THE Principal Principle

Georgism adopts the principle that you own your land and whatever you build on it, but society owns the value of the location of your land, because society created that value. Georgism also adopts the principle that no other tax is justifiable. And thus, in a Georgist society, everyone keeps the value of what they create, which of course encourages everyone to create as much value as they can.

I'm kinda liking Georgism.

What Dionne fails to understand is that once people see what the liberal agenda is, they punt. Dionne is on that team.

Their ideas suck, and now everyone knows it.

Every 8 or 10 years, it’s necessary to remind ourselves just how stupid “smart people” actually are.

Although Professor Boudreux takes issue with Mr. Dionne's, Mr. Dionne made two points that made me think. First, in his second last paragraph, he quotes Ron Paul as saying: "[Without a bailout] it would be a bad year. But this way it's going to be a bad decade." What if Dr. Paul's prediction comes true? Does that mean the country will start to listen to libertarians? Or will we see a repeat of the 1930s and moving to even more government? It makes me think that the country is possibly stuck in a cycle of government-creates-problem followed by government-grows-to-solve-problem. Doesn't communist theory say that communism is inevitable? Maybe they're right.

Second, in his final paragraph, Mr. Dionne predicts that anti-government teapartiers will turn to the Republicans, only to be disappointed. Here's another movie we've seen before. Libertarians bounce back and forth between parties, being forever disappointed. How do we stop this?

Question for those who believe that libertarianism is uncharitable;

The US federal government now has a budget of somewhere around $4 Trillion per year ($3 Trillion last year), so why are there still poor people? By my calculation, that would be something north of $50 Thousand per poor person using pretty much any existing definition of poverty. So, next question, if the government can't, or won't, solve the problem, why not give the money either directly to the poor or to some other charitable organization that actually works?

Randy, poor people's problem is that they make bad choices in their lives. Many of them don't have any good choices, but some of them lack the judgement to choose the good instead of the bad. Giving people money doesn't automatically give them good choices. If you're a drug addict and you get more money, how does that help you stop abusing drugs? If you have a lazy good-for-nothing husband, and he gets more money, how does that help you escape poverty?

Had a minute to think about it? Does your answer have anything to do with the fact that charity is not the primary mission of the Federal government? Good for you. So then, why should I send my charitable contributions to an organization whose primary mission is not charity? Would you ask me to buy groceries at the Home Depot?

You say that "The Tea-Partiers, whatever their faults, do us a favor by reminding us that liberty is worth defending as an end it itself."

They would do better by reminding us that taking from the rich to give to the poor does not reduce but increases inequality.

Thanks you, Don. Thank you so much for linking to this speech from Samuel Adams. What a brilliant work of art. Just, beyond inspiring. Life changing.

I'd never seen that Sam Adams quote before, that's phenomenal!

I do see the principle behind some opposition to President Obama's agenda. However, I don't know what to make of the word "much" in Don's first sentence. At least as "much" of the opposition to the Obamanomics agenda seems to come not from principle but from partisanship. Rather than bemoan partisanship (a complaint that gets old before it's uttered), I'll note that *all* partisans grab the mantle of principle when in opposition and (ironically?) seem nearly always bitter about that fact when in office.

I predict that, if principle "succeeds" by getting in bed with partisanship for pragmatic reasons on this, principle will simply regret it later and find that it's not really success.

Best regards,
Jim

Don,
The second paragraph in this letter may be the best paragraph you have ever written. I know half of it was a quote but you quoted well. I get quite sick of certain people assuming that just because I don't neccesarily believe in entitlements that I am some idiotic, narrow-minded redneck. I actually like to have calm rational debates with people who disagee with me.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin

In searching around the web, one may find that Ben disavowed actually saying this sentence, but not its sentiment.

No matter, it's a noble thought.

Good to know. Then Hayek himself misquoted Ben as this line is in "Road to Serfdom."

Where exactly were these liberty loving people when they were most needed, namely at the time when George W. created the huge deficit, bailed out overtalented bankers, started a few wars, etc. ?

if these people are so much in defence of liberty, Prof. Boudreaux, can you tell me what they think of freedom of labour & migration?
Is legalising crack on their agenda ?

Could you maybe elaborate on "whatever their faults" are?

W did not bail out any bankers until his last month in office.
New guy has stretched that mistake out for a year and a half.
Disappointing and predictable, both.

I always get a little worried about the practical implications of this blind quest for absolute liberty. I don't see people lined up to move to Somalia, where there is no government involvement at all in the economy or society generally. After all, Locke's quote about life being nasty, brutish and short wasn't aspirational.

I know the Ron Paul/Austrian view is that things will work out in the long run if the government would get off our backs, and it has a nice theoretic appeal. But even if it is just transition, some of these calls for reducing the scope of government beyond just the margins have real consequences. Are we really going to let the poor (or not so poor) die on the curb of a hospital because they don't (or chose not to) have insurance and can't afford treatment? And given the rents available by influencing the political economy, is it really a practical solution to move toward an imperfect Austrian-lite system? (And even Adam Smith warned about the merchants meddling through the political process).

So, I'd be curious what kind of 'Second Best' theory says if you can't get to a 'full' Austrian solution because of political or practical concerns, what is the 'right' amount of liberty to give up as proof against Locke's warnings? So, Liberty as an end in itself. . .I like the bumper sticker, but it just seems a little more complicated than that to me. (Even before considering the actual restrictions on liberty the Tea Party-ers are generally for that others here have pointed out.)

I always get a little worried about the practical implications of this blind quest for absolute liberty.

Is there a "blind quest" for absolute liberty?
What does "absolute liberty" mean?

Libertarians know that liberty is constrained by equality.

cautiousoptimist wrote:

I always get a little worried about the practical implications of this blind quest for absolute liberty.

As Russ has pointed out, limited government is not anarchy.

Returning our government to what is authorized in the United States Constitution would not be a turn to anarchy, and it would not be a "blind quest" at all. It would be a quest to return to a government whose function is limited to the protection of our individual rights -- and the abandonment of the quasi-socialist, quasi-fascist, wealth-redistributing, freedom-suffocating regulatory/welfare state that has been erected in defiance of our Constitution.

I will not attempt to cover in a single comment the history of how we went from the limited government conceived in our Declaration of Independence and codified in our Constitution to the monstrosity that is actively eating us alive today. But I do wish to make you aware of something today’s “progressives” are desperate to evade: namely, the fact that the welfare state has not always existed -- and prior to its creation, we did just fine without it.

For instance, you are concerned that if we “roll back” the welfare state, we will have poor people dying on the curb at the hospital. But this did not occur for the first 176 years of our nation's history -- that is, for the entire period of time from the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 to the creation of Medicaid in 1965. For that period of time, the indigent who couldn't afford healthcare depended on charity, either from charitable organizations or directly from doctors.

And the problem was not a lack of such charity -- the problem was that “progressives” saw an opportunity to enhance the power of government by claiming that charity was “beneath the dignity" of the indigent -- and that government-run healthcare welfare was the answer.

This is why, at the signing ceremony for the Medicare bill, former President Truman had this to say:

Not one of these, our citizens, should ever be abandoned to the indignity of charity. Charity is indignity when you have to have it. But we don't want these people to have anything to do with charity and we don't want them to have any idea of hopeless despair.

Well, it goes without saying that if you are depending on the taxpayers to pay your doctor bills, you are still an object of charity -- except that now it is charity-at-gunpoint, practiced by politicians with money that does not belong to them.

And now that this program has grown into a monstrosity that threatens to bankrupt us, what do the “progressives” want? A massive expansion of the welfare state, i.e. another massive dose of the very poison that has made us sick.

A government accountable to the people (i.e. free elections) with a role limited to protecting the liberty of people from the exercise of illegitimate power from others.

Is that so hard to understand? That doesn't mean no government. That doesn't mean a government that attempts to provide anything beyond that.

As a citizen, I want to know how every action of government relates to protecting me and my fellow citizens from illegitimate use of power from others. If it doesn't relate to that, then it that's an action the government should not be taking.

His question doesn't indicate a lack of understanding. His question would be guilty of, if anything, a lack of vision. Specifically, a vision of how a small government would play out as the people stepped up. Then again, for those who do have that vision, sharing it will help to bring others along. If he lacks vision, perhaps it is our fault for not sharing. It's one thing to share an opinion and another to share a vision.

His fear is, quite legitimately, that a society that is 'dog eat dog' will place many an innocent citizen upon the table of the bigger dogs. For this, I think Russ's replies to his comments follow a good vein of conversation: specifically, that the public monopoly current granted to the state actually has the effect of crowding out private charity, meaning that we simply don't see much of how things might operate without government interference.

Then again, for those who do worry about the plight of the poor, such assurances of "what might be" do little to assure them that the reality will be dealt with.

So the trick is to actively seek real solutions, and to seek them apart from a reliance on government.

Referencing Somalia conveyed a lack of understanding for me. That indicated to me that what he sees as the vision of limited government is Somalia.

I am a classical liberal (as is Don). We are not anarchists.

Why do you think limited government means that poor people will die in the streets? Will the new limited government ban charity either from strangers or the medical profession?

I liked Hayek's take on this. Basically, that nearly everyone wants what the socialists want. Who wouldn't want everyone to have a great job with great pay, easy hours, free healthcare, and with everyone entitled to as much of what "society" can produce as they would like. But, setting aside the utopian nature of these desires, not everyone is willing to accept the totalitarian methods that would be necessary to achieve even the least of them, nor are these willing to set aside the fact that the necessary concentration of power would very likely not be used as assumed.

There are many on both side, left and right, that see classical liberal as anarchists. I think it's because they are too lazy to actually do any research for themselves so merely parrot the talking points.

Russ -

My concern is in particular during any transition. Did you see video on the news last night of a 15 years girl getting beat up in a mall in Seattle, in front of a slew of people including mall security guards? Nobody did anything to help the girl. The security guys just called the police.

Once there is a paradigm established for individuals to independently fulfill some of these responsibilities, you might get a reasonable result. But during any transition, you're as likely to get people standing around not doing anything. Guess I don't have as much faith as you that charity will step up and fill all the gaps left when certain social compulsions are removed. For example, if you repealed the law that requires hospitals to provide emergency services for anyone tomorrow, do you think hospitals would just continue to provide this care, or spontaneously individuals would give enough to charities to cover these costs? I don't think I think so. I think sick people would be turned away, not get care, and for lack of a better metaphor, be left to die in the streets.

So I guess my main question is, as a classical liberal, where do you set the criteria for where to draw the line between anarchy and socialism?

For example, if you repealed the law that requires hospitals to provide emergency services for anyone tomorrow, do you think hospitals would just continue to provide this care, or spontaneously individuals would give enough to charities to cover these costs?

Perhaps it would be better if hospitals were driven into bankruptcy by such laws.

Kaiser got around that problem by opening an "Urgent Care" clinic and restricting access to emergency service to ambulances.

"if you repealed the law that requires hospitals to provide emergency services for anyone tomorrow, do you think hospitals would just continue to provide this care, or spontaneously individuals would give enough to charities to cover these costs?"

To use the example Don uses often, I don't see people dying from starvation in the U.S., yet there's no government mandate for restaurants and grocery stores to provide food to people who cannot pay. People have made arrangements to keep from going hungry and the market, charity and some targeted government assistance has emerged to make starvation a very rare thing here.

I would argue that a lot of natural impulses toward benevolence have
been dulled by the paternalism of the state. Would you let someone die
in the street? If a hungry person put out her hand to you would you turn
her away? Do the odds change when there isn't food stamps? I think they
do. Having said that, I don't believe private charity would be as
generous as government welfare. And a world without government schools
would spend less one education. A world without medicare and medicaid
and everything else would mean less expenditure on health. The question
is whether people spending their own money on themselves and other
people would do a better job and make up for the lower level of
expenditure. I think it would but it might not. But it is isn't a choice
between people dying in the street vs. being take care of.

Won't people be generally wealthier without government taking their money for, well, ALL the things government spends money on.

Would there not be less need for charity if people are generally wealthier?

If government weren't spending money on education, more people would be able to keep a partner at home to raise and educate their children, so while less may be spent, there would likely be more individualized education provided.

Etc.

All over the world people are dying in the streets where the populace has not "been dulled by the paternalism of the state." If charity doesn't fill the void in these places why would it do so here?

Some examples?

Can't say with absolute certainty, but I think part of the problem might be that people can't give to charity what they don't have. And one thing that I feel fairly confident of is that societies in which people are free to bargain and trade on their own behalf produce more wealth than societies that don't offer such freedom. So to look at places like Haiti or Somalia (for example) and see them as examples of charity failing ignores the real problem. Kind of a chicken or the egg problem I think.

That happens in countries that repress the market, and are correspondingly too poor to feed their own populace. Rich countries don't experience mass starvation, with or without government involvement.

ONLY in countries that repress the market?

Any counter examples?

I was at the supermarket to get some onsale ham. $1.19 a pound, bone in. In front of me were two able bodied scruffy guys trying to buy $200 worth of groceries with a state food stamp debit card. It had no value left on it. They insisted that it did to the check out lady. I just read the National Enquirer and listened. After a while they left and the lady and the manager discussed what to do and it was decided to keep the cart and 'hold' the purchase so that, maybe, the guys would come back with everything sorted out. They were real nice ladies. When I left the two guys were near the door shaking the gum machines for coins.

Another supermarket I go to has retarded people bagging. They are kind of slow, but I don't mind as they are nice, happy and polite. I don't know what it costs to have them, but I would pay the little difference. I think the store chain is kind of brave as some people no doubt are disturbed by people with less than elite aesthetics about their person.

So, see because they are retarded, the state and the leftists are not able to 'educate' them into victim hood. Meanwhile able bodied, crypto tough guys are hassling working mothers for free food.

Anecdotal evidence is so powerful. Even more so when it's embellished.

This reply reminds me of half the responses on DailyKos. Whenever I make mention of my experiences working as a pro bono attorney and dealing with the clients who couldn't afford child support but could afford their $400 month truck payment and their 200 cable TV channels. Its anecdotal for sure, but the opinions formed by witnessing such thing are no less valid because of it.

Icebergs. My anecdote and your anecdote are the tips of icebergs, if people refuse to believe that there is 90% unseen and that you can't prove, then let them sink.

I have many anecdotes about welfare, food stamps, and the people who abuse the system, do my many anecdotes mean anything....yeah they do, because I know that Texas scum are not the only scum in the country. If our scum can figure out how to scam the system, I am 100% confident that New York scum can do the same, and do.

Glad you liked it. By the way, I had origionally wanted to go to the DMV, but they had a closed due to snow emergency, so I first went to the barber next them and got a cut, then to the Dollar Store on the other side and then to the market.

Anyhow, twice or more a week I work a day bartending shift. It's the last working bar in town, the county seat, which is now often referred to as 'Detroit by the Sea'. That is because the county seat is the administrative welfare hub. Old houses that used to supply cheap single room housing for lower working class have been bought out by NGO for the burgeoning homeless industries, state halfway house, and pre release. The rest of the houses are packed illegals and hanging on by their teeth low income workers who have their houses broken into and stuff stolen.

I work the day shifts and like clockwork on the 5th of the month they, the necessary welfare fodder, come in for their PBR's, scratch tickets and such. Most are, OK. And I/we take their money. But there is always a few that give us the total do you know who I am Official Bad Guy rap. I say, loser, leave Or hope the cops get here before I go over the top of the bar. After, I then usually have to call the bars up and down and give them the heads up. It a mutual bum information network.

The local rag is constantly full of jobs for intervention, clerks, nurses, and all sundry of homeless/welfare industry jobs. It's the only real job growth area.

I hear talk of marginal workers getting on disability, and then working under the table. It's considered a pretty good deal. A lot of employees kind of count on it, it has so established its self. The result of that is that the notion of government as a resource to be exploited just works its way up the income ladder. In a way, I can not blame people, they are just doing what is in their best interest. If GM can do it, AIG do it, and all the rent seekers up and down the line, why not them.

Actually, if I recall, it was Thomas Hobbes who contemplated the "State of Nature" as being brutish and cruel. Governments were contractually instigated by the members of society for their mutual protection, and an attempt to overthrow that government was a violation of the very contract into which you had entered. Not that he believed that government was the be-all solution. His views were more nuanced.

Jon Locke, meanwhile, posited that the state of nature was far better, that men were endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and property; that these were natural rights, inherent to humanity and not bestowed by any ruler or ruling body. Thus, individuals contracted with one another to create a government for mutual protection, and when a government ceased to provide that protection and security for the liberty of the individuals, it was the right and, in fact, the duty of the people to overthrow it. It was Jon Locke's writings that either inspired or at least provided the backdrop for much of the founders' revolutionary thought.

As for the anarchy versus lite governance debate, I'm not sure on that one myself. Sam Adams and the other founders obviously believed in a high-degree of liberty, yet saw fit to craft a document which instituted the government we labor under today. They unfortunately, as many a hardcore libertarian will point out, instituted a government with many of the flaws shared with the monarchy they'd just escaped, including the power to tax with minimal input from the people. That power has, of course, been greatly extended over the years. But it does little to settle the debate of liberty versus governance.

I do believe that in a fair system - which is to say a system that offers no legislative advantage to one group over another, rather than a system that seeks to legislatively "level the playing field" - individuals can work with one another in a free system to provide for even those goods that we today assume can only be provided by the state, such as security, roadways, management of transportation infrastructure, etc.

Now how to relate to foreign powers and the like who do not labor under such definitions of liberty? That I do not know, and I will leave it to better minds than mine - and past writings such as those by Murray Rothbard - to fill in the gaps.

Sorry about the Hobbes/Locke mix up. :)

No need to apologize, as no offense was intended or taken from your statement. A simple and honest mistake, and one I have made many a time myself. Thanks for graciously accepting the correction!

It seems to me that the Tea Party movement has been coopted and should no longer be supported by those who value liberty. Their receptiveness to Palin's factually deficient, police state-loving speech was incredibly disappointing.

Their receptiveness to a police state is a dubious, at best; disengenuous at worst. I think you WOULD find, if you went to the trouble of actually assessing those in the movement, that the majority are freedom loving Americans who are proud to cling to their "guns and religion," as well as the US Constitution. It is, of course, easier to pontificate from one's armchair on the basis of perceived applause levels at one speech at one event. You go David!

I've been closely tracking the Tea Party movement and I know for a fact that some very good people have been involved in it. I even supported it a while back. Heck, I watched Rick Santelli's rant live on CNBC and cheered! However, I believe it is being coopted by the GOP, and the fact that they invited Palin to speak at their national convention and applauded her anti-freedom views, which are indistinguishable from Republican talking points is incredibly frustrating. The Tea Party, as a grassroots type of organization, needs the grassroots. When the upper levels of the organization lead it astray, it is best that it be abandoned. We're all still here and we're all the same people. We just don't need to be associated with Palin and the Republicans.

Agree 100%. I did (still do) consider myself a "Tea Partier," but back then it was frustrating to be grouped in with the 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs and today it's perhaps even more frustrating to be associated with Sarah Palin.

"When the upper levels of the organization lead it astray, it is best that it be abandoned."

Yes; but I am more optimistic: I'd say "if" as opposed to your "when".

Time will tell, but in the mean time discussions like these are all to the good.

Conservatives support government intervention in social affairs, while progressive liberals support government intervention in economic affairs.

They both support government intervention.

They each do both. I don't think I have to look through the entire history of the U.S. to prove that.

Example of govt intervention in social affairs?

Drug laws
Prostitution laws
Gambling laws
Gay rights/marriage
Laws against "marital aids"
Anything two consenting adults ought to be able to do in their own bedroom.
Liquor laws (dry and/or no booze on sundays)

Having read the below, I will concede that in many cases this effect of moral control by conservatives often plays out on the state scene. If you don't see it, come live in the south for a while.

And if you don't like the South's intervention in social affairs, no one is forcing you to live there. There are quite a few states up North.

No Steve, I won't live in the South. I think that is where the 'brand' of Republican-ism outlined by Michael Smith is more accurate. In the South it seems to hew pretty close to the old Dixiecrat mentality.

Hmmm. I live in the South (well, Texas...) and I don't see how our laws on the issues listed above are materially different than state laws in other parts of the country. Drug laws are about the same, prostitution is only legal in certain parts of Nevada. There is lot's of legal gambling in the south (visit Biloxi, Mississsippi or New Orleans). There are very few jurisdictions that recognize gay marriage regardless of geography. I am unaware of any laws against "marital aids". There have been anti-sodomy laws all over the place, but even in the famous Texas case they had rig the system to get anyone to actually enforce it. I have no idea where there may be remaining anti-sodomy laws on the books, but I can assure you they are not enforced anywhere. The only place I am aware of that allows open containers on the street in New Orleans, which, last time I checked, is well south of the Mason-Dixon line.

You're kind of a bigot, aren't you?

What's up with the sudden personal attack? And, if you want to stick with it, would you please produce some sort of syllogism or logical extraction of your accusation?

When you denigrate an entire group of people - in this case the population of a region - particularly when your specific accusations are factually incorrect, you are a bigot. If I have misinterpreted the comments above, I apologize, but it sure sounds like bigotry to me. If you don't like the label that's a good sign, but it's up to you to fix it. I am under no obligation to ignore it.

Your language and attitude reveal you to be a jerk.

I didn't denigrate anyone. I said that those who didn't see a sense of Republican moral legislation would recognize it if they live in the south. And, as I also said, it tends to show more at the state level.

I live in Alabama, where it is illegal to sell a dildo. The state governor has been in a personal battle with bingo parlors and dog tracks, and I can't buy liquor in a store on Sunday. The town I grew up in will not allow a movie theater because the theaters refuse their stipulation that the theaters not show movies during church service hours.

Re: "True Liberal" below... your ridiculous argument lacks even the pretense of logic. Whether anyone is forcing me to live here or not is irrelevant. The point is that moral outrage, as extroverted by Republican state legislators exists. It would still be so if I lived in Seattle or Mars.

So what? I am not conversant with the various state laws regarding the purchase of marital aids, but I do recall that Connecticut not that long ago had a law against selling condoms. Massachusetts (when I lived there) had "Blue Laws" that shut down practically everything on Sunday. Washington State only allows the purchase of liquor from state-run stores whose hours are very limited. Alaska (about as un-south as you can get) prohibits the sale of liquor in grocery stores. Most states that I've been to prohibit the sale of liquor on Sundays. Many states outlaw dog racing and/or horse racing, but both are legal in Texas and Florida. Your problem is that you see these interferences as the product of "Southern Culture" or the Republican Party when they are actually common injustices regardless of locale or dominant political party.

Most examples of legislative morality can be traced to conservatives.

I wouldn't consider government intervention in social affairs a defining characteristic of conservatism. Sure, there are some who support such things. They tend to hail from the moderates (vote which way the wind blows) and/or reflexives (can't articulate why they believe what they believe).

But, (no facts here) I'm guessing that the level of support on most of those issues isn't much different on either side.

John! That simply is NOT true. US history is filled with the opposite. The courts that have applied the most rigorous censorship rules, the committees and congresses that have passed the most staunch morals statutes have been appointed by or elected as Democrats in the US. It's an old lie that conservatives have pushed through legal or other morality. The most notable exception-- the Meese Commission under Reagan-- couldn't even create a comprehensive recommendation to Congress. It was cobbled together nonsense without real recommendations. The most conservative court in recent history hates the current FCC censorship rules and are on record with that opinion.

Sedition Act? Wilson (D). Movie censorship? FDR (D). US v. Progressive case? Carter (D). The 7 dirty words case - F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation? Carter (D). The Mapplethorpe and Mike Diana cases? Clinton (D).

The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are loaded with libertarian and hard line conservatives that may tell you you're going to hell for doing something, but will defend your right to do and say it.

I take your point, Eric, but let's take a look at what many (perhaps most?) Republicans advocate, even if they've not succeeded in getting much of it put into law:

1) Outlawing of virtually all abortion
2) Prayer in public schools
3) Teaching of creation on an equal basis with evolution
4) Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage
5) Denial of a gay's right to serve in the defense of his country
6) Government intervention to block termination of life support for those in hopeless conditions
7) Faith-based grants of taxpayer funds to churches.
8) Banning or severly limiting certain biotechnology research, such as stem cell research and cloning.
9) Immigration restrictions
10) Government regulation of private sexual behaviors through, for instance, laws banning sodomy.
11) Denial of speration of church and state; advocacy of displays of religious artifacts like the Ten Commandments in courtrooms.

It's pretty clear to me that the Republican party, for the most part, supports a significant amount of "government intervention into social affairs".

I think that you are mistaken on pretty much every example you provide, but you raise some interesting issues with respect to the common interpretations of libertarianism.

For example, why should abortion be a libertarian issue at all? The question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a human being at conception - what does libertarianism have to say that informs this debate at all?

And what, exactly, is libertarian about the government's stopping people from praying at school? Why should the government (in the form of the school board) be in charge of deciding how we came to be here?

As has been mentioned below, the "right to serve" is a made-up right, like the right to health care and three square meals a day. Pretending that there is such a right is, itself, a government intrusion into social affairs.

And what basic freedom is served by granting government funds to ACORN but refusing funds to an effective charity that happens to be affiliated with a church?

Of course the government didn't ban stem cell research, it only banned government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Why is it the government's job to decide that this type of research is morally acceptable?

In the final analysis you seem to be pretty much okay with government intrusion, just as long as it's intruding to support your views.

txslr wrote:

For example, why should abortion be a libertarian issue at all? The question in the abortion debate is whether a fetus is a human being at conception - what does libertarianism have to say that informs this debate at all?

I didn't say that “libertarianism” has anything to say about abortion. I was listing the freedom-violating, government interventions that Republicans advocate, as distinguished from one's they actually succeed in getting the government to do.

If you wish to argue that an abortion ban is a justifiable intervention, go ahead. My own position is that an embryo is only a potential human being -- not an actual human being -- in the same way and for the same reason that an acorn is not an oak tree.

And what, exactly, is libertarian about the government's stopping people from praying at school? Why should the government (in the form of the school board) be in charge of deciding how we came to be here?

I did not advocate that government “stop people from praying in school“ -- so why do you resort to this straw man argument?

The issue is what the Republicans (some of them, anyway) are advocating -- and it is not merely the “freedom to pray”. No one is suggesting that such freedom be taken away -- and as a practical matter, it is impossible to prevent students from doing whatever praying they want during their break and meal periods.

No, what the Republicans are advocating is teacher-led prayer during specific periods of time set aside for this purpose. That is a whole different thing than merely “letting people pray at school”.

As has been mentioned below, the "right to serve" is a made-up right, like the right to health care and three square meals a day. Pretending that there is such a right is, itself, a government intrusion into social affairs.

The right to self-defense is certainly not a "made up right". The right to defend one's country is a corollary to that right. I agree that the right to defend one’s country does not automatically translate to a right to join the military. If, for instance, one is blind or a cripple, joining the military would only put other soldiers at risk. Hence, there is a rational basis for keeping such people out of the military.

What the Republicans advocate (again, some of them) is that sexual orientation be used as a basis for excluding people. I am not aware of any rational grounds for this.

And what basic freedom is served by granting government funds to ACORN but refusing funds to an effective charity that happens to be affiliated with a church?

Granting funds to religious organizations is merely one more expansion of government power -- it merely creates one more group of organizations being given a claim on the taxpayer’s money. And as a practical matter, if you are going to give money to one church, how do you justify not giving money to the Muslim mosque down the street who happens to funnel a portion of everything they collect to Islamic Jihad?

The proper Republican position on this issue -- if Republicans really want to advocate freedom and limited government -- is to oppose ALL government charitable grants, including those to ACORN. But, disastrously, Republicans have only contributed to the growth of government interventions by pushing things such as the “faith-based” grants, prescription drug expansion, etc.

Of course the government didn't ban stem cell research, it only banned government funding of embryonic stem cell research. Why is it the government's job to decide that this type of research is morally acceptable?

Again, you resort to a straw man argument. Go back and re-read my comment. I didn’t say that government banned stem cell research. I specifically said I was listing things Republicans (some of them, anyway) advocate -- above and beyond what they’ve actually managed to get the government to do.

So, no, it isn’t the government’s job to declare that such research is moral. The point is that Republicans (again, some of them) want the government to declare all such research immoral and then outlaw it.

In the final analysis you seem to be pretty much okay with government intrusion, just as long as it's intruding to support your views.

This conclusion is a non-sequitur. It may be that certain of these intrusions desired by the Republicans are justified. If it were true, for instance, that an embryo is a human being, then intruding to outlaw abortion would be a proper exercise of government power.

However, the fact that I regard all these Republican-desired intrusions to be unjustified and wrong does not in any rational fashion support the claim that I am fine with government intrusions “as long as its intruding to support my view“. That claim makes no sense at all.

I notice that, on abortion, you don't address my point, so I conclude that you concede. On school prayer you are simply wrong. The ACLU, among others, has attempted to stop completely voluntary school prayer, including the use of public school facilities for religion-oriented student organizations. I take liberty to mean a minimum of government coercion, so how does stopping groups of students and/or teachers from voluntarily gathering to pray minimize coercion? On charities, I am in favor of getting the government out of the business of granting money to charities, but as long as they do I see no rational reason to exclude those charities that happen to be affiliated with religious organizations. Your question about Muslim terrorist supporters answers itself. On stem cell research, I have heard no one advocate banning all stem cell research, which IS what you claimed. Some (Republicans as well as Democrats and Independents) have said that, from a moral perspective, harvesting embryos for medical research is the same as snatching people off the streets to experiment on. You may not agree, but this is a legitimate argument, and having the government involved in financing of such research creates a real problem, which you ignore. That is, taking money from people in order to pay for research which they - with some reasonable basis - believe to be profoundly immoral. Sounds pretty coercive to me.

So, again, you seem to be most concerned about the government's ability or willingness to coerce behaviour with which you disagree. This brings us back to the point of the post, which was the principle at work here.

I notice that, on abortion, you don't address my point, so I conclude that you concede.

Then you are not a very careful reader. It is you who have paid no attention to the argument I offered against abortion.

The ACLU, among others, has attempted to stop completely voluntary school prayer, including the use of public school facilities for religion-oriented student organizations. I take liberty to mean a minimum of government coercion, so how does stopping groups of students and/or teachers from voluntarily gathering to pray minimize coercion?

It is bad enough that I am taxed to pay for the education of other people's children and to pay for the facilities where this educating is done. It is simply another addition to government's coercion over me if I am also to be taxed to pay for facilities to be used for the religious training of other people's children. In essence, I am being forced to fund things I disagree with.

More on this in a moment.

On charities, I am in favor of getting the government out of the business of granting money to charities, but as long as they do I see no rational reason to exclude those charities that happen to be affiliated with religious organizations.

If you are in favor of government getting out of the business of granting money to charities, you cannot possibly be in favor of adding to the list of charities that qualify for those grants. One wrong doesn’t justify additional wrongs. One improper use of my tax dollars does not justify an additional improper use of my tax dollars.
On stem cell research, I have heard no one advocate banning all stem cell research, which IS what you claimed.

What I originally claimed was that they advocated "banning or severely limiting certain biotechnology research" -- I mentioned stem cell research as an example. Here is a link to an article where the Republican Party Platform was modified to call for such a ban:

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2554.html

And please don't bother pointing out to me that the ban only applies to embryonic stem cell research. That distinction is utterly irrelevant to the fundamental question of whether or not Republicans advocate these sorts of interventions. It is very, very clear that many Republicans do advocate such bans.

You cannot dismiss one example of an interventionist ban that Republicans advocate by pointing out another that they do NOT advocate. The issue here is not the claim that Republicans are totalitarians -- the issue is whether they advocate interventions like the Democrats do. It is overwhelmingly clear that they do.

You may not agree, but this is a legitimate argument, and having the government involved in financing of such research creates a real problem, which you ignore. That is, taking money from people in order to pay for research which they - with some reasonable basis - believe to be profoundly immoral. Sounds pretty coercive to me.

Again, you are not reading carefully. I have not advocated government funding of ANY research -- I don't think the funding of research is a proper function of government. I agree that for government to do so creates precisely the kinds of problems you refer to here: it forces you to fund something with which you disagree.

This, incidentally, is precisely what is wrong with the idea that school facilities should be used for organized religious activities: it forces me to fund activities with which I strongly disagree.

I don't believe you are really thinking these things through. On abortion my point is that the belief that people should be free from coercion is not relevant to whether abortion should or should not be legal. Presenting your position on abortion is irrelevant. Put another way, my being in favor of a total ban on abortion does not prove that I am in favor of any sort of illegitimate government intrusion into your life according to any but an anarchist's set of standards. This is a logical error that pro-choice types make all the time, as evidenced by the bumper sticker "If you don't like abortion, don't get one." How about we replace that with "If you don't like domestic abuse, don't beat your wife"?

For the sake of argument let's say that you believe a fetus is not a human and that I believe it is. Insisting that you have a right to an abortion because it is your choice to make regarding the human-ness of the fetus is completely arbitrary. It is no more up to you to decide than it is up to you to decide whether your neighbor or your aunt is a human being.

The issue of embryonic stem cell research is precisely the same. The Republican position is not an intrusion into the rights of the individual, it is a position on which individuals have rights, and it takes the most expansive position on that question.

You and I likely agree on the idea of getting government out of education, but by this admission I am not logically bound to oppose after-school religious groups engaging in prayer on school grounds. By that logic any ban on the use of school grounds for purposes with which someone may disagree is a step in the right direction, in which case you would be logically obligated to support public schools' outlawing Democratic Party clubs while allowing Republican party clubs to continue. For the time being we have no choice but to accept that the schools are financed and run by the government, and until we can fix that problem we have an obligation to see to it the use of those facilities is as fair and reasonable as possible.

I am not trying to claim that Republicans are pure libertarians - clearly they are not. But it serves no purpose to limit the appeal of a minimally coercive society by reading out of the cause people whose views may not agree with yours but which are not antithetical to liberty.

Put another way, my being in favor of a total ban on abortion does not prove that I am in favor of any sort of illegitimate government intrusion into your life according to any but an anarchist's set of standards.

There are absolutely no plausible grounds for claiming that an early stage embryo is a human being. There might be some room for debate about the later stages of pregnancy, but in the first trimester, an embryo is more primitive developmentally and biologically than a frog or a fish -- it is not a mere matter of opinion that calling such a thing a human being is preposterous.

What's more, the notion that this parasitic body part has rights that trump the rights of its human host is equally ridiculous. No one -- not even a child, let alone an undifferentiated mass of cells -- can claim the right to the use of another person's body against their will and without their permission.

To declare that only society as a whole can decide whether a woman has a right to abort an early-stage embryo is the exact equivalent of claiming that only society as a whole can decide whether or not she may trim her fingernails or have her appendix removed.

Your support for a total ban on abortion -- like your support for a ban on embryonic stem cells -- does indeed mark you -- and the many Republicans that agree with you -- as an enemy of freedom, the freedom of *actual* human beings.

Anyone that wants to damn a woman to the misery and risk of pregnancy -- on the grounds that an undifferentiated mass of cells possesses rights that trump hers -- and then damn her to the resulting virtual enslavement to the duties of child rearing for 18 years -- cannot call themselves advocates of rights or of freedom of any sort.

Modern medical technology has freed women from the fear of pregnancy and put them in the position of being able to enjoy sex worry-free as can every man. The Republican party is hell-bent to prevent that, and use the power of the state to return women to the inferior position of having to worry about the wrecking of their lives via an unwarranted pregnancy if she wishes to engage in sex.

The Republican Party’s position on issues like abortion and stem cell research have done the party great harm. As long as Republicans continue to battle for the alleged rights of masses of tissue -- rights that require the violation of the rights of *actual* human beings -- they will be perceived as backwards, religious mystics seeking to impose their faith-based superstitions on the rest of society. And they will have earned that perception.

Thanks. You make my point for me. Your argument begins with an assertion that a human embryo is not a human, AND THEN you invoke a libertarian principle for the right to an abortion. Start at the other side of your intial argument and you wind up in another place, irrespective of your libertarian principle. Ergo, libertarianism does not inform the issue in the least. It is entirely determined by your view of the humanness of a human embryo. So whether or not laws restricting abortion are illegitimate intrusions is a function only of your opinion regarding when life begins, not whether you support a minimally coercive society.

BTW, your insistence on the scientific certainty of an embryo's lack of humanity is childish and is belied by your need to freight the argument with emotional, shrill comments about "enslavement", "parasites" and the like. How about we agree that I won't call you a Hitlerian baby murderer if you don't call me a backward, religious mystic seeking to impose my faith-based superstitions on the rest of society?

BTW, your insistence on the scientific certainty of an embryo's lack of humanity is childish and is belied by your need to freight the argument with emotional, shrill comments about "enslavement", "parasites" and the like.

You traffic in denouncing arguments by asserting them to be “emotional’ and “shrill” -- but you don‘t actually address the arguments. That’s generally a sure sign of someone who has no actual answer to those arguments.

I didn't say anything about an embryo's "lack of humanity". That's an attempt on your part to switch the discussion away from what I actually said: the embryo is not a human being.

It is the same sort of evasion you attempt in the first part of your comment when you seek to re-frame the issue as being a question of "when life begins."

The reason why you want to put the debate into those terms is abundantly clear to me: the notion that an embryo is a human being is something that you know you cannot support -- for the simple reason that it’s a ridiculous and unsupportable notion.

That is why in this entire exchange you’ve failed to actually address any of the arguments I’ve offered illustrating just how ridiculous that notion is.

You attempt to ridicule my “scientific certainty” as “childish”. If you can logically refute my "scientific certainty" -- if you can establish that an embryo IS a human being -- then let's hear the proof, let's hear the argument that supports that claim.

Let’s hear all of YOUR scientific reasons why a mass of cells that is developmentally and biologically more primitive than a fish or a frog is nonetheless a human being.

And by all means, feel free to call me a “baby killer”. I’ll be more than happy to face that accusation. I’ll merely hold up a picture of an embryo and a picture of an *actual* baby and state that I, for one, do not consider the two to be the same thing and morally condemn any attempt to infringe a woman’s freedom by claiming she has the same moral obligation to the former that she does to the latter.

As for calling you a backwards, religious mystic seeking to impose your faith-based superstitions on the rest of society -- I am not the one who has convinced so many Americans that that description fits the core of the Republican party. It‘s the Republicans themselves that have convinced them. Whether or not the Republicans want to continue convincing them is up to them.

You are off in the tall weeds chasing furry animals. My entire point from the beginning was that libertarianism in no logical way obligates one to accept a "pro-choice" position. You have launched off into a full-throated attack on abortion opponents and Republicans in general. I don't find your arguments persuasive or even terribly coherent, but that is neither here nor there because that whole train of thought is off topic. Furthermore, for a blog dedicated to economics and classical liberal thought it is a long way from germane, so I hope that you have fun with it, but please do it elsewhere.

Oh, I see. Since you cannot answer my arguments or logically and rationally defend your position, you simply tell me to "go away". Typical Republican.

I never presented a position on abortion, so I have nothing to defend. Typical pinhead.

MichealSmith - I appreciate this. I have some thoughts. Out of respect for Russ's wishes, I don't want to take this off topic. I plan to post a response to you on my blog (click on my name if you'd like). I'll start with a quick response to #8.

8 - First, is biotechnology research a social affair? Second, have conservatives proposed bans on stem cell research? I thought they just didn't want Federal taxpayer money to support it, which seems consistent with the minimal government intervention principle.

Seth, thanks for the opportunity to reply on your blog. I'll try to get to it Sunday.

I clicked 'like' on purpose, even though I agree with the Republican position on some of these things.

1) If you believe abortion to be the taking of a human life, should you not work toward protecting that life in all but the most extreme cases? If I have to choose between my unborn child's life, or my wife's life, I will choose my wife's life. But I will always know what I did.

2) Vouchers fix this problem. But if government insists on running the show, then humanism shouldn't be the only religion that public schools will indulge.

5) The dynamic of openly gay servicemen in regard to unit cohesion, morale, and trust need to be fully understood before such a move is made. Serving in the military is not a 'right'. Obese people are turned down. Blind people are turned down. Non-high school graduates are turned down.

8) The last I heard, the Republicans were only opposing use of tax money to fund stem cell research. The principled stand would have been against all tax-funded research.

Brotio, in I am going to reply on seth's blog tomorrow. I am sure he would not mind you joining the discussion.

I was thinking along the lines of drugs and gays, but you have given me food for thought. Thanks.

If by "liberal" you mean progressive (typical of newspeak) then you are correct.

The classical liberal will have none of either.

I support some of the message the tea parties are signalling. However, it is important to note that the group is 'polluted' by many individuals whose views are far from liberal (in the traditional sense). For example, many within the tea party movement are staunchly against giving the Guantanamo detainees any trial short of a quick execution. Many also support very illiberal views of religion in society. Many are against free trade and free movement of labour and capital and quite a few participate in the vigilantly campaign to stop migration across the US-Mexico border.
It is would be wrong to idealise the tea party movement as strict disciples of classical liberalism.

It is never a good idea to surrender your heart up to a collective.

Sam, I've always thought that, but now I'm starting to feel like a Randian Objectivist who sees the other Objectivists as feet stamping purist babies. I freely admit to that urge for purity. I can't help but wonder if things wouldn't be better of the Libertarians weren't so incompetent, and the Objectivists weren't such sandbox tyrants if we could maybe get half-way to "better off" instead of being at the mercy of a coalition of imbecilic forces that are all more than happy to waive some of their principles in order to make yardage on their goals.

You know, I've only recently become a football fan this year, and I've learned that sometimes you just need to burn out 3 or 4 yards at a time, and eventually, surprise! you've made four downs... then surprise! you've made a touchdown, and then eventually Tebow is crying on the sidelines.

We've been so adamant- that the other loser teams have been having all the fun, and we've sat out the dance.

If I haven't overwhelmed you with too many different analogies, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I'm really getting to think I'd be happy to live to see a half-libertarian paradise, than to die a miserable, grumpy old man (but with my intellectual pride!) in a socialist state.

You don't have to ignore your moral principles, but among them should be the need to endeavor to be respectful of other individuals as an example for others.

The comment you responded to is a moral principle. It does not say to never participate in collective endeavors, but it does imply that individuals are responsible for their participation. Acceptance of this responsibility is the only way that collectives can be circumscribed by moral principles.

I stopped participating in the Libertarian Party because, as a hierarchical organization, it attracts personalities that are keen to run organizations and such personalities want to do things their way and use the organization to implement their ideas. Not necessarily a bad thing if you get the "right" people in those positions.

Got more questions?