Avoiding Dogmatism

Great letter, pity the thread got hijacked.

The market is essentially shorthand for the collective intelligence of 6 billion people is smarter and will provide solutions that are better than a handful of well intentioned government officials in Washington.

Also we need to realize that not everyone wants the same thing in health care education food cars etc... Every individual has different priorities preferences, wants and needs. For one institution to be all things for all people is naive and foolish.

Those who favor single payer health care reform often forget that Obamacare will give power not just to the Democratic party members but to Republicans as well.

One way that will help you on the road is acquiring the certainty that experts are perfectly capable of producing absolutely stupid results, and that nothing could prove as dangerous to humanity as what can come out from a small mutual-admiration club of experts.

Just as an example let me describe some of the current results courtesy of the Basel Committee´s group thinking (our global financial regulator)

1. Governments appoint financial regulators who use credit risk ratings issued by credit rating agencies to decide how much equity banks need to have, presumably so that the banks won´t fail and the governments will not have to bail them out... all while they know that the rating agencies, when rating the risk of banks, explicitly measure the government´s willingness to bail out the bank. Which one is the chicken or the egg, the bank or the government? And the rating agency is he their guardian or the fox?

2. There are now reports (FT) that “the Europeans banks are now net sellers of insurance against the chance of their own governments going into default – even though those same banks are implicitly backed by those governments”

3. For each day the markets become increasingly dependent on what the credit rating agencies opine. Look at how this Frankenstein monsters are now getting closer to rate the governments, their own creators.

What a lunatic chaos! A true Joker´s joke! http://bit.ly/gNemy

The freedom of dogma equals the other's ability to freely exit.

Dogma, per se, is not the issue. The problem is with those righteous and willing to impose their dogma on on everyone else.

No, the issue is that Libertarians haven't figured out what 'retaliatory force' really means in the real world. Until then everyone else walks all over them.

Dumb, you should never let a situation reach the point where "retaliatory" exercise of force is required. Retaliate means you've been injured and feel motivated to exact revenge. Should've prevented the injury in the first place, with whatever level of force its required to prevent it.

Others Libertarians might say you shouldn't have a situation where politicians have been allowed to assume dangerous amounts of power because everyone stood idly by and retaliatory force is now requried to oust them.

Actually, most everyone cheered on this assumption of power.
They have been indoctrinated to think "we" are the government.

If that changes significantly, then force won't be required. If it doesn't change, then sufficient force cannot be mounted.

Rubbish. If "almost everyone cheered on this assumption of power" then "almost everyone" are co-conspirators or outright criminals by Libertarians standards. Saying they're "indoctrinated" or "brainwashed" is a pretty lie for Libertarians because they deep down don't want to believe 95-99% of the population are thieving criminals.

"If that changes significantly, . . ."

An asteriod could come crashing down on the White House but I wouldn't bet on it.

Deep, down (not even really that - I mean, these are just obvious features of the electorate) most of the population doesn't care much about politics; which is most of the population spends so little time informing itself on matters political, and why the population holds so many odd ideas about the scope and abilities of government. That situation is unlikely to change.

Criminality depends upon intent.

Not everyone, just the political types, and they walk all over nearly everyone.

Since Libertarian are against 'initiatory force' then non-Libertarians are pro-'initiatory force' and therefore might be consider 'political types' and 'everyone else'.

The difference between central planners and liberty is basically that central planners cannot tolerate liberty but liberty doesn't care if any number of people want to get together to centrally plan -- just leave out those who don't want to join. Alas, central planning requires strict adherence to a few options, or just even one, and thus a beating of some kind (law or violence) for those who differ. But liberty allows that any number of ideas might be good, and if one is the better mouse trap, the world will beat a path to your door.

If Libertarians were liberty-lovers they'd arrest and expel all liberty-haters in their midst. It's akin to a man listening to his neighbour violent his wife but the man does nothing saying "his house, his rules besides it's none of my business anyway". Or a Libertarian who is diagnosed with early stage cancer saying "until it starts getting painful and impinges on my comfort zone then I'll do something about it".

Be careful with the capital L Libertarian and lower case l libertarian.

They are not the same thing. Lower case l libertarians believe that the initiation of force or fraud is wrong, by individuals and government alike.
Capital L Libertarians are a bunch of stoned anarchists who fancy themselves a political party.

Libertarians accord freedom to people who write things like this, "....a man listening to his neighbor violent his wife......" because in America we accord people the right to operate keyboard while stoned, or stupid.

I am not a libertarian so I am just crude enough to point out that you're once again operating keyboard while stoned or while uneducated, one or the other.

I am also crude enough to point that again your operating keyboard while stoned makes you post some really pointless shit that makes no sense what-so-ever, like you just did.

. . . violently beats his wife . . . >:(

You must have been a hilarious debater in high school. "I could reply to my opponent's argument but I declare that my opponent is drunk or stoned therefore I win." Heck! You might make a good lawyer too.

Right. Central planning requires the use of force to keep the dissenters in line. Liberty is all about limiting the force that the government can (and does) exercise.

the world will beat a path to your door.

Or not.

"The answer is .... in championing individual liberty."

I see this claim as succumbing to dogma. What does it mean to champion individual liberty? Who ever dare claims to have the absolute answer to that has indeed built themselves a church.



Dogma: 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

What does it mean to champion individual liberty?

If you used your head for something besides a hat rack the answer would be obvious. Individual liberty and the notions behind it have a long, well established definitional history with all manner of arguments, etc. to explain such. Just because you disagree with the conclusions, etc. of such does not negate this and if you want to talk to libertarians in any sort of useful manner you're going to have to eventually educate yourself in these matters.

Who ever dare claims to have the absolute answer to that has indeed built themselves a church.

Let's see, you don't claim to have absolute answers? You know, the deal is, that charging someone with being dogmatic or ideological works both ways. Which why it is ultimately a very sterile conversation. But yeah, keep up this tactic; in doing so you look like an asshole.

RE: "If you used your head for something besides a hat rack the answer would be obvious."

I got the impression he asked not because he wasn't sure, but because he wasn't sure if you knew.

Wow, nice troll. Have a nice life.

Haha - you basically called muirgeo an idiot and you're upset that I'm just trying to explain his intentions?

Why must you take it upon yourself to speak for or interpret others as often as you do, Kuehn? Keep it up and someone will take notice, perhaps grooming you for elected office: just think of all the power and control over other people's lives that you'll have then!

In this case, it's in my interest to have a blog environment where people don't rely on the crutch of calling other people stupid.

I'll pass on the elective office option - sounds pretty unsavory and unrewarding to me. I've never had that aspiration before.

Someone once told me that the wise person learns from the mistakes of others, the smart person learns from their own mistakes, and the stupid person doesn't learn.

By that definition the majority of us here would be wise, because we read history, see what happens when power is concentrated, and we do not want to see it happen here (though I believe it is too late).

Neither you nor murigeo seem capable of seeing that. You both repeat the mantra that if the right people are given enough power that any problem can be solved.

So in this case when people call you and muirgeo stupid, it is not a crutch.

It is a fact.

muirgeo is a troll. The best way to deal with a troll is ignore them. If you feed the troll it will just continue to hang around.

I'm not sure what you're saying - I learn from history. What do you think shaped my views about a constitutional republic? It's the historical precedent. And historical precedent has also shaped my views of what could go wrong. I wonder about your claim to learn from history, though, if the assumption is that government will always devolve into tyranny. Such a conclusions seems to deliberately ignore the lessons of history.

Re: "You both repeat the mantra that if the right people are given enough power that any problem can be solved."

I can't speak for muirgeo, but I've never said, thought, or suggested such a thing before, much less repeated it as a mantra. If I really repeat it so often, you shouldn't have a hard time furnishing me with an example.

I can't speak for muirgeo...

How quickly you've forgotten.

From below -
RE: "I'm not really amused just frustrated that I'm being called out for something that I've actually done and for being wrong about the behavior of one of the hosts."

Some people on here really do help point out inconsistencies or flaws in my logic. I have to tell you, though, I have never felt "called out for something I've actually done" by you before. I've never felt like I've gotten anything from one of your posts except a bellicose shout-down. So keep aggrandizing yourself and what you think you've accomplished - I can promise you you're misinterpreting the "real meaning" of this one.

Some people on here really do help point out inconsistencies or flaws in my logic.

Well, given that you appeal to the fallacy of the middle ground so often that isn't really that hard!

OK, this concept may be difficult for you but I'll give it a try: sometimes what muirgeo says is clear as day and I can give a try at explaining what he meant when someone seems to misunderstand it. Other times people ask much broader, deeper points and "I can't speak for muirgeo". These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Nor are they exclusive to just muirgeo, apparently. Recall that you've done this with Krugman, too. You've probably done it with more than just them.

Done what? Clarify what I think people have said?

So? Don usually offers his interpretation of what Krugman (or others) have said, and if I disagree I offer mine. What, precisely, is wrong with that LCJ??? People certainly feel free to express what they think I said on here too. You have to express and interpret what other people say to have a discussion, LCJ.

So? Don usually offers his interpretation of what Krugman (or others) have said...

No, he doesn't. He comments about those things he does or does not agree with. It is seldom -- not usually -- that he offeres an interpretation of what someone else has said or written.


...and if I disagree I offer mine.

I've taken notice; that's why I'm being critical.

What, precisely, is wrong with that LCJ???

IMO, the frequency at which I've noticed you doing it. That and I find you annoying anyway.

People certainly feel free to express what they think I said on here too.

Yes, that's what this place is about. It's when one person feels free to express what they believe other people have expressed even though the two do not seem to align.

You have to express and interpret what other people say to have a discussion, LCJ.

Yes. But must one butt in and act as another's agent in this regard?

RE: "Yes. But must one butt in and act as another's agent in this regard?"

This is getting comical, LCJ. You do realize YOU'RE "butting into" the very same conversation at this point? I'm not his agent, I was conversing with mommsen1625. It's what we do here. Your faux outrage is getting old.

Allow me to interpret:

This is getting comical, LCJ.

I'm not really amused just frustrated that I'm being called out for something that I've actually done and for being wrong about the behavior of one of the hosts.

You do realize YOU'RE "butting into" the very same conversation at this point?

I can write this, hoping that you'll forget that you've been in this side conversation for one full day and three other replies.

I'm not his agent, I was conversing with mommsen1625.

Yes, technically we didn't have a contact so there was no agency created. This doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to speak on behalf of others though. Especially when I want to insert myself and portray what someone else has expressed in a more positive, less kookish, light.

Your faux outrage is getting old.

See first interpretation above!

There is a distinct difference between commenting on what others have said and claiming that you can speak for someone else.

When did I claim to speak for anyone? Geez - you guys are relentless.

I see it right there above. If I were to write "well, sometimes I state that I can't speak for X," then one would naturally assume that sometimes I "speak for X."

but I've never said, thought, or suggested such a thing before, much less repeated it as a mantra

Never in any specific words, of course not. That is why you are the disingenuous one.
You think people are stupid. You think we cannot see through your disguise.
There are two kinds of liberals/progressives/statists/socialists: the manipulators and the manipulated.
You are a manipulator. Muirgeo is one of the manipulated.
You know exactly what you are doing.
So do we.
Every time you post you insult our intelligence.
We are not stupid.
You are.

Wow - either I'm diabolical or you're a drama queen.
And since I know I'm not diabolical...

Get a life buddy. Learn to engage people who take issue with what you think, rather than dreaming up nonsense about them.

I wonder about your claim to learn from history, though, if the assumption is that government will always devolve into tyranny.

It always has. We in the U.S. live in a tyranny as we write, and it gets worse on a daily basis. Power is exercised more arbitrarily today than it has ever been; more of our lives are subject to various sanctions; etc. We are less free today than we have ever been. Just consider the hemorrhaging of the national security state since the 1990s.

Such a conclusions seems to deliberately ignore the lessons of history.

The lessons of history are that as states age they become more despotic, more arbitrary in their use of power, more grasping in their efforts to tax and make the population legible, and more desirous of making the people dependent on the state for their bread.

He is an idiot.

I'm not upset. I just know when to exit the field.

It's hard to avoid dogma. You are an exceptional example of it.

Sophist: 2 : a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.

You remind me of the Muslim Imam who argues that the United States does not have freedom of religion because he cannot impose Sharia Law.

Re: "Only by rejecting the rule of experts and scolds can we avoid dogmatism."

Well of course don't let them rule. We rule ourselves. But only a dogmatist would ignore experts in the course of our self-rule. And only dogmatists would have an entire program laid out, knowing before hand precisely how they would address any problem that arises. I'm not sure that's a uniquely "liberal" hallmark - it's something that a lot of people out there fall ino.

And only dogmatists would have an entire program laid out, knowing before hand precisely how they would address any problem that arises.

Well then, you must lose it every time you see the Democratic and Republican party platforms.

But only a dogmatist would ignore experts in the course of our self-rule.

Who said anything about ignoring experts in this piece? Not Don. No one of course. What was argued against was the "rule of experts and scolds..." There is a significant difference of course. Next?

RE: "Who said anything about ignoring experts in this piece? Not Don. No one of course. What was argued against was the "rule of experts and scolds..." There is a significant difference of course. Next?"

Right, which is precisely why I agreed with Don on that in my very first sentence where I wrote "well of course we don't let them rule". Do you even read posts before you comment on them, Mommsen1625? I was arguing against the rule of experts and scolds too.

As for the Republican and Democratic platforms, I don't really "lose it", but I've never ascribed to them either for precisely that reason. However, I would note that there is a difference between having a set of ideas about how to do things and having a single response that you would apply in any circumstance - even circumstances that you don't forsee, and an unwillingness to make decisions based on empirical evidence. The opposite of dogmatism is not the lack of an opinion, in other words.

Sounds like you were arguing the opposite to me, but I'll grant you your clarification.

...and having a single response that you would apply in any circumstance...

Actually there is a lot of benefit to be had from this; it for example cuts down on regime uncertainty; it curbs the potential for corruption; it cuts down the regime's discretion (discretion being one of the things most problematic with government); etc.

...even circumstances that you don't forsee, and an unwillingness to make decisions based on empirical evidence.

In politics changes in circumstance are rarely the result of empirical evidence. The train wreck which is health care "reform" is a perfect example of this.

Re: "Sounds like you were arguing the opposite to me, but I'll grant you your clarification."

I didn't really clarify, I just restated. My leading sentence was in plain English, wasn't it? What was unclear about it the first time you read it? I think you just have a tendancy to assume that because I disagree with Don on some things I disagree with Don on all things - so you rush through and don't bother to read what I actually write.

Actually, you did need to clarify IMHO. Apparently you aren't even gracious enough to say "fine, sounds good" and leave it at that.

Everything lately from you has been a back-handed compliment at best. You've accused me of all kinds of crazy stuff in our Madison discussion. Normally I would be more gracious - normally our conversations are some of the best I have on here. But if you're going to repeatedly insult me and not even bother to read what I write, I'll reserve my graciousness for today, thanks.

We rule ourselves.

The evidence is to the contrary of course. American government is a corrupt, vicious joke.

Can we say "every actualy government has problems that need to be worked out" without dismissing it as vicious and corrupt?

The point is of course that they are monstrous and vicious. Let's not live in fantasy land and beat around the bush about it.

Or let us imagine if I argued you know, slavery or segregation or genocide against Native Americans is just a problem to be worked out.

RE: "Or let us imagine if I argued you know, slavery or segregation or genocide against Native Americans is just a problem to be worked out."

Classy. Avoid the point in hand and throw genocide in your opponent's face. It really says a lot for the quality of your argument.

OK, genocides all vary obviously but as for the rest of it:

1. Slavery was a private practice long before it had any government sanction. Indeed - it wasn't until the government actually did something that it stopped.

2. Segregation was also a private practice, until the government played a role.

3. Native American exploitation was a mixed private-public tragedy. And Native American violence on settlers, I would add, was also a mixed private-public tragedy on their part. Such is the nature of humanity.

My point isn't to savage private institutions - it's to try to point out that you can't just throw "genocide" or "slavery" in someone's face and expect them to respect your point.

"Slavery was a private practice long before it had any government sanction. Indeed - it wasn't until the government actually did something that it stopped."

Well, I agree that it was a private practice but I'll disagree that it didn't have government sanction.

I wonder, especially in a democracy, how you expect the government to put a stop to a practice that the majority of the voters want?

Or, how you expect that such a government wouldn't in fact institutionalize it?

I didn't think my views on "how do you prevent the tyranny of a majority" were so controversial. I don't think they are. How would you address it?

I suppose it depends on what we call "sanction". Insofar as they didn't stop it, that could definitely be considered "sanction".

RE: "I wonder, especially in a democracy, how you expect the government to put a stop to a practice that the majority of the voters want?"

Well in a democracy you couldn't, which is a good reason not to have a democracy! I think generally speaking you constitutionally prohibit certain things, whether a majority wants it or not. Obviously that won't solve everything if you can't muster the support to constitutionally prohibit it - slavery is a great example. Nothing is going to be perfect, but that doesn't make a constitutional republic ill-advised.

Classy. Avoid the point in hand and throw genocide in your opponent's face. It really says a lot for the quality of your argument.

The nature of the atrocities being committed by the various levels of American government are of the nature of genocide and slavery. So it is perfectly acceptable to use those examples.

1. Slavery was a private practice long before it had any government sanction. Indeed - it wasn't until the government actually did something that it stopped.

Actually, you are simply wrong about this. The innumerable amounts of research done in the the last hundred years on the issue of slavery come to a few conclusions: (1) slavery comes about only when you have polities of one size or another - there are no historical examples of it existing prior to the advent of the tribe - none; this ought not to be surprising - without a polity who exists to enforce the basic components of slavery (do you even know what the basic components of slavery are?); (2) slavery ended in societies not as a result of government action, indeed, government action if anything was a response to the pressure and stress associated with slavery - much of that pressure and stress coming from the slaves themselves; we see this in the British Caribbean which witnessed a number of nasty slave revolts that prompted action by the British Parliament (see the Jamaican revolt of 1831-1833 and the Barbadian revolt of 1816) & we see this in the U.S. Civil War where self-emancipation drove the Civil War to its fruition (because it was such an existential threat to the slave system - tens of thousands of slaves escaping and current slaves having knowledge of such in other words) and where it also drove U.S. policy once the war began. One can think of the Civil War as a slave revolt as much as anything else. So you are simply wrong.

2. Segregation was also a private practice, until the government played a role.

In a free society people can voluntarily segregate and they do so; in fact they do so today. It is government enforced segregation that is the evil practice. Furthermore, in public accommodations practice it was neither, for example, the train operators nor the train passengers who found integrated cars problematic, the evidence for this is clear. It was ideologues - the "Redeemers" - who pushed that agenda.

3. Native American exploitation was a mixed private-public tragedy. And Native American violence on settlers, I would add, was also a mixed private-public tragedy on their part. Such is the nature of humanity.

There would have been very little if any private tragedy without the aid of the U.S. government. Again, how exactly does the "trail of tears" happen without federal troops? You see this throughout the history of settlement - barring the government's response settlers do not have the ability to imprison, drive out, etc. native populations.

...it's to try to point out that you can't just throw "genocide" or "slavery" in someone's face and expect them to respect your point.

And my response is that the fruits of government are pretty clear; they are, amongst other things, genocide and slavery.

On # 1 - I never said it pre-existed polities, Mommsen1625. The point is, slavery in America started as a private endeavor. The state ratification of the practice came later. Whether or not the state came first or slavery came first chronologically says nothing about whether it can be thought of as a private practice. Chronology does not equal causation. I have no idea what you're talking about with the "Civil War is a slave revolt" point. The role of slavery in sparking the Civil War is overblown. At most you can say that Southern paranoia about emancipation contributed to the decision to secede. It wasn't a major element of the war until later. And there can be no doubt that emancipation was imposed on planters by the government. To quote you, "you are simply wrong".

RE: "In a free society people can voluntarily segregate and they do so; in fact they do so today."

And you may be totally fine with that. But one thing people think of when they think of "segregation" they think of restaurants that only serve whites, and they think of "Coloreds need not apply" signs. No government hung those signs up, mommsen1625.

RE: "There would have been very little if any private tragedy without the aid of the U.S. government. Again, how exactly does the "trail of tears" happen without federal troops? "

Why, exactly, do you think the troops were sent in in the first place, Mommsen1625? Settlers LONG preceded the military on the frontier, and war with the natives long preceded involvement of the military. That is precisely why the military was called in and why the trail of tears happened. I am not exonerating the government here. I've never desired or attempted such an exoneration. I explicitly said it had both public and private elements. I'm pointing out that you are wrong to exonerate private human depredations and violence. Repeated citation of the trail of tears doesn't constitute an historical argument, mommsen1625!

The point is, slavery in America started as a private endeavor.

That's not even right. Look, the Jamestown colony government went out of its way to procure slaves be they Indian or African in origin. The very start of slavery in the U.S. was the result of government actions to protect the colony from failure, not because there was some huge clamor from property owners.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the "Civil War is a slave revolt" point.

It is in the most literature on the subject.

At most you can say that Southern paranoia about emancipation contributed to the decision to secede.

As Southern nationhood revolved around slavery (you see this in Southern literature, the arts, in farming manuals, indeed, even in the efforts to create primary and secondary schools and colleges), it was the primary the cause of secession. You see this throughout the secession statements of the various state legislatures as well as throughout the statements of the leaders of secession. The "moonlight and magnolias" school of Civil War historiography that you are now apparently attempting to resurrect here is now gone and dead.

A good secondary source for you to consult is the monograph "The Idea of a Southern Nation."

But one thing people think of when they think of "segregation" they think of restaurants that only serve whites, and they think of "Coloreds need not apply" signs. No government hung those signs up, mommsen1625.

Actually, they did. Accommodations segregation was a matter enforced by the law.

I'm pointing out that you are wrong to exonerate private human depredations and violence.

I didn't exonerate them. I stated - very clearly - that without the government's involvement the settler's could not have enforced their desires on the native population (BTW, in other areas of the world settlers lacked that sort of government involvement we exactly what I am talking about - see Brazil, large swaths of Africa into the 20th century, etc.). See, there is this concept, or rather, set of concepts known as necessary and sufficient conditions.

Re: "That's not even right. Look, the Jamestown colony government went out of its way to procure slaves be they Indian or African in origin. The very start of slavery in the U.S. was the result of government actions to protect the colony from failure, not because there was some huge clamor from property owners."

Could you please explain where you got this understanding? My understanding was that Africans first came with Dutch traders - NOT because the colonial government wanted slaves - in the early 1620s. They were treated as indentured servants until the 1640s, when their masters began to hold them for life as slaves. My understanding was that the first laws that actually ratified this understanding came about in the 1660s, in response to the enslavement that had already occured. Slaves become slaves not because there is some law that names who is a slave and who isn't. There never was such a law. Slaves become slaves because slavers kidnap them and sell them for a profit to planters. What precisely do you mean when you write "the Jamestown colony government went out of its way to procure slaves be they Indian or African in origin"... are you suggesting that the government procured a lot of slaves and then what - doled them out to colonists??? I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here or what you're basing it off of - you may want to clarify.

RE: "The "moonlight and magnolias" school of Civil War historiography that you are now apparently attempting to resurrect here is now gone and dead."

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to say. My point seems to be exactly your point - that this was integral to the Southern identity and that that is how it contributed to the Civil War: through the decision to secede, because of paranoid Southerners. My point is that that is really the only way in which it contributed. Lincoln didn't invade to free the slaves. It was not a war over slavery in that sense - it was a war over union. Secession was about slavery, the war was about secession - if you will.

RE: "Actually, they did. Accommodations segregation was a matter enforced by the law. "

Again, can you be more precise? Did the state back up the right of propreiters to segregate, or did the state initiate the segregation? Those are two HUGELY different things, mommsen1625.

My understanding was that Africans first came with Dutch traders - NOT because the colonial government wanted slaves - in the early 1620s.

Well, first of all, Africans were not the first slaves in the British colonies ... Native Americans were.

The rest of what you repeat is basically Morgan's argument about the nature of slavery in early British America (see "American Slavery, American Freedom"). It is not the position that I take and it is not universally accepted (though it is what gets repeated most often on say wikipedia and similar sites). The funny thing is that it would be better for me to take up Morgan's argument because it illustrates my position about government better.

It was not a war over slavery in that sense - it was a war over union.

At best you are arguing that from the Northern perspective it wasn't a war about slavery; what I am arguing is that the war itself was the result of the efforts of the slaves before the war and that the outcome of the war - that the Union cause took up emancipation - was also the result of their efforts. Not by any design or plan, but by human action.

...or did the state initiate the segregation?

The state initiated such. If you read the landmark cases concerned public accommodations on trains it was not the train owners or the train customers who initiated the efforts to segregate trains, it was the "Redeemer" governments which did so.

Re: "Not by any design or plan, but by human action."

Nice paean :) So your point is that the pressure of a potential slave revolt like what happened in the early 30s contributed to Southern fears? OK. I'm not denying that. Identifying that as a factor in their mindset is leaps and bounds away from characterizing the Civil War as a slave revolt. The North's perspective on what the war was about is really all that matters because the North started the war.

I've never read Morgan, although I've heard of him. I didn't realize that was his argument. That's how I always understood things. That's the story I got in a Virginia history course at William and Mary, and that's how I've had it related to me by people I knew at William and Mary who were involved in digs down the road at Jamestown. I'm not sure how this supports your position about government. Government didn't just invent slavery. It ratified a practice that was in the interest of planters who were already engaging it. Do you really think that if slave codes were never passed planters would never have engaged in slavery?

RE: "The state initiated such. If you read the landmark cases concerned public accommodations on trains it was not the train owners or the train customers who initiated the efforts to segregate trains"

You seem to be misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying the government never segregated anything. My great-grandfather lost his job trying to undo the segregation that the state of Virginia had enforced in public facilities. I know the government segregated. My point is that the private sector did too. Nobody needed help from the government to do these things. Your pointing out that trains were one place that was segregated by the government proves absolutely nothing. What are you thinking it proves? One thing is for sure - segregation stopped when government outlawed it. That doesn't make government an angel. What it means is that you can bet that segregation by private individuals would have continued until the government stepped in.

So your point is that the pressure of a potential slave revolt like what happened in the early 30s contributed to Southern fears?

In the British Empire! See, there is slavery and slavery in the United States. Gee, two different polities. Wow.

Identifying that as a factor in their mindset is leaps and bounds away from characterizing the Civil War as a slave revolt. The North's perspective on what the war was about is really all that matters because the North started the war.

No, the CSA started the war. The CSA bombarded Ft. Sumter after all. Indeed, this is exactly why the Lincoln administration made no offensive moves against the South; they did not want the war started by them (this is reflected in Lincoln's correspondence, etc.). The CSA also chose to secede, not vice versa. You can't even get this sort basic stuff right; you're absolutely hopeless.

I've never read Morgan, although I've heard of him. I didn't realize that was his argument.

Yes, it is an argument from the mid-1970s. The conversation has moved along quite a bit since then. Perhaps you should keep abreast of the changes.

Do you really think that if slave codes were never passed planters would never have engaged in slavery?

This was the argument you were just making a few moments ago. This is indeed Morgan's argument. Are you really that confused?

Anyway, this is not what happened, what happened was a sudden dearth of indentured labor after the 1660s-1670s; that's what made the Virginia Commonwealth - the government in Virginia - decide to promote slavery to the planters, and to enact a legal regime commensurate with such.

One thing is for sure - segregation stopped when government outlawed it.

Actually it didn't. American neighborhoods are as roughly segregated as they were in the mid-1960s; this is established by school attendance. You live in a fantasy land. Segregation was not stopped by the government, any more than drug use was stopped by the government.

RE: "No, the CSA started the war. The CSA bombarded Ft. Sumter after all."

Are you serious? The Union occupies a Southern port and the fact that this occupying garrison gets firedd on is the CSA starting the war? Look, Ft. Sumter is a messy situation. That's why I didn't even mention it and just raised the point that the Union was the first to act with a massive army. But even if you want to talk about Ft. Sumter it doesn't follow that the Confederacy initiated the hostilities.

Re: "they did not want the war started by them (this is reflected in Lincoln's correspondence, etc.)."

And Davis didn't want the war started by them. So? Intentions only go so far as an explanation.

RE: "You can't even get this sort basic stuff right; you're absolutely hopeless"

I've been astounded at some of your responses today but I've tried to just argue my position in response. Be carefuly about lecturing others. You may assume you have all your ducks in a row, but that doesn't make it true.

RE: "Yes, it is an argument from the mid-1970s. The conversation has moved along quite a bit since then. Perhaps you should keep abreast of the changes."

I'm talking about work that's been done in the last decade at Jamestown, Mommsen1625. Maybe you should keep abreast of changes. Just because an argument has been challenged by whatever your favorite source is doesn't mean that the position is abandoned or disproved, or that it hasn't ben supported by more recent evidence.

Re: "Actually it didn't. American neighborhoods are as roughly segregated as they were in the mid-1960s; this is established by school attendance. You live in a fantasy land. Segregation was not stopped by the government, any more than drug use was stopped by the government."

A good distinction. But come on - don't just accuse me of living in a fantasy land. We were CLEARLY talking about the segregation of facilities and services. Yes - people live in different places. That's obviously true and actually even worse now, but it is a very, very different issue. The determinants of settlement patterns and the determinants of access issues are completely different things.

Are you serious? The Union occupies a Southern port and the fact that this occupying garrison gets firedd on is the CSA starting the war?

Are you serious? The Union did not "occupy" a Southern port. And the garrison there was part of an installation created by the national government; it wasn't sort of secret effort to occupy Charleston.

Look, Ft. Sumter is a messy situation.

Oh, now it is a messy situation; a moment ago it was something entirely different. Walk that back. Keep on walking.
..just raised the point that the Union was the first to act with a massive army.

Ft. Sumter held no "massive army" - it had ~80 men manning it. I am rolling my eyes at this moment.

But even if you want to talk about Ft. Sumter it doesn't follow that the Confederacy initiated the hostilities.

Actually, it does follow; the CSA shot first. That is who starts wars. The CSA had a choice after all. The Union had no desire to start any sort of hostilities; indeed, the Union bent over backwards - even calling for the enactment of amendments which would permanently protect slavery as an institution in the South. No, the initiative was clearly with the CSA; they decided whether war would come to pass or not, not the Union. The irony being that all their paranoia came to pass at their own hands.


And Davis didn't want the war started by them. So? Intentions only go so far as an explanation.

Whatever trepidations about the P.R. nature of attacking Ft. Sumter Jefferson Davis might have had, he was more than happy to start the war actually; he after all approved the decision to attack Ft. Sumter. Lincoln did not war nor did many in the Union. The CSA was itching for a fight, the Union was not. That is the essential difference.

I'm talking about work that's been done in the last decade at Jamestown, Mommsen1625.

Let us point out the obvious; Jamestown isn't Virginia and the argument you were making was about Virginia (I mean, if you're going to start talking about stuff in the 1640s that's the only meaningful way to address the subject). Anyway, most of the major archeological work being on Jamestown in recent years that I know of has been in reference to stuff like the "starving time" and the like, not slavery.

We were CLEARLY talking about the segregation of facilities and services.

Those are de facto segregated as well. And no, I clearly used accommodations as an example. One cannot really talk about efforts to de-segregate without acknowledging things like busing and the like.

The determinants of settlement patterns and the determinants of access issues are completely different things.

That also isn't true. They are rather related actually.

And the British built Boston. What precisely is your point? That didn't make their military occupation of it any less an act of war.

I was talking about the army that Lincoln raised to invade the South that pushed the border state into the confederacy - I never said a massive army occupied Ft. Sumter.

Re: "That also isn't true. They are rather related actually."

Well of course they're related! Mommsens1625, it's quite possible for two things to be both related and different.

And the British built Boston.

No, the English colonists did actually.

That didn't make their military occupation of it any less an act of war.

It would only be an act of war if the CSA were an actual country, and declaring secession to create such a country was the act of war (it is an expected part of a state's power that it has the power to stop such). I mean, come on, the CSA enthusiasts knew what they were doing, knew that war would come and the fireaters in particular wanted war.

I was talking about the army that Lincoln raised to invade the South that pushed the border state into the confederacy - I never said a massive army occupied Ft. Sumter.

Lincoln's call for volunteers occurred after Ft. Sumter, not prior to it. The Confederacy was raising an army prior to it. The Union's actions were entirely reactive during the entire run up to the start of the war. The CSA was always in the driver's seat. Trying to set up the Union as the aggressor or as the primary mover in this play is just silly.

Mommsens1625, it's quite possible for two things to be both related and different.

It is also quite possible for both to be so related that any differences are unimportant.

What makes you think the white settlers would have been honest folk if it weren't for the government?

The government facilitated much of the violence, that's why. The "trail of tears" would have been a much more difficult endeavor without the federal government to bring it about.

We rule ourselves.

What this means to you appears to me to be:

I deliver my power and sanction to collective authority as represented in political agency.

What this means to me is that I give up self rule to rule by others which they then call self rule because I get to cast a ballot for those who will occupy positions of power even if those I vote for never occupy those positions. This way, those who did vote for those who win those positions nonetheless extract my material support even though I do not support those policies which require conscription of my participation.

I do not see this as "self rule", for I am no longer allowed to decide the disbursement of some portion of the resources I produce, even though they may be used to slaughter people in other lands, prop up corrupt governments over those same people, pay people to not grow food, and so on.

I cannot accept this as "self rule".

Humans are social beings. Of course the self-rule where you and I get to decide what to do with our lives is absolutely foundational - the most important type of "self-rule", I would argue. That's why we have protections in place to ensure that sort of self-rule - and I would suggest that some of those protections need to be considerably strengthened.

But as social beings we also have tasks that we may want to achieve as a community. You're not an advocate of self-rule if you want to deny people the ability to do this. Deny them the ability to come together and agree to build highways or a strong national defense or schools. Of course we are individuals, but we aren't only individuals. We are and always have been - since before we were homo sapiens - communities as well. And I know you just want to erase that facet of human nature, but you can't just erase that at the stroke of a pen - and you can't make a convincing case that our individual liberties are somehow threatened by our community aspirations.

I cannot accept as "self rule" something that nominally acknowledges my individual rights but refuses to let me act in concert with my community for the community's good. People ridicule "externalities" on here, but "externalities" are just a more analytical way of talking about problems that transcend individual benefits and costs and involve community benefits and community costs. If you refuse to let communities address these sorts of issues, you're no friend of liberty as much as you insist that you are.

This is a very interesting comment, Daniel. I wonder what you mean by "tasks we may want to achieve as a community." Do you mean community, as in, say, my hometown of 30,000 souls? Or when you say community are you really meaning nation, as in the whole of the USA?

Personally I agree with you wholeheartedly if you mean the first. After all, if my local community acts in a way that I perceive to be against my best interests I can move to a location outside the city limits. I could even start my own community with like-minded individuals.

But what do I do when the national government moves to take over issues that are best left to the individual? Where do I go? Please explain to me why I should be forced to live under circumstances I find intolerable?

When we are talking about the national government assuming for itself the responsibility of "tasks we may want to achieve as a community," then what becomes of the community? What is its purpose?

Don't you think the tasks that are performed by the national government should be severely limited? The mores and customs in Oklahoma, my home state, are almost diametrically opposite of, say, Vermont. If Vermont wants to legalize gay marriage, for example, why should Oklahoma have any say in it? And yet, Oklahoma's national politicians are busy policing the desires of the people of Vermont.

Under these circumstances "self rule" (whether in the individual sense or the community sense) is a mirage.

Well I definitely mean a hometown of 30,000, but I don't see why for some reason the logic of a hometown won't also apply to a national-scale community. Indeed, some problems: international peace, climate change, space exploration, etc. can be thought of as global community concerns by the exact same logic that leads you to be receptive to work at the level of your hometown. I'm not sure why you draw the line at your hometown - what is your thinking behind that?

RE: "But what do I do when the national government moves to take over issues that are best left to the individual? Where do I go? Please explain to me why I should be forced to live under circumstances I find intolerable? "

Well, life can be intolerable sometimes. I wouldn't "go" anywhere, I'd try to do something about it. But I wouldn't try to do something about it by making overblown arguments about the illegitimacy of community level action, as some do. I'd also be careful to differentiate between a community doing something that is illegitimate and wrong, and a community doing something legitimate but not what I would do to solve a problem.

RE: "Don't you think the tasks that are performed by the national government should be severely limited?"

Absolutely beyond a doubt. I think states should take it upon themselves to limit themselves too. Virginia (my home state) does this to the extreme in some circumstances (one term for governors, for example) because of the Jeffersonian legacy, which we're very proud of here.

Re: "If Vermont wants to legalize gay marriage, for example, why should Oklahoma have any say in it?"

I don't think Oklahomans should have a say in it, and as far as I'm aware they don't have a say in it.

The logic of a hometown doesn't transfer to a national-scale community precisely because these is no such thing as a national-scale community. That's what I was trying to say about an Oklahoma-Vermont schism. It doesn't translate because when things are done on a national scale there is no respite for those opposed to them. Actually I don't draw the line at a hometown, I draw it at the individual. I am one of those evil anarchists, you know.

As such I find it incomprehensible how in one paragraph someone can say they want national policy to be severely limited, and in the next paragraph talk about space exploration, global change, and, in other posts, national health care as a desirable thing.

You see, you and I disagree on policies such as that. Neither of us are about to have our minds changed. But instead of each of us being free to pursue our interests as we see them, we are constantly battling over which one gets to use the police to force the other to submit.

When government is centralized the outcome of the conflict becomes much more important, and the loser has no alternative but to chafe under the oppression he feels. I win control of the national policy, you chafe. You win, I chafe.

But if government is widely dispersed you and I can have our disagreements and still be friends. We are no longer in competition for the spoils of government largess. If one of us is terribly unhappy about our local situation we can move elsewhere. But when the "community" is the whole nation our only alternative is to continually bicker with our political enemies, continually seek the advantage, and watch the level of the dispute ramp up to the point we can't be friends. It is guaranteed that one of us will not feel we enjoy self-rule.

RE: "Actually I don't draw the line at a hometown, I draw it at the individual. I am one of those evil anarchists, you know."

I know you haven't actually gone as far as saying it, but since you're close I want to caution you against putting words in my mouth.

RE: "But if government is widely dispersed you and I can have our disagreements and still be friends. We are no longer in competition for the spoils of government largess."

But if we deny the federal government power to address truly national concerns then you've imposed your solution on everyone else (and have conveniently labeled that as A-OK, and everyone's happy). I say better to empower national governments to address national concerns and let the people decide how to handle those concerns. Restrict them from engaging in concerns that are not of national significance. You can't just impose your view of things on people by denying them the right to rule themselves from the outset.

"But if we deny the federal government power to address truly national concerns then you've imposed your solution on everyone else ..."

Listen to yourself, Daniel! Don't you recognize how absurd your argument is? You're saying a society made up of individuals who live their lives in peace and harmony with their neighbors is imposing its will on people who want to impose their will on the peaceful society. That's pretty circular logic. Are you sure that's what you want to say?


"I know you haven't actually gone as far as saying it, but since you're close I want to caution you against putting words in my mouth."

Huh?

It's only circular logic if you insist that the only relevant unit of analysis is the individual, and not the community - which I've been saying repeatedly is not the case. I recognize you all disagree with me on that, but I was hoping you'd at least realize that given my assumptions it's your logic that is circular, not mine - and that given your assumptions it's correct that my logic is circular and not yours. The point is we disagree on our foundational assumptions.

Re: "Huh?"

When you said "I'm one of those evil anarchists you know" - I wasn't sure what you were implying, but just to be sure I wanted to remind you that I'm not one of those people that insists libertarians are anarchists. I didn't know if you were putting words in my mouth or not - that was unclear - but I just wanted to make sure you didn't.

"I say better to empower national governments to address national concerns and let the people decide how to handle those concerns."

But what is in your mind a national concern?

I assume that be can both agree that national defense is a national concern.

But what of, say, obesity? Is that a 'national concern'?

In response to your comment below, because it's narrow:

RE: "Please Daniel, spare me. Do you really believe that I am so niave that I don't appreciate that two people could get two different understandings from reading the same thing? That is really rather insulting. That is not some great Daniel insight on the world though apparently you believe it is."

It is not some great insight, but when you write things like "There's a reason why an amendment to the Constitution is no part of the health care reform discussion" I just wonder, and it seemed like a reasonable point to raise. Not every point raised in a discussion is a momentous or original insight - most aren't. And in this note when you write things like "A simple reading of the Constitution quickly reveals that it was not intended as a general power of Congress. It was intended as a CONTEXT underwhich the list powers given to Congress were to be excercised."

When I read things like that it seems like it might be worth raising the point that much of the difference is over interpretation, not dedication to the Constitution.

The power to raise revenue to provide for the general welfare is the very first listed power of Congress. Indeed - this is precisely where they are empowered to raise revenue. How can it be just a contextual clause? It is clearly an enumerated power. Look at the stipulations in the clause on how they can and can't raise money. Does that really read like context to you, or does it read like an actual listed power?

I could turn around and accuse you of abandoning the Constitution and considering the Constitution moot. Instead I considered it generous simply to restate that a lot of people interpret the Constitution differently, and that that's where a lot of the disagreement lies - not over whether the national government should be limited by the Constitution.

If Congress has the general power to provide for the general welfare then there is no point to the rest of the enumerated powers. They serve no purpose. They all fall under the big umbrella of 'general welfare'.

At the time the Bill of Rights was put together some people actually argued that it was not needed because the Consitution already laid out the specific powers of Congress. We didn't need the first amendment to protect free speech because no where in the Constitution is Congress granted the authority to regulate it.

They further argued that providing the Bill of Rights might backfire becuase they would become the only thing which was protected.

So, the Bill of Rights proponents added the 9th and 10th amendments in a futile attempt to be even more clear.

If the general welfare clause is to be interpreted as you mean it then the 10th amendment serves no purpose at all.

A response to below, because it's getting small -

RE: "So, we're to believe that the framers of the Constitution just so happened to put together exactly the document you would write. Wow. That's amazing."

No, you have it somewhat backwards. What I want is a constitutionally limited government that can still provide the people with the ability to make decisions on genuinely national questions. Since we have a Constitution written to do that, and since it's writtenly decently well, and since I come chronologically after the Constitution, "what I want" is for the Constitution to be enforced because I think it does a decent job. Does that mean if I were there in 1787 I would have written it the exact same way? No - I probably would have changed things. But given my options, "what I want" is for the Constitution to be enforced. So what I want and what the Constitution says do coincide, not because of some impressive, surprising coincidence but precisely because the most obvious way of getting at my ideal is to stick with a Constitution that gets as close to it as I think I can hope for.

Re: "If the general welfare clause is to be interpreted as you mean it then the 10th amendment serves no purpose at all."

Not at all! The 10th amendment is paramount - equal in importance (in my mind) to the first and second amendment. You seem to be thinking that I'm suggesting that the general welfare clause is a blank check to Congress. Why do you think I'm saying that? All powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. Providing for the general welfare is one of those expressly granted powers. Indeed - it is the first one. You can't just wish it away or claim that of everything enumerated in section 8, these five words in this one clause AREN'T an enumerated power... it's just "context". How do you justify taking it upon yourself to make that assumption?

It's not a blank check - your concerns are only valid if it's a blank check, but it's not.

Does that mean everyone will agree on the extent of providing for the general welfare? Of course not. And there's good reason to believe the founders left it purposefully vague. But just because there will be some disagreement doesn't mean that it means anything someone wants it to mean!

It might not perhaps be a 'blank check' but it is certainly very broad, which is exactly what my claim was. When you combine it with other clauses which have been expanded beyond recognition such as the commerce clause and with the funding the federal government provides by taxing the people and then doling it back out to the states what you have left is a Congress which is virtually unlimited.

So should I respond to your "broad" claim or your "unlimited" claim. I agree it's somewhat broad. It's quite a leap to move from broad to unlimited. And it's a very convenient leap if you find it inconvenient that I actually do want a limited federal government.

"So should I respond to your "broad" claim or your "unlimited" claim."

I wrote virtually unlimited, the context of which was in combination with other powers Congress now has.

"And it's a very convenient leap if you find it inconvenient that I actually do want a limited federal government."

Good god man, we we're discussing what we understand the Constitution to mean, not what you or I might or might not want.

OK - "virtually unlimited". Does my point change? Of course it is "broad". Critics use rhetorical sleight of hand to pretend that all things are permissable if you think "general welfare" actually means "general welfare", and it's not just "context".

RE: "Good god man, we we're discussing what we understand the Constitution to mean, not what you or I might or might not want."

My apologies for the confusion - since my understanding of the two are one and the same in my case, I was a little casual in how I worded that. Yes - I agree that's what we're discussing.

"Does my point change?"

Yes, it does because you are still ignoring the rest of the post the paragraph 'virtually unlimited' appeared in.

"My apologies for the confusion - since my understanding of the two are one and the same in my case..."

So, we're to believe that the framers of the Constitution just so happened to put together exactly the document you would write. Wow. That's amazing.

Personally, if I got to write the Constitution and put in it what I want, it would be a little bit different than the current one.

Figure out what the term "general Welfare" meant at the time in common parlance and you have your answer.

That is precisely what I would advocate. Somehow I'm guessing you still wouldn't like my answer.

Then that makes you an originalist of the Scalia variety. Are you really an originalist of the Scalia variety?

I'm an originalist of the Daniel variety :)

Yes - that has been a hallmark of Scalia's, but seeking out the meaning of words as the founding generation understood them is hardly unique to him. It's obviously an important consultation to make before interpreting the Constitution. I don't think it's definitive of how I look at things, but it's certainly a part of it. I do have a lot of respect for Scalia, but I'm not sure that means I'm an "originalist of the Scalia variety".

I would say that is the only way to understand them. There are innumerable quotes from varying figures of the time saying the same thing. Why is it the only way to understand them? That ought to be obvious - because it was "the people" (you know, you keep referring to "the people" as I recall) who actually enacted the thing. So it was their general understanding which is important, and not understanding of those who wrote it.

That those who enacted understood this and took it that way is illustrated by all the commentary which enactments were returned with (which is the primary reason why we got a Bill of Rights).

We've beat around the bush on examples of this many, many times - and obviously people are going to disagree. I don't think obesity is a national concern - I'm not sure why it would be.

We shouldn't expect perfection. People are going to ultimately disagree on what is and isn't ultimately framed as a national concern. But that should be the task. That's largely what Buchanan laid out in his work on what he called "constitutional political economy".

"We've beat around the bush on examples of this many, many times - and obviously people are going to disagree. I don't think obesity is a national concern - I'm not sure why it would be."

And yet, I'm sure there is quite a lot of federal money spent on it.

As for examples, people use them because they convery a large amount of information without having to spell it all out in detail. Using examples saves time.


"We've beat around the bush on examples of this many, many times - and obviously people are going to disagree. I don't think obesity is a national concern - I'm not sure why it would be."

No, we shouldn't expect perfection. What we should expect is that the scope of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution and that if we, as a people, want to change that scope then we should amend it.

RE: "What we should expect is that the scope of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution and that if we, as a people, want to change that scope then we should amend it."

I absolutely agree. However, it's not just a matter of spelling it out in the Constitution - it's also a matter of interpreting what is spelled out. That's ultimately where most of the disagreement lies.

There's a reason why an amendment to the Constitution is no part of the health care reform discussion. The Constitution is moot.

That concerns me.

That would concern me if I thought it were true. You are illustrating my point, though, that a lot of the problem comes in with INTERPRETING the Constitution, not with the fact that either side disregards the Constitution. Be careful not to conflate somebody disregarding YOUR interpretation of the Constitution with disregarding the Constitution.

That having been said, though, I hope the mandate gets challenged in court. I expect it will.

Please Daniel, spare me. Do you really believe that I am so niave that I don't appreciate that two people could get two different understandings from reading the same thing? That is really rather insulting. That is not some great Daniel insight on the world though apparently you believe it is.

The Constitution isn't ambiguous. It is very clearly written. That doesn't mean there aren't issues of shades of gray. But that's not what we are talking about here.

Take for example the welfare clause. A simple reading of the Constitution quickly reveals that it was not intended as a general power of Congress. It was intended as a CONTEXT underwhich the list powers given to Congress were to be excercised. To argue otherwise, as lawyers have done, is clearly sophism.

We are no longer a Consitutional Republic, we are a 'Supreme Court Precedent' Republic.

Why couldn't a nation be community? In ancient times when the city-state was the greatest power structure they probably couldn't think a community could take up a whole city.

That's why we have protections in place to ensure that sort of self-rule - and I would suggest that some of those protections need to be considerably strengthened.

Whenever you want to become a voice for those protections of self-rule, it would be welcomed.

And I know you just want to erase that facet of human nature, but you can't just erase that at the stroke of a pen - and you can't make a convincing case that our individual liberties are somehow threatened by our community aspirations.

I am convinced. The case is strong that individual liberties are threatened by the community. History shows threats that destroy small communities in favor of a large all-encompassing community -- a large community that otherwise would not decide to organize like this on its own if it had not been legislated to do just that.

I cannot accept as "self rule" something that nominally acknowledges my individual rights but refuses to let me act in concert with my community for the community's good.

And there's the slippery slope. You can act in concert with other members of your community. However, when what you and the other members propose ceases to acknowledge another's right NOT to act in the same effort -- provided that this other person isn't depriving anyone else of liberty -- then you have overstepped your bounds.

People ridicule "externalities" on here, but "externalities" are just a more analytical way of talking about problems that transcend individual benefits and costs and involve community benefits and community costs. If you refuse to let communities address these sorts of issues, you're no friend of liberty as much as you insist that you are.

I'll contend that a simple majority rule creates even more problems as it's attempting to identify what the problems are. Not everything needs to be fixed. In fact, I'd say that there are very few things that the community as a whole needs to try and coordinated through policy-making. I think that Pareto Rule should be instituted for policy-making, as potentially restrictive as that might be. And then have a separate rule that allows for any legislation to be repealed with more than a 20% vote.

I cannot accept as "self rule" something that nominally acknowledges my individual rights but refuses to let me act in concert with my community for the community's good.

If you are implying this about libertarianism, then you are mistaken. Voluntary participation in community is perhaps the prime aspect of libertarian thought.

Libertarians just oppose the idea of dragooning people into such participation.

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary cooperation.
One involves society, the other involves government.
One involves choice, the other involves coercion.

One is just, the other unjust.

""That's why we have protections in place to ensure that sort of self-rule"

Could you please elaborate on what it is you think provide those protections?


"But as social beings we also have tasks that we may want to achieve as a community. You're not an advocate of self-rule if you want to deny people the ability to do this."

There are many large organizations in which people come together as a community wholly voluntarily.

That's not what you're advocating.

You are advocating violence. Throw the dissenters in jail if they have the audacity to resist.

Being able to vote with your feet is an important check on power.

As an example, as far as I know, there would be nothing unconstitutional about any state implementing a health care bill like the one being considered in Congress (excepting maybe that many states have a balanced budget requirement in their constitutions).


"People ridicule "externalities" on here"

This is just false.

"But as social beings we also have tasks that we may want to achieve as a community. You're not an advocate of self-rule if you want to deny people the ability to do this."

Who's denying them? Take healthcare. No one is denying the millions of people who want socialized medicine of their right to form a non-profit organization. They don't do it because that's not what they really want. What they really want is for people like me to pay.

"...you can't make a convincing case that our individual liberties are somehow threatened by our community aspirations."

Of course I can. I don't want most of the aspects of political empire that I am forced to pay for, but if I don't pay they send me to jail. Are you blind or just delusional?

And by the way, its not our community. Its yours.

RE: "Who's denying them? Take healthcare. No one is denying the millions of people who want socialized medicine of their right to form a non-profit organization. They don't do it because that's not what they really want. What they really want is for people like me to pay."

This is an example of individual liberty, isn't it? Which, as you say, no one is standing in the way of (at least in this circumstance). How is this a community responding to community problems? This is an example of individuals responding to their problems - which is great.

Define community. You want to think that we are all one community, it makes great propaganda to proclaim that we are all one community, but clearly we are not. When you break it all down, politics is exploitation, not community.

So to answer your question specifically, no one is stopping the community made up of those who want socialized medicine from forming a non-profit organization to meet its needs. There are at least 10s of millions, if not hundreds of millions, in this community, so it has every chance of succeeding. But they don't do it. Instead, they invoke the propaganda of the meta-community in order to apply the political method of forcing others to pay for the services that they want.

As you said - we are not all one community. And politics can be exploitation - that is it's primary risk.

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this health care example - there are non-profits set up to provide health care. It's an example of the exercise of individual rights. That's what free association is. That's what the market is. That's not community, though. What I'm suggesting is that the community enjoys benefits and suffers costs that are independent of the sum of the benefits and costs of individuals. Communities (neighbors, families, tribes, regions, etc.) have a meaningful identity in and of themselves that goes hand in hand with individual identity and individual rights. Yes - we can invent communities out of thin air and it makes for effective propaganda: witness the history of nationalism. But don't imagine that pointing that obvious fact out somehow disproves the reality and actuality of more meaningful communities.

"Communities... are sets of individuals who similarly bear common costs or share common benefits and should have the freedom to deliberate and make tradeoffs on those issues."

Okay, that's a start. And not a bad definiton. But also not very applicable.

1. Bear common costs. In a system of exploitation such as all known systems of government, there are no common costs. There are those who pay and those who collect.

2. Share common benefits. See #1. Some have to pay for benefits while others do not. This is a system of exploitation, not community.

3. Free to deliberate and make tradeoffs. In our system we have the myth known as representation. The idea being that if some political type claims to represent me that my views are actually being represented. The truth is that the rulers rule and I have to follow the rules. Again, not community.

"... the reality and actuality of more meaningful communities."

There are meaningful communities that actually do comply with your definition, but our political system isn't one of them.

on your #3 - you seem to be assuming that your inability to dictate to the community makes it not a deliberative community.

Who said anything about dictating anything? Mere representation would be nice. This is of course the problem with politics as opposed to the market; it is much easier to be represented in the market than in politics. Which is why so many products - even minor niche products - exist in markets whereas in politics the approach is one size fits all, everyone must conform to a single uniform plan, etc.

Anyway, to good and properly Godwin this conversation, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were also "communities."

Not really. But they certainly did make that claim, as all political organizations are wont to do.

Oh I think the Nazi regime was its own community; it had its own morality, notion of ethics, view of itself as nation, etc. and a lot of people bought into it and happily died for it.

That's right. Its not a community. Its a political organization. And all I'm really asking is that you stop conflating community with political organization. Its a method of propaganda that I just will not tolerate.

So what is community to you? A group of people that all agree on something? That's a bizarre definition.

Not "labor theory of value", "labor theory of property". What I create is mine though the value remains to be seen. Marx got it wrong, but Locke didn't.

"for tis labor indeed that puts the difference of value on everything; and let anyone consider, what the difference is between an acre of land planted with tobacco, or sugar, sown with wheat or barley, and an acre of the same land laying in common without any husbandry upon it."

Sounds like a labor theory of value to me. It's not tht big of a mark against Locke - a lot of people thought that way at that time. And I'm not sure he always wrote about it in those terms either - if I recall his monetary work exhibited some precursors to supply and demand thinking.

Yes, he also had a labor theory of property. I'm guessing in his mind the two were intextricably linked.

Good eye. But if I remember right this was just part of a section in which Locke describes what property is. That is, he was making the case that labour is what creates property. He probably doesn't make the distinction between property and value. That they are the same would be an easy and probably common assumption - though erroneous.

Definitely - insofar as he did promote a crude labor theory of value, it was definitely tied to his theory of property rights, IMO. Which really is a whole lot better than other versions of the labor theory of value, because it sort of anticipates the marginal revolution and wages being the marginal contribution of labor... sort of. Put it this way, you can think of him as a proto-marginalist that just overestimates what the marginal contribution of labor was!

Agreement. Yes. Its not a common usage, but the common usage has been seized by propaganda. Definitions matter. If we allow the politicians to control the use of the word community then they will use it to justify all manner of exploitive behavior. So it must be take from them.

Community as a body of people in agreement works for starters. It is certainly a better definition than "whatever the politicians decide".

In response to your comment below - yes, thinking of myself as "Lockean" doesn't mean I replicate all his thoughts. For example, I've dispensed with any sympathy for monarchy, and like everyone after the late nineteenth century I've moved past the labor theory of value :) I would have thought that was implicit!

Re: "Definitions matter. If we allow the politicians to control the use of the word community then they will use it to justify all manner of exploitive behavior."

OK - but remember, you're not arguing with a politician here - you're arguing with me :) And there are enough libertarian elites out there that want to twist definitions in their own way too.

Daniel,

You may not actually be a "politician", but you are absolutely Hobbesian in your support of the political class. I do enjoy our conversations, but you are fair game.

Hobbesian? I've never been called that before. And what support for the political class? I'm Lockean, really, but thanks for playing.

By Hobbesian, I mean one who values the state (Leviathan) as a necessary component of all that is good. Locke was something of a heretic, but he had his Hobbesian moments. Such as first defining a labour theory of property and then turning right around and giving the political class the right to intefere with property rights by declaring them limited by need in accordance with Christian (Monarchist) values.

"That's not community, though."

So what is? You're going to have to define a specific community before your statement has meaning. Family is family, neighbors may or may not be community, tribes are unlikely to be community, and regions has without question crossed over the line to meta-community - that is, propaganda. I know you know what I mean because you bring up the example of nationalism as propaganda. So, 1)Why would you deny the possibility of a community of people who want socialized medicine? And, 2) Why would you imagine that this community is still a community after forcing those who do not want socialized medicine to participate?

That's not a community, that's a set of people that agree on something. There is a set of people who's favorite color is green.

The importance of individual liberty is derived from the fact that individuals experience many benefits and costs as individuals, and they should have the freedom to make a tradeoff between the two. Communities aren't just sets of individuals who agree on something - they are sets of individuals who similarly bear common costs or share common benefits and should have the freedom to deliberate and make tradeoffs on those issues. People who agree on health reform may not be a "community" and a community may not agree on health reform. I'm not sure why you think that agreement constitutes a community. And I'm not sure why you think "family is family" constitutes a counter-argument.

Does individual freedom to self-government conflict with self-government of a community? All the time. The world isn't nice and clean as some people like to make it. It can be messy and it is imperfect. I've never denied that. You don't just clean it up by ignoring or discounting an entire facet of human liberty in your insistence that you're the ones that truly embrace liberty.

You argue for community with the option to conscript members under circumstances YOU think are important enough.

The problem is that other members who agree with the option of conscription will likely differ on what is important enough to exercise the conscription option, and so we have military bases in over 130 countries around the world.

Now we're in the area of who gets to define a community.

Our family participates in a community that is not physically close.
OTH, the neighborhood we live in does not form a community as we rarely see most of the residents here.

Then there are communities that are defined by political boundaries. But I find the idea of a city of over 900,000 being a community absurd, it is a political district of arbitrary boundaries. I hardly know any of the people that live within these boundaries.

And yet, in a city of close to a million people, 800 of them can complain to the city council about a particular problem they are having, and the council will pass a law that affects everyone living within those boundaries with little public input.

What a glorious community.

"Does individual freedom to self-government conflict with self-government of a community?"

Maybe you're arguing against Rothbardian libertarianism or something.

Libertarianism covers a diverse set of opinions on just what, exactly, it is. I believe that many libertarians would little (less?) problem with local communities and states governments.

Progressives want everything done at the national level. And important reason they do is because at the national level the people loose their ability to vote with their feet.

Re: "Maybe you're arguing against Rothbardian libertarianism or something."

Well I was arguing against Randy. There are many versions of libertarianism - just like there are many versions of any "-ism". I think the statements I was making are general enough to have something to say to any libertarian, whether they address certain libertarian concerns or not.

I would advise you to follow this line of though on progressives as well, who are just as varied as libertarians. But I would agree with the thrust of your final paragraph. It often seems like progressives make the mirror image of mistakes that libertarians make. But as we established, there are lots of different libertarians and lots of different progressives.

That was suppose to say: "I believe that many libertarians HAVE little (less?) problem with local communities and states governments."

One of the things you'll soon realize is that Daniel uses the fallacy of the middle ground a lot.

Not sure if I've discussed the idea of meta-community here before. By meta, I mean "beyond real" and not "greater", as meta-physics is beyond real physics and not greater physics.

Bah humbug! Everyone 'self-rules' themselves - it a hopeless tautology. You always decide on how you act and the consequences thereof.

Agreed! And in many countries one decides how they will act to avoid the trivial consequence of death for being a subversive instead of being submissive. Bah humbug to individual liberty; right, Gil?

The people who were shot and killed trying to cross through the Berlin wall, they knew the consequences.

Perhaps they didn't realize their quest for freedom was based on nothing more than tautology.

"Perhaps they didn't realize their quest for freedom was based on nothing more than tautology."

I mean, after all, they were free the whole time. The individuals who tried to cross the Berlin wall made a choice. They were perfectly free to choose not to do so.

Facts is facts people.

He reminded me of the postal employee who told me that paying income taxes is voluntary.

Actually, the filing of returns is voluntary, but if the IRS determines that you owe them money, they will take it.

You appear to have glossed over the part about controlling the disbursement of the value I produce.

Unfortunately, and thanks to our wonderful federally controlled public fool system, too many Americans, and Australians, confuse reaction with thinking.

Reaction to enculuration gets an astonishing percentage of people through life without them ever seeming to have a true thought.

Look at muirduck as individual example, a knee-jerk teeny canine reaction to any stimuli. His God of State will provide, just obey and give to the glory of State.

But, this state of affairs is a deliberate design of socialism. Socialist are terrified of a population consisting of a people who think for themselves. People who think for themselves don't need their local party boss to do it for them. It is no accident that in every instance of communist revolution that succeeded, the intellectuals were the first to be culled out and killed.

Nice strawman DK. Those few who advocate a distribution of knowledge and authority (i.e. "freedom") for pick your problem have no idea how things will turn out, as Don explained. But they have faith that the outcome will be better than any alternative central plan.

OK wait a minute. They have no idea, but they have faith that it will be the best outcome. They act on this faith. And it seems like you're saying they consistently act on this article of faith. Isn't that dogma? I am fully in support of the distribution of knowledge (well, I don't really have any choice in that one - knowledge IS ALREADY distributed), and the distribution of power. The point is, some people would deny the people the ability to exercise that power or act on that knowledge because of the articles of faith they hold about what will and will not work.

Yes they have FAITH because I don't see any evidence to make the claim empiric.

Empirical claims require metrics, which in turn, require a general agreement on what is desirable. For most political issues for which the major parties seek political solutions, we lack the latter. For example, Democrat/Liberals want to maximize the number of people who have health insurance. Republicans/Conservatives want to maximize the number of polar bears globally warmed or, at the very least, poisoned. 40% are solidly in each camp, with 60% opposed to the respective goals let alone policies that might flow from the goals. In such an environment, it is optimal to let people freely decide if they want health insurance or polar bear extinction and freely balance those with other options in their lives.