicians bent on forcing their moral point of view — that we are our brother's keeper — on the rest of us. Our current president has even used those words exactly to describe why health care reform and other programs that exhibit the coming/here largesse of the state is needed. The entire "liberal" enterprise is predicated on a distorted morality that it is the weak for whom we should produce, that it is the weak who are an end in themselves and it is the producers who serve to provide the weak with their well-being. It is a distortion of the facts to apply the description of political moralizers only to the right when in fact that is a lynch-pin of the entire leftist/progressive agenda.

An example of how the state serves justice on behalf of the people.

"Tom Colburn and other Family cult member actually serving in positions of high power is creepy beyond all thought. Most of the part doesn't believe in evolution and their heros are guys like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly... some truly sick ignorant nutjobs. These are the personality types that literally become the Taliban when conditions are right."

muirgeo,

You're a smear merchant and nothing more.

Are you telling me you're OK with these creeps? Do you even know of Catholic cult called The Family???

Wow! Bravo. Forget that other recent piece people were raving about; this is it. I try repeatedly in vain to get this point across to my politically unidimensionally-inclined friends, and I don't think I could have said it better.

Let's face it, Don:

We libertarians are represented, for the most part, in proportion with to our percentage of the population....maybe a bit better or worse at times depending on the issue. But a few scattered people like Ron Paul or Jeff Flake and a scant few others who actually generally vote even somewhat somewhat like we would wish is about all we are going to get. It's sad but it is what it is. We will continue to be at the mercy of the people you describe.

BTW, the Republican in the comments above (mark?) who criticizes Don for pretending he is above the fray is seriously underestimating the lot of folks he claims to be part of. I hold the GOP in very low regard...just like the Dems. The only reason they give the illusion right now of being principled on some issues is because they are simply disagreeing with legislation the Dem majority is push. How nice. But I'm not fooled. You may be a libertarian-leaning conservative Republican. Good for you. If you have to be a Republican, it's the better kind I suppose. But don't poo poo on others who don;t see common cause with your party because you think they should. NO. we shouldn't and we don't. Most GOP pols are NOT like you and most GOP voters are nothing like either one of us. They are more like Muirgeo on many, many ideals and issues. They want government....lots of it and are very interventionist. Believe it. It's true.

PS: Muirgeo is still spewing nonsense for its own sake. It never learns. Stupid.

"Nonsense for its own sake"...is there no higher goal in life?

Let's face it, Don:

We libertarians are represented, for the most part, in proportion with to our percentage of the population...



Now that's absolutely false. Your philosophy is a great tool used by the wealthy elite ruling class to get middle class tools to do their bidding proclaiming they stand for liberty. Yes the wealthy elite love your philosophy and your service to their cause. Goldmann Sachs, AIG and all those Wall Street firms salute you as do all the Fed Bankers proclaiming true belief in unfettered markets and the cause of middle class libertarians.

ANother thing:

You suck. You suck at reading, you suck at understanding, you suck at giving any effort to let your pea brain open up and absorb that you don't quite grasp because of your ridiculous filter bias.

Face it, jerk: after reading and responding to countless posts by Don and Russ, you still don't get libertarianism and continue to confuse it with whatever notion of power abuse and/or corporatism that you have and cling to. You simply suck. Either that or you are one of the most obtuse and deliberately argumentative jackasses I ever seen.

Can you really be this dense? Can you be this galactically stupid??

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

According to Wikipedia, Osmium is the densest natural element. I suspect that if scientists are ever allowed to study Yasafi's brain they may have to revise their charts.

Muirduckium!

Rather than having a nice ring to it, it has a dull,stolid thud!

How can you be so unbelievably stupid. I swear you cannot possibly be for real. What you describe is abuse of government power in favor of the privileged class. That is NOT free market in any way.

You been wasting people's time here for too long to still genuinely misunderstand what we are all about. No excuses. You fail.

Your philosophy is a great tool used by the wealthy elite ruling class...

The wealthy elite do not act for the most part like libertarians nor do they advocate anything like a libertarian philosophy. The wealthy elite are for the most part Democrats and Republicans, and they advocate the policies of Democrats and Republicans.

exactly. They are simply in the business of being predictable human beings:

Always looking for an easier way.

The problem is that when it comes to government power, the easier way involves using coercion to avoid difficulties that should be endured or collect more reward than is justified. That's what it's all about. That is what politicians serve as for those with the power and money to buy access. That is NOT free market philosophy nor classical liberalism nor libertarianism. That is crony capitalism and corruption of power...power that should not be given to ANYONE.

Muirgeo, the blithering idiot and utter jerk that it is, refuses to allow itself to understand this point.

Your philosophy is a great tool used by the wealthy elite ruling class to get middle class tools to do their bidding proclaiming they stand for liberty. Yes the wealthy elite love your philosophy and your service to their cause.

Wonderful point muir. Our philosophy is supported by such giants as Al Gore, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, David Blood, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, and the list goes on an on. They all have giant hearts that bleed billions. Libertarians have nothing, they just have wealthy elites, but do they have any billionaires supporting their programs? How many are theire. I betcha, not many.

We win muir. Love you.

mmmmmwwwwaaahhhh

Unfettered markets? Are you posting from an alternate world?

I don't understand how anyone can be so self dishonest.

Are you using the leftist dictionary?

Fed Chairmen are for "unfettered markets." lol at muirgeo. I see stand-up in your future.

King of the Straw Man slayers.

indeed.

I don't recall a lot of pro-bailout positions coming from the libertarian movement. Perhaps you can provide some of the many examples?

Muirgeo supported the bailouts by helping to vote Wall Street into the executive branch.

Even if our philosophy is "used by the wealthy elite," that means nothing as far as the validity or veracity of such a philosophy; just because it is abused and misused and misrepresented doesn't mean it is false. You are just too procrustean to make any distinction here; your rigidity of thought precisely precludes the very possibility of thought for you. STOP PRETENDING THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT THE BAILOUTS. YOU ARE A GRADE A MORON, AS THE FDA WOULD CLASSIFY YOUR GROUND MEAT FOR BRAINS.

As far as votes in DC are concerned, sometimes the GOP, as a general group, cast the votes we like...sometimes it's the Dems that do our bidding. But oftentimes, it's neither. That's just the way it is.

Libertarians are opposed to power they just want the power to be held in private hands.

Its about eliminating the exploitation of human beings. I have no problem with power such as the personal power to make my own choices, or the pricing power of a producer with a good product. I do have a problem with power that exploits others.

And no, I don't believe that government must necessarily exploit others just because it always has. Is that naive? Perhaps. But certainly no more naive than a belief in "the people".

P.S. It is interesting that you use the term "the power". It speaks volumes. An inherent belief in authority above all, for starters. New religion. Same old belief.

Government doesn't do anything. It enables people to do certain things, like exploit other people. In fact, that's why political government was created.

'Government' was formed when revolutionaries seized private land off private owners and put into public hands - the forerunners of today's societies. Libertarians might say the revolutionaries 'socialised' land ownership thus forming government.

How did private land owners hold land from others except by forming a government to enforce boundaries?

History shows that governments were formed by invasion. The successful invaders formed monarchies, which are of course, a type of oligarchy. England is a notable example of this.

With successive generations, the conquerors became venerated by the conquered. This is demonstrated by the affection with which the English shower their monarchs.

Libertarians aren't opposed to power . . .

"And these “power skeptics,” as we might call them, are far more willing than are “liberals” and conservatives to let individual men and women choose their own courses in life"

Don B


I think they believe they are for individual choice but are blinded to the fact that their ideas lead us back to the 1850's when corporations made all the rules from the hours you worked to providing starvation wages and no benefits.

And you mischaracterize what the modern liberal/progressive wants. We don't want the government planning everything. We want a government who's power is diffused among the people and representative of the people. We want a government that takes back power from the wealthy elites, that minimizes concentrated power and diffuses power among all people. We want a government WE use to solve the age old problems of concentrated power and that's a government Of, By and For the People... It's far more liberating than Multinational Corporate rule or Aristocracy or Serfdom... the logical end results of libertarian policy which are in no way liberating.

Of course the world unfolding before us is the world libertarians want or at least the one their principals will ALWAYS undoubtedly lead to... that being rule by Multinational corporations. But I have faith that societal evolution will send us ultimately on a the much more equitable, meritocratic and efficient path that most of the people of the world would want, being liberal as they are.

"We don't want the government planning everything."

Examples?

This internet.

The government did not plan the internet.

Re: "We want a government that takes back power from the wealthy elites, that minimizes concentrated power and diffuses power among all people. We want a government WE use to solve the age old problems of concentrated power and that's a government Of, By and For the People... It's far more liberating than Multinational Corporate rule or Aristocracy or Serfdom... the logical end results of libertarian policy which are in no way liberating."

I think what they don't realize is that first sentence - that to deny power to the people is to leave it in the hands of people who will exercise power of their own accord. I'm almost done reading John Ferling's "A Leap in the Dark", which is just a general history from the early resistance to British rule through Jefferson's election, and what's amazing to me is how much the early small-government faction - Jefferson and especially Madison - really come across as proto-Marxists. The point of decentralized power and limited government (which Americans DO support) for them is precisely what you highlight - to deny the concentration of wealth and power. Who was worried about economic inequality in the early Republic? It was Jefferson and Madison. Who engaged in what we would call "class warfare"? It was Jefferson and Madison. Now, I don't entirely agree with the Jeffersonian and Madisonian program. It would have been nice to have a central bank continuously operating in the U.S. since the 1700s. I'm obviously a fan of the use of public debt. But the point is that no one - neither Hamilton nor Jefferson - was advocating a point of view that we would call "libertarian" now. To a large extent, that was a European import (along with a lot of other "-isms" that we got from them).

It's amazing to me that people here can be so on target when they talk about emergent institutions like the market, but for some reason they pretend that only that emerges but everything else is artificial. It's not! Our system of government has evolved with the market. Sometimes it's gotten worse, but often we've made corrections. But we have an emergent institution that has worked brilliantly well, and that works with the market to safeguard our liberties and our prosperity.

BTW, as I recall, Ferling's discussion of Madison and a number of figures is based largely on secondary sources. It is an overview text as I recall. I've never read it myself; but I've read plenty of reviews of it.

Yes, it is an overview. That's what first attracted me to it, actually. Sometimes my reading selections feel like they miss the forest for the trees, and it's good to just read a broad history.

What I've liked best about Ferling (as evidenced by the title), is the way he emphasizes the uncertainty that clouded every step of the way. Too often history is looked at with 20/20 hindsight. We know what will happen, so we don't see the angst in a lot of it. He goes to great lengths not just to explain what happened, but what people thought might happen - and how that influenced their behavior. He really shows how it very much was a "leap in the dark".

What I've liked best about Ferling (as evidenced by the title), is the way he emphasizes the uncertainty that clouded every step of the way.

That's been part of the scholarship since I was an undergrad in the early 1990s; indeed, the notion of the contingent nature of history is broadly speaking a direct reaction to the various determinist schools that were so dominant in the early part of the 20th century (Marxism being the most prominent, but there are others).

The point of decentralized power and limited government (which Americans DO support)...

Actually, they don't. The evidence for my assertion is all around you.

...to deny the concentration of wealth and power.

Accept to themselves. By the time 1787 rolls around the majority of the revolutionaries were counter-revolutionaries; they were for centralizing power - indeed, many, like Madison simple wanted to abolish the states entirely and create one large federal republic.

What I always love is how a person of education reads a single book and decides, "Aha! I know the period perfectly." I would suggest - for example - that you not take Ferling's portrait of Madison at face value. Madison has gone through many iterations throughout the years, and Ferling's is merely one reading of the man.

Since you recently asked me for a different sort of reading list ... I'd be more than happy to provide you a list of important primary and secondary sources on the period.

Re: "What I always love is how a person of education reads a single book and decides, "Aha! I know the period perfectly." I would suggest - for example - that you not take Ferling's portrait of Madison at face value. Madison has gone through many iterations throughout the years, and Ferling's is merely one reading of the man."

Wow, that's condescending. I don't take his portrait at face value, and I don't know the period perfectly, and that is hardly the only book I've read on the period. Ironically enoguh, given your final paragraph, it was the primary citation of some of Madison's concerns about the wealthy and about concentrated wealth that were the most striking to me. I haven't closed the book on Madison, mommsen1625. I know you like to think of yourself as a brilliant historian, but you really don't need to tutor the rest of us. I think he exhibits some tendancies and ideas that would later attract people to socialism. Then again, those concerns would attract people to a host of other schools of thought as well.

I have a long list of books waiting to read - I think I'll be fine selecting my own to cover the period. It's always nice to hear your suggestions and I appreciate the offer, but don't offer out of condescension or assumption.

Madison goes through at least four changes in his thought throughout his life; Madison the revolutionary is very different from Madison the Constitutionalist from Madison the President.

I think he exhibits some tendancies and ideas that would later attract people to socialism.

Since socialism is one of the children of classical liberal thought that isn't very surprising at all. There is very little that is original about socialism; even Marx's historical dialectic cribs Smith's notion of historic periodization based on the type material exchange.

So you go from accusing me from being naive and sophomoric to suggesting that what I'm saying "isn't very surprising at all"? Well I agree with your second position - that my point about Madison isn't very surprising at all.

My second position doesn't contradict my first. If you want to see other notions that later percolate on down to socialists just read Thomas Paine (there are a number of nice collections of his work) - Paine remained a committed advocate of markets, property and limited government throughout his life however.

In other words, neither Madison nor Paine were socialists, and trying to paint Madison as a proto-socialist is just, well, stupid. It is the sort of thing that Marxist/Soviet "scholars" tried to with all manner of historical figures - trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

You're right - Paine is another great example of that sentiment at the time.

I agree with you neither of them were socialists. But it's not stupid to call them "proto-socialists". In other hands at a future date, their ideas would contribute significantly to the emergence of socialism. They aren't socialists. If they were, I wouldn't call them proto-socialists, I'd call them socialists!

Marxism didn't spring up out of thin air, Mommesn1625. It had antecedents. You don't justify Marxism merely by recognizing those antecedents. Adam Smith, Hegel, French and American radicals, all of these people fed into the socialist brew that gave us Marx. You have a very morality play/good versus evil view of history. That's not how history works. It's possible for me to embrace Madison's dedication to liberty and decentralized government, and his support for a meaningful federal government, at the same time that I wonder about the wisdom of his preoccupation with wealth inequality. It's possible for me to do this, and recognize his ties to later socialists, and still personally disagree with later socialists (which I do).

You have a very morality play/good versus evil view of history. That's not how history works.

People who think about history, write about it, etc. at all levels are constantly making moral judgments and that is perfectly appropriate.

I never said making moral judgements was inappropriate.

But it's not stupid to call them "proto-socialists". In other hands at a future date, their ideas would contribute significantly to the emergence of socialism. They aren't socialists. If they were, I wouldn't call them proto-socialists, I'd call them socialists!

Yet socialists abandoned the bulk of their principles; which is a far more important development in the long and short run.

Marxism didn't spring up out of thin air, Mommesn1625. It had antecedents.

No shit. Gee, what did I write about Marx cribbing from Adam Smith?

You have a very morality play/good versus evil view of history. That's not how history works.

Actually, it is exactly how history works.

...at the same time that I wonder about the wisdom of his preoccupation with wealth inequality.

I don't believe Madison was terribly preoccupied with such; it really isn't reflected in the private correspondence of his that I have read, nor is it something that troubled him much throughout his career. Though there is some discussion of such in "The Federalist Papers," however, the opinions stated there need to be taken with a grain of salt. The opinions are also not terribly important either; those works getting little play outside of New York.

re: "Yet socialists abandoned the bulk of their principles; which is a far more important development in the long and short run."

If it makes you feel better, I think of him as a proto-libertarian too. Of course they abandoned the bulk of their principles. We aren't clones of our forebearers, and the circumstances in which we live are hugely different from our forebearers. I'd be surprised if we didn't abandon much of what they said and thought.

Political power is perniciously corrupting.

But we have an emergent institution that has worked brilliantly well, and that works with the market to safeguard our liberties and our prosperity.

And libertarians get accused of living in la la land?

Very good again. Especially that last paragraph. There is emergent order on so many levels. The libertarian economist is too narrowly focused and thus the quip that they know the price of everything ad the value of nothing. It''s like trying to explain all of chemistry using only the carbon molecule and ignoring all the other elements.

Some emergent orders are much better than others. After all, the Napoleonic order was emergent; he didn't come to power in a day; but who wants to defend that exactly?

An emergent order where the market is on top is better than an emergent order where it is not; where it is not you get places like Zimbabwe.

Slay your straw men.

Right, corporations made all the rules even though they all were in competition for laborers. And do you think that maybe these supposed "starvation wages" were due to the fact that the entire world was much, MUCH poorer back then than today? And if they were truly "starvation" wages, how could corporations keep operating or retain workers when they were all dying off? Doesn't seem like a smart course of action on the part of corporations; apparently the profit motive was none too strong with them.

Wouldn't "starvation wages" lead inevitably to a shortage of workers which would by necessity transfer the bargaining power unilaterally to the laborer and thereby raise the equilibrium wage rate to the point of non-starvation? Huh. Nevermind. Keep thinking your stupid bullshit.

We want a government who's power is diffused among the people and representative of the people.

You say that's what you want, and you probably believe that's we'd have if things were run the way you think they should be run, but the incentives inherent in a political hierarchy will always take things where we don't want to go.

Well sure and thus Ben Franklin's " A Republic if you can keep it". We need to keep it.

It would be alot easier to keep if we hadn't already lost it.

What you don't realize is that Ben Franklin was a socialist that thought the state was omnipotent because he dared to even believe that human self-government was possible. The jerk should have known that government ALWAYS devolves into tyranny.

After all, what did Ben Franklin or any of his contemporaries know about tyranny!?!?!

These guys knew the risks of engaging in self-government better than anyone, and they thought that a limited representative government that was constrained but still empowered to serve the people was worth a try. I do too.

All governments end up, fairly quickly, as oligarchies.
Government does not serve "the people".
Ben Franklin didn't know about the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

Just because a socialist that got disillusioned with socialism called his attempt to make sense of his disappointment an "iron law" doesn't actually make it an "iron law", Sam. For someone that so easily dismisses the long-considered opinions of experts in various fields, you sure do have a conspicuous tendancy to latch on to the pet-theories that confirm your own disposition.

Franklin knew more about the risks of power, the constraint of power, and the value of liberty and how much it's worth fighting for than you or I could ever hope to. Who cares about your iron law of oligarchy and the socialist ego-stroking that it was first conjoured up to assuage?

All forms of government are oligarchical. It's unavoidable given the nature of man and the incentives inherent in power hierarchies.

I came to that conclusion before I heard about the Iron Law of Oligarchy.

The idea that a large, powerful, complex government can be effectively managed by the people assumes that the people will be united in their intent to manage the government.

But such a government, with the ability to command resources and people, leads to conflict among the people as various interests seek to use political power for their own ends at the expense of others.

The resulting lack of unity leaves management of the power structure in the hands of those whose are able to spend their time and energy toward obtaining or influencing the agency of power.

Thus, government can be managed by "the people" only if it is constrained to those functions for which there is near universal support.

The U.S. government has long since escape such containment.

I don't need to explain how "the people" are disunited.

There is no "the people" to manage government.

You seem to be describing a republic, which humans have operated for millenia. An oligarchy presupposes that the self-selected cabal that runs the government aren't answerable to the people. That's very different from a group of leaders who manage the government being chosen from among the people and answerable to the people.

Oligarchy presupposes no such thing. Oligarchy means rule by a few, as opposed to a monarchy, rule by one.

I don't care how it's dressed up. Even monarchies are oligarchical in that a monarch is not able to rule without the support of others.

The pyramid illustrates the structure of oligarchy, even if the top is truncated, the essential structure is the same, fewer towards the top ruling over those below in the power structure.

On the back of a dollar bill, you will find such a structure.

RE: "Oligarchy presupposes no such thing. Oligarchy means rule by a few, as opposed to a monarchy, rule by one."

Is there an echo in here? Yes. My point is you're confusing the few who manage the government but are ruled by the people in a republic with the few who actually rule in an oligarchy.

I don't think I'm confused. You appear to confuse formal descriptives with actual functioning.

I'll accept your statement about Ben Franklin and take it further to assert that the Constitutional Republic was set up, not to create an alternative to oligarchy, but to formalize and constrain oligarchy.

I haven't bought that the government is ruled in any meaningful sense by "the people". Do not be deceived by the "democratic representation". The people are ruled by those that influence the political workings, by bureaucracy, by fads and opinions, and by whatever paranoids have established themselves inside the intelligence community.

There is no way the people in this country are sufficiently unified and informed to exercise rule over the power hierarchy.

If you want proof, take a clipboard and pencil out on the streets and ask some of "the people" what form of government resides in the U.S.

If you get even a third calling it a "constitutional republic" I'll take it all back.

I think that the only way for us to keep it is by exiling you and your kind to Mars. Hey, you can be space colonists, for the good of the planet!

"We want a government who's power is diffused among the people and representative of the people. We want a government that takes back power from the wealthy elites, that minimizes concentrated power and diffuses power among all people. We want a government WE use to solve the age old problems of concentrated power and that's a government Of, By and For the People..."

I'll ask you the same question you're always asking me... Where has such a government ever existed? You're thinking FDR, right? FDR was a fascist who first saddled future generations with inescapable debt, and then fed your "people" into a war machine by the millions.

Power corrupts. You can only oppose corruption or support it.

We want a government that gets rid of concentrated power by concentrating power! ;)

Isn't that Ayn Rand?

Hey dipshit duck,

In 1850 approximately 95% of the American people lived and worked on the individually owned farm or ranch

You fool, there were no huge corporations dictating wages, hours, or healthcare for much of anyone then. As a matter of fact finding a large corporation in 1850 was damn difficult outside of New England.

You fricking socialists don't know shit.

"neither conservative nor “liberal” but, rather, deeply suspicious of entrusting government with power"

C'mon, Don, in your schoolyard-like effort to distance yourself from the Republicans, you miss the point that true conservatives seek to conserve that power skepticism seen in the founders. Like a junior high girl, your emotions have clouded your reasoning! Oh well. Keep telling yourself how good you are because you're above partisanship and keep splitting hairs with Count Danku. It's sad to see you take part in useful idiocy. You, Higgs, Badnarik and Rockwell can console and congratulate each other as healthcare passes.

Thanks for nothing!

true conservatives

Can you count the "true" conservatives in seats of power on more than two hands?

no matter how few there are, that doesn't mean we need to redefine the term.

It's BEEN redefined, by others, by those in power, BY the Republicans. Come on, Mark.

But Don wasn't talking about "true" conservatives. He specifically refers to "modern" conservatives.

Sam, it's hard to argue with you because you're a good guy, but I think Don, much like the jellyfish koon, is trying to put himself above the fray, in some morally superior position. Don, sounding like Lewellyn Rockwell, is besmirching all who would call themselves conservative. I think it's a smelly self-righteous crock.

What Marks trying to say is he is a Republican and this mess of a country is still not his or their fault.

Republicans are truly scary. These John Ensign, Mark Sanford and Tom Colburn and other Family cult member actually serving in positions of high power is creepy beyond all thought. Most of the part doesn't believe in evolution and their heros are guys like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly... some truly sick ignorant nutjobs. These are the personality types that literally become the Taliban when conditions are right.

You know, there's this fascinating book by Stephen Pinker called the Language Instinct; in it he delves into what is, to me, Chomsky's very compelling theory of "innate grammar." He mentions a case study of a British girl who is afflicted with a disorder in which she has voluble, even verbose speech but which, ironically, renders her with an IQ of like 50. I think that muirgeo is a candidate for such a condition.

I'd reply, but Obama's jack boot is on my neck, Harry Reid is emptying my bank account and Don is sitting there singing a song about how non partisan he is.

Enough with the melodrama. George Bush and CEO's on Wall Street have cost you far more then any democratic policies.

Yep, those Democrats in Congress don't write any legislation at all. Everything is done by Presidential fiat.

I wonder how those CEOs at GE and ADM are doing with that corporate welfare that you and The Divine Prophet: Algore I say they need?

Mark, your heart is in the right place, but Don is simply demonstrating how the left-right paradigm is false and misleading and has trapped people into a statist mindset. As Mises (or Orwell for that matter) points out, the meanings of words have been changed, partly in an attempt to hide the motivations and objectives of the statists, and this is a huge barrier to the masses of morons in our country from experiencing the epiphany that maybe there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

When Democrats repeal, for example, the PATRIOT Act (which the Obama administration supports with a full guttural yell) they can be taken seriously. Until then, Democrats and Republicans are equally scary/

Mommsen, muir is sort of an idiot and needs to spoon fed...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16...

I am a man of policy not politicians. The progressive left is blasting Obama for many things such as this.

Yet you seem to see repubs as corporate whores.

Change that to "seem to see ONLY repubs".

That's amazing that you'd bring that up when the Dem's are about to socialize the entire health care system AND saddle us with a comprehensive tax on everything called cap and trade AND they want to do a mass amnesty. How you can call that equal is beyond me.

All I can say is that the definition of conservative that you present is not one I've heard much before.

I also question that idea that "the founders" as a group were skeptical of political power. True, some of them were, but others actually sought to increase centralized power, Hamilton, for instance. In fact the whole constitutional episode represents that effort.

Don't Republicans present themselves as conservative?

I don't know - I think the share that fetishize power is relatively small and the share that distrust power is large, and divided in predictable ways on how to cautiously and soberly exercise power. I honestly don't feel bad about marginalizing the minority that fetishizes power and talking about the "sides" that disagree on how to cautiously exercise power.


Unless of course you're just making the same old claim that if you're not in the libertarian clubhouse then you "fetishize power"

I think the share that fetishize power is relatively small

That must be why Sheriff Arpaio doesn't stand a chance of being reelected, eh?

A media whore that has a power and control fetish ... what possible chance he could be elected Sheriff? Four times? By huge margins?

The point is that his constituents fetishize power as well, as long as it is directed by the right kind of people at the right kind of people. No one likes the gun barrel of power directed against themselves, but once they have the perception that illegal immigrants/the rich/the poor/sex offenders/AIG employees/scabs/Japanese-Americans/queer people/[insert outgroup here] are aimed at, they are quite comfortable with it, to the point of cheering it on.

I agree. Anybody who studies Arpaio and his adoring army will soon understand how evil and dangerous people can be elected, and even admired, by voters who don't think they'll ever be in the cross-hairs.

Very well done Daniel.

The intellectual circle-jerk that you and daniel share is quite endearing.

...I think the share that fetishize power is relatively small...

Well, you're wrong. There is a fair amount of evidence that most people who are drawn to politics have particular notions about themselves, and they are not flattering characteristics.

Well I'm sure it's a much higher incidence among people who actually seek out elected office - but even among them there's quite a few reasonable ones as well.

Who exactly? Who? Consider this: most Congresscritters think that they both in favor of trade and government sponsored favortism. Most Congresscritters do not consider the constitutionality of any of the legislation that they help to pass (we know this because Congresscritters say this in interview after interview). The mere fact that Congress is making an effort to force the NCAA to adopt a playoff system in Div. I-A football illustrates the arrogance of politicians.

Perhaps he misses the mark in focusing on fetishizers, so perhaps his focus should be more on those who think they have the ability to constrain an empowered state.

Or perhaps he should focus on elected officials who fetishize their own position.

Or maybe he should focus on those who think that their own reasonable vision of judicious exercise of political power can overcome the tendency of those in power, and those who benefit from the exercise of that power, to act in their own interest at every opportunity.

You are so reasonable, but reasonableness won't stop a runaway train, let alone a government the size and power such as the one that is seated in Washington D.C.

I honestly don't get it. Generally speaking we give you guys the benefit of the doubt. Generally speaking we don't go around accusing libertarians of being anarchists or of wanting to destroy all law. Somehow you've still convinced yourself that anyone who doesn't see things the way you do thinks government is ominpotent or omniscient. It's a straw man, Don - it's a straw man plain and simple. I don't see why you can't make the libertarian case without battling strawmen. There is clearly a stark difference between libertarians and everyone else. There is more than enough for you to talk about. Why raise this strawman that somehow everybody else doesn't "distrust power". We do. It's in our blood in this country. The people who don't see eye to eye with you aren't dew-eyed innocents, and they aren't stupid, and they aren't naive. I think you know that.

"Blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah." Hey, I'm Daniel Kuehn! "Blah blah..."

"The people who don't see eye to eye with you aren't dew-eyed innocents, and they aren't stupid, and they aren't naive. I think you know that."

You were saying?

Well they also argue that democracy is mob rule. It's a really petty argument. And they never offer a real alternative. If you really have representative government of the peoples desire what more could you ask for. It's not perfect but it's better then everything else we've tried through out all of history. The only problem is when you get people who are simply the equivalent of spoiled brats upset when they don't get their way in every single instance as if that should be possible in a country populated by 300 million and still growing. Such people will always be malcontents as they prosper in the society they claim oppresses them because heaven forbid they should have to pay back into it.

Oh and they also take the slippery slope argument that an increasing welfare state will necessarily lead to socialism or communism which has been historically refuted. If anything it was the abuses of capitalism that lead revolts which turned into communism. Likewise they can't see the obvious road to serfdom strict property rights would lead to.

What I find interesting about you is there is so much I think you're dead on with, and so much I think you're way off the mark on :) I strongly agree with your first paragraph, although I would highlight that they are right to worry about the possibility of democracy as mob rule. Tyranny of the majority is absolutely a threat - but that's precisely why we place Constitutional limits on the government, that's why we have a bill of right, that's why we have checks and balances, etc. Yes, democracy has the potential to go off the deep end. But we put defenses in place to prevent that, and they've been holding up quite well, despite the abuses they've taken over the years. As dangerous as democracy may potentially be, removing the option of that self-government by dictating libertarian limits on government seems to me to be antithetical to the principle of self-government and a free society.

I agree on the slippery slope argument too. After all, it was just over a decade ago that we scaled back welfare precisely because everybody knew there were problems with it. This gets back to my point that "nobody fetishizes power". We didn't need libertarians to tell us there was a problem with welfare. Everyone knew it. And we pulled back on that. These slippery slopes are tiring. Adam Smith talks about the state caring for the poor in Wealth of Nations. It bears no resemblence to communism, but if you're short on convincing arguments, that's the kind of thing that you pull out repeatedly - the USSR and Nazi Germany.

Now... where I disagree with you is that last sentence. I think some of the biggest problems that society faces are precisely the incidents where property rights are not clear.

As dangerous as democracy may potentially be, removing the option of that self-government by dictating libertarian limits on government seems to me to be antithetical to the principle of self-government and a free society.

If government is not limited to a level that people can comprehend, then they will not be able to self govern, let alone manage the governor.

And it's not a matter of smarts, but a matter of keeping the agency to a size that can be encompassed in any mind.

How many people have read the health care bill in its entirety?

And of those that have managed to read the whole thing, how many can fully understand all of it?

you say..."a matter of keeping the agency to a size that can be encompassed in any mind."

I think this is a profound observation. The US government has been allowed to grow to the point that it exceeds the comprehension of the ordinary man - it has grown beyond human scale. Even the cadres of government insiders, with decades of experience within it, can barely comprehend the reach and power and scope of actions (and range of consequences) of their small cluster of cells within this leviathan. When government has grown beyond human scale, what chance does a human have at self-governance? He must either limit government to a human, comprehensible scale, or he must become a "new man" with new, extraordinary powers, capable of comprehending and controlling it. I believe the Founders of this nation knew human nature well, and purposely chose the former approach to self-governance.

Daniel,

The libertarian position being so rigid is a shame. I'm a pragmatic real world type thinker and I believe the libertarian position has so much to offer in the way of maximizing the value we get from government and their ideas of avoiding unintended consequences of laws and policy are great. But they jump from being useful and practical to demanding a purely ideological stance that is USELESS and in fact ultimately exploitative.

I'm a pragmatic real world type thinker

Calling yourself that is not the same thing as being that.
If you don't understand the Iron Law of Oligarchy, you will never see the real world.

" As dangerous as democracy may potentially be, removing the option of that self-government by dictating libertarian limits on government seems to me to be antithetical to the principle of self-government and a free society."


Very good! I've had that thought in my mind forever but have never clearly expressed it the way you did there. Libertarians disregard the groups liberty to self govern. Wow very good!

You essentially have to either ignore or be unaware of the monstrous nature of the drug war in order to make comments like this. My suggestion is that you read Radley Balko's blog "The Agitator."

It should be remembered that the drug war was founded in a religious/progressive alliance to better society by prohibiting recreational alcohol activity.

Tyranny of the majority is absolutely a threat...

It is not simply a threat, it exists in the U.S. as we write here.

...but that's precisely why we place Constitutional limits on the government...

If the 20th century has taught us anything it has taught us that there are no real limits on government. The American governments intrude, imprison, snoop, torture, etc. that are tyrannical on their face.

...and they've been holding up quite well...

Actually, they haven't.

...removing the option of that self-government...

That option was already removed long ago.

...by dictating libertarian limits on government seems to me to be antithetical to the principle of self-government and a free society.

Yet you argue that some limits are required. Honestly, you self-fisk yourself at this point.

We didn't need libertarians to tell us there was a problem with welfare. Everyone knew it.

Which is of course why "everyone" was in favor of the reforms? Oh, they weren't? Most of the Democratic party opposed them? And oh, didn't you know, those reforms have gone by the wayside since the Democrats came back into power in 2009? And actually you did need libertarians - since it was libertarians in the 1960s and 1970s who were the font of calls for welfare reform (you know, back when such calls were called "irrational," "uncaring," "harsh," and worse).

Mommsen1625 10 minutes ago in reply to danielkuehn
Tyranny of the majority is absolutely a threat...

It is not simply a threat, it exists in the U.S. as we write here.



I would argue that we will be paying more in taxes and wages because of am elite minority (think Goldman Sachs or AIG or Enron) then from any rule the real majority wants past.

The elite minority ... top 0.5% of earners takes home an addition 1 trillion dollars of the income pie compared to what they did 30 years ago. You are paying far more to them then you are to the government. And in fact much of what you pay to them is through the government.

Of course, GE and Archer Daniels Midland aren't among that elite minority, because His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I (Supreme Leader of The Church of AGW) has decreed that the corporate welfare they receive is necessary to the survival of Mother Gaia.

"And in fact much of what you pay to them is through the government."

Well put, muirgeo! Now, please answer these simple questions: would we be paying "them" if it weren't for enforcement by the government? Would the "elite minority" have a claim on us if it weren't for the police power of the state?

Democratic government is the only counter balance to unbridled capitalism.

Specifically we wouldn't be paying them if the government represent OUR interest over theirs. Yet we... they've set up the system so that their wealth and power can co opt the government.

And people like you want to give them more power.

The "elite minority" ARE the police power of the state. They own it they run it because of stupid philosophies that neuter the power of a government run by THE PEOPLE.

Yes, and you helped put agents of Wall Street in power.
It may be better than having the petro industry in power, maybe not. It sure is gonna cost us.

And in fact much of what you pay to them is through the government.

So, you noticed that. Libertarians predict that kind of thing, and oppose it.

The problem with democracy arises when people fail to understand the nature and limits of political power and the realities of economic fundamentals.

The danger of democracy then becomes that of government by opinion, and opinion is guided by emotional manipulations, an are in which a successful politician must be expert.

The problem with vesting government with the power to redistribute resources is in the incentives thereby created, leading to the eventual collapse of the system.

I would argue that we will be paying more in taxes and wages because of am elite minority (think Goldman Sachs or AIG or Enron) then from any rule the real majority wants past.

The majority of taxes forked over in the U.S. go to welfare entitlement programs, largely geared towards the middle and upper middle class.

How is democracy not mob rule? If I walk into an alley and am mugged at gun point, against my will, by two individuals who subsequently donate the proceeds of their theft to a poor friend of theirs, how is this different from mob rule, in this case a mob of two against three? How is this different from a democracy where two-thirds of the people involved have decided to redistribute the wealth of the minority who voted against them? God, you are a TARD.

Well because the alley you were walking down was publicly owned and you were voluntarily walking down it.... you need to pay your taxes. Democracy is participated in willingly and by choice. That's why it's not mob rule. The rues preceded you but you have the arrogance to presume they shouldn't apply. If you join the country club then ypu need to pay your dues and follow the agreed upon rules. But instead you join the country club then whine and scream and yell... RAPE, OPPRESSION THEFT DISCRIMINATION!!!! Oh the horror!!! You whine about people wanting something for nothing when in fact you ARE the greatest such example. You're a Nanny Stater who doesn't want to pay his fair share. That's sad and pathetic. No one is mugging you no one is holding a gun to your head. Your were just brought up wrong getting juice boxes for free and thinking you deserved everything and owed nothing in return

"two against one." Sorry. Drinking.

I see our focus today at the Ministry of Truth was "Freedom is Slavery." You've really driven that truth home.

Well maybe the world is a little more complicated then you think. And maybe you need to think things through past just one step or one level.

The problem with ideologues is that they always like things simple. When it seems simple it seems rational while real world applications of simple minded theories quickly become not so simple.

There is a library of world literature and arguments well reasoned on the problems of property rights that make a common seemingly simple and virtuous claim not so simple and NOT so virtuous.

Muirgeo,

Love you man! The other day you argued the case that Macroeconomics, with 7 billion independent actor, gazillions of various resources - and combinations there of, myriad of policies - and their consequences, etc are pretty simple and straight forward. That's an awesome political argument, especially coming from a doctor who deals with complex organizms. Now today, you have shown us that you can take the exact 180 degree opposite argument at the drop of a hat, without flinching even for a second.

You are awesome muir. You will make a wonderful replacement for Crook Dodd.

Love ya!

simple minded theories

A very apt description of progressive left theories of government and economics.

And they never offer a real alternative.

The alternative is markets. And "we" offer that alternative all the time. The fact that you have yet to get this speaks volumes.

If you really have representative government of the peoples desire what more could you ask for. It's not perfect but it's better then everything else we've tried through out all of history.

Markets are clearly superior to democracy and government in almost all matters. Markets are not zero-sum games as government is.

Oh and they also take the slippery slope argument that an increasing welfare state will necessarily lead to socialism or communism which has been historically refuted.

Actually, the welfare state has lead to increasing involvement in every area of the citizen's life; this includes of course the national security state, the drug war state, the warfare state, etc. The government now spies on the citizenry more often, for more reasons than it ever has. That is a direct result of the welfare state. We'll soon of course have a national ID card as a result of the welfare state.

"...this includes of course the national security state, the drug war state, the warfare state, etc...."


You are describing the corporate state. Those probelms are a result of too much corporate influence in policy and not enough true democracy.

Believe it are not, states are a form of incorporation.

You are allowed a vote only as long as it maintains your submission to political authority. You would never be allowed to vote if it actually allowed the people to exercise control over the power elites (and yes, that includes the moneyed interests that participate).

I have to concede that that's accidentally a good point, but it more than equally proves our perspective versus yours.

No, I am describing what we have that exists as the result of government intervention. For example, why would corporations favor the drug war state exactly? It after all wasn't corporations which brought about such. It was moralizing crusaders who thought they knew how best to order society. What other stupid arguments do you have to offer?

As for the "not enough true democracy" bit, well, guess what, the national security state, the warfare state and the drug war state are exactly what the majority of the people want. Poll after poll illustrate this point rather candidly.

"For example,why would corporations favor the drug war state exactly?"


You really don't know?

http://www.correctionsproject.com/corrections/p...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://w...

Don't forget unions, they are corporate entities as well.
The prison guards' union is very influential.

The rise of private prisons are result of the drug war; the drug was not implemented, etc. for private prisons or for any other corporation. In other words, it isn't surprising that this sort of public policy would foster and encourage this of thing, but this sort of thing did not cause the public policy nor does it maintain it.

And of course we should point out the elephant in the room - the government bureaucracies which police, etc. the Drug War are one of the primary beneficiaries of that war.

Muirgeo, your problem in this instance is that you're equating fascism with libertarianism, which is BALOGNA. We true classical liberals are equally against fascism as we are against socialism. Hell, the supposed "fascist" Nazis called themselves "national socialists," and fascism IS socialism, especially in the extreme, by its most basic definition, namely, the state ownership of the means of production. Please put yourself on mute, now, thank you.

"Muirgeo, your problem in this instance is that you're equating fascism with libertarianism, which is BALOGNA."


Is it? You guys consistently equate what I want with centralized power, socialism and communism. IT's NOT.

How does a libertarian society NOT devolve into fascism or serfdom? Unregulated economies result in massive accumulations of wealth , property and power and those accumulations of wealth take over the government and empower it.

Explain to me how a libertarian society prevents that.

Democracies DON'T devolve into socialism and the evidence is all around the world. In fact I'd say Fascism is a greater threat to our current democracies then socialism.

Is it? You guys consistently equate what I want with centralized power, socialism and communism. IT's NOT.

How is vesting power in a single agency NOT centralized power?

How does a libertarian society NOT devolve into fascism or serfdom?

How does any political system NOT devolve into fascism or serfdom?

Centralized power always becomes a target for influence and even seizure. ALWAYS.

"Markets are clearly superior to democracy and government in almost all matters. Markets are not zero-sum games as government is."


Yes and that's why there are so many purely market driven societies just like they have in Somalia. WTH flavor are you drinking?

Because the first place libertarians think of where markets flourish and private property rights exist is, in fact, Somalia. And to what you're drinking, TC [teacup chihuahua], my guess is Jim Jones Lemming flavor.

You are the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to strawman arguments.

As far as I can tell you're arguing with the caricatured libertarian in your head.

There's a lot of room in there.

Who wrote anything about "purely market driven societies?" Oh, no one. What other stupid arguments do you have to offer?

OK I'll try again.

""Markets are clearly superior to democracy and government in almost all matters. Markets are not zero-sum games as government is."


There are markets in anarchism, there are markets in dictatorships, there would be markets in Libertopia (but it never has existed), there are markets in Kingdoms , there are markets in tribal societies, there are markets in Plutocracies, there are markets in fascist dictatorships and markets in Kleptocracies. Despots have markets and theocracies do too. And then there are markets in democracies. Any questions???

No. Markets can exist in any society, and that is a major reason why they are such powerful forces for good, for choice, for freedom.

I would also note that a lot of countries have formal "democracy" these days, they have little in the way of economic freedom and they are pretty shitty places to live; however, there are a number of countries where democracy is curtailed, market freedom is high and they are very nice places to live. Democracy in any meaningful sense, to be blunt, is the result of the economic prosperity and person freedom which markets bring, not vice versa. Or let's put it this way - can you imagine a gay rights movement in a non-market, non-capitalist society? If so, why is that gay rights have only come about in societies which are capitalist? Because capitalism cuts through, over turns, etc. tradition, whereas government reinforces, etc. tradition.

Its not a straw man argument. Politics without exploitation isn't politics. Politicians like to think of themselves as "coorperative", but we all cooperate. What we don't all do is exploit human beings.

Nope not Randy. He's not an exploiter. He doesn't have people pave roads, dig trenches or put out fires for him. He does all that himself.

That is the question. Do I "exploit" the exploiters? Not the way I see it. They are an organization specifically formed to exploit people like me, while I'm just me. And yes, what they do is most definitiely exploitation. I know, there is a "contract" theory, but it doesn't hold water. By definition, no one can be forced into a "contract", which leaves only exploitation to describe the relationship. So, my argument here is similar to the "people of color can't be racists" argument. I can't exploit those who exploit me because they started it. My actions are simply rational retribution.

They started it?? Yes Randy THEY fought the wars and built the roads and the canals... and just because you've arrived on the scene they have no right to force you to pay for these things. When you were born willingly by your parent or emigrated here you signed the contract.

You are paranoid and self indulgent.

They didn't fight "the" wars. They sent people like me off to fight "their" wars.

Paranoid? The political class exists by exploitation of people like me. That's just a plain fact. Recognizing a fact does not define paranoia.

Self indulgent? Damn right. They want sacrifice. They haven't earned it, and they're not going to get it.

Is that the same contract slaves are born into?

Actually yes.

"We?" Who is this "we?" The only person you can actually speak for is yourself. My goodness, you are being rather the snot today.

Generally speaking we don't go around accusing libertarians of being anarchists or of wanting to destroy all law.

Actually, it is a very common caricature of libertarians.

Generally speaking we don't go around accusing libertarians of being anarchists or of wanting to destroy all law.

Because rather clearly most other people - at least in the political class - don't distrust power. Look at the actual behavior of politicians instead of the fantasized, romantic version of such. Indeed, consider, just for example, the nature of the drug war and the power given to all levels of government with regards to such. If politicians and bureaucrats really distrusted power a whole slew of laws associated with the drug war would not exist. The world as it exists argues against what you claim.

We do. It's in our blood in this country.

Sheer romanticism.

The reason he's being the snot today is because he thinks he's fooled people over at mises.org and drummed up a lot of sympathy by claiming that he is a victim of the Austrian "flame wars" that were the subject of an article from yesterday. That is all. He has been empowered by something that has, to his mind, lent credence to his delusions. Oh, poor Daniel! How art thou persecuted! When shalt thou be delivered from the lion's den of the libertarians!

Good post sir.

I am not a libertarian or a republican but pretty cozy up to being an anarchist, but not quite because I know as well as anyone we need some sort of coordination and enforcement of natural law.

But,

My brother introduced me to Rush Limbaugh back in 1990 and I listened for awhile because it was refreshing to hear someone take the left to task. However in short order I began to listen less and less because it was evident that he and the people he seemed to speak for all felt very comfortable with wielding the power of government to make people behave as they wished.

Granted Limbaugh's vision was far more palatable than Teddy Kennedy's, for instance, but it was still government intrusion and government control.

I think libertarians are the closest to me in belief and I see a distrust of power and a dislike of control when control is used in other than a crime prevention/punishment manner.

DK, as usual, has his head up his young butt.

Pfff. Ever tried reading "Market For Liberty" a book that is now a free-to-download PDF? It's a book that supposes a society without government and everything is run by private businesses. Excerpts show that actual freedoms are relative:


"Another aspect of total property ownership is that it would make
immigration laws unnecessary and meaningless. If all potential property
were actually owned, any "immigrant" would have to have
enough money to support himself, or a marketable skill so he could
go right to work, or someone who would help him out until he got
started. He couldn't just walk into the free area and wander around—
he'd be trespassing. Those who were skilled and ambitious would come; those who were lazy wouldn't dare to. This is much more just
and effective than the present "national quota" system."


"This situation of total property ownership would automatically
solve many of the problems plaguing our present society. For
instance, shiftless elements of the population, who had acquired no
property and were not willing to work in order to earn enough
money to rent living quarters, would be literally pushed to the
geographic edge of the society. One can't sleep on park benches if
the private owner of the park doesn't permit bums on his property;
one can't search the back alleys for garbage if he is trespassing on
alleys belonging to a corporation; one can't even be a beachcomber
if all the beaches are owned. With no public property and no public
dole, such undesirables would quickly "shape up or ship out.""

"I am not a libertarian or a Republican but pretty cozy up to being an anarchist, ..."

heheheh... crack me up! ROFLMAO!!! I may LOOK like a Chihuahua but I'm really a Pit-bull.

Muirgeo! How was your recent double shift at the Ministry of Truth? You weren't too drained from the two-minutes hate to complete the labors of such a long day, were you?

Let's see my little stupid,

One minute you're telling me I am a minianarcho something or another and now you're telling me I am not?

You socialist just don't know shit and you're the prime example, Pepe.

Idiocy on display. Of course the Democrats treat government as if it were omniscient and as if it should be omnipotent. It's their solution to everything, you policy fetishist boot licker!

"He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences." Mises, on Daniel Kuehn and his ilk

"Why raise this strawman that somehow everybody else doesn't "distrust power". We do. It's in our blood in this country."

You love power, because you need power to wonk, daniel, you dork.

"Power sceptics"? Surely you mean "power denialists."

Well-stated!!

Well "state"-ed. Get it? God I'm so funny.

This is the best letter you have ever written!

"power skeptics" - Nice!