The almost impossible task

We can continue to piddle at the cusp of our problems in America, or we can begin facing our problems, identifying them for what they are, and then find solutions. The progressives are still hammering away at the narrative that the state is necessary to correct past injustices, and that the only way to do this is to transform capitalism into some form of socialization and central planning. There are those who look at government intervention then say that without intervention certain things wouldn't have happened: education, post office, roads, strong middle class, assistance for the poor, Medicare, Medicaide, food stamps, unemployment insurance, technology research, dams for energy, infrastructure of all sorts, public transit, safety, environmental protection, Social Security, de-segregation, women's rights, civil rights, building standards, food and drug standards, consumer protection of all sorts, financial regulations, on and on and on.

It's almost a hopeless case because we have given government so much power to control these areas of concern, that all people can see is what has happened due to government intervention. It would take a genius imagination to go back to the beginning and imagine other routes to the same results, or much better results. You would have to assess the effectiveness of all the areas of government intervention, then build a fictional alternative -- "fictional", because in most of these areas of concern the private sector was never allowed to, or never forced to, deal with the problems.

This would be a herculean task, although many libertarian writers have shown how some alternatives would work -- writers such as Rothbard and Friedman. But to address all government interventions would be a lifetime task, and even then people would have a difficult time understanding the alternative vision, because they are trained from childhood to accept government intervention as vital. Another herculean task is the one presented to libertarian-leaning policy makers who promote privatization for this or that -- for every area of concern which would be better off privatized, there are thousands of bureacrats dependent on a government program connected to the concern, politicians who are trying to save their power-base, and perhaps millions of dependent citizens who are afraid of change and don't want to risk losing something the government has provided.

I have no idea how government can ever be limited as it should be limited short of a collapse and rude national awakening. Our government is presently driving the country to financial disaster, and we can no loger pretend it's not an all-out attack on the free market -- between the energy efforts and healthcare reform we're talking long term, permanent costs, not just one or two time bailouts or a stimulus package here and there. Plus, with the attack on free enterprise, unemployment is likely to be high for a long time, costing us much more in benefits to support the out-of-work, with permanent unemployment rising. Safety net costs will go through the roof. It also appears we're politically stuck in two wars which will require long-term maintenance.

Baby boomers are retiring, so SS and Medicare will sink even further in the bog of unfunded liabilities. With government regulating the financial industry into stupor, lenders are going to be skittish and very conservative. Capitalism is being strangled and government spending is rising at record levels. This can't be sustained, and if government tries to soak the rich, money will flee even faster. The big question is -- Who is going to pay for all this? More and more young people are leaving high school with no marketable skills, barely able to read and write. It's incredible that small and medium size businesses are not organizing people to take to the streets -- but, so far, I don't hear any loud reaction.

I'm afraid people are stunned and hoping it will all go away, but from all the evidence it's only getting worse. More and more people are becoming dependent on government assistance and this is not good. We need another revolution, but most intelligent people are capitulating to power, playing the political game and burying their heads in the sand. A nation full of competent men and women, and we're being led by a handful of new age techno-fascists. The only ray of hope has been the Tea Party movement but it should be quadruple its size. This is no time for a replay of intellectuals slobbering over Stalin -- and, no, I'm not comparing Obama to Stalin, just weak intellectuals to weak intellectuals.

We're in a period where ordinary people are protesting, doing something they've never done before, participating in politics as free people should, and the intellectuals are trying to ridicule them into silence. Anyone who chooses the corrupt status quo of state power over people who want to limit the size of an over-reaching government are complicit in the destruction of liberty -- the media, Hollywood, representatives, big corporations, academics, unions, and every man and women who remains silent because they are afraid of losing some bauble from the gift-givers in D.C., they are all complicit.

Big corporations are hiding from competition behind the skirt of the state, comfortable in their international business, unconcerned with the damage done to the American economy, but when government gets desparate for money they will drain these sorry rent-seekers like hogs on a hook at the slaughter-house.

Just look at how Pelosi and Obama have strong-armed the insurance industry and shackled the finance industry, plus what they are in the process of doing with the auto-industry. Whatever company gets in their sights will be at risk. But, these companies asked for it -- when you make a deal with the devil you have to read the fine print.

The problem now is that it's doubtful we can stop this. One thing is for sure -- docility, capitulation and compromise will not help matters.

Change we can believe in

Obama came into office on a wave of hope and change. Liberalism/progressivism is characteristically associated with change, while conservativism is associated with blocking change, or slowing down change, or, more positively, promoting tradition, especially in the sense of traditions as they relate to the founding principles of liberty, free speech, limited government, individual rights, self-responsibility, etc.

As Jan Narverson wrote about in his book, The Libertarian Idea, there has to be more to this issue of "change", because surely all change is not necessarily good, nor is all change necessarily bad. Dropping the cartoonish distinctions between modern liberals and conservatives for a minute, let's look at change from a different angle.

Most people who still retain a healthy respect for our Constitution would agree that changing the restrictions in the Constitution and giving the State more control over our lives than the Founders intended, and the Bill of Rights supports, is bad. So it's safe to say the Constitution and the rule of law provide the parameters in which change can take place. Considering change from this angle alters the perception of resisting change simply as preserving the past-- change can be desired, and happen, within the Constitutional parameters which protect our individual rights. 

The minimal-state, libertarian position is that once the parameters are set then change is limitless, and this is how I understand the intentions of the Founders. Going back to conservatives and modern liberals/progressives, what we've experienced lately is that the progressives are attempting to change the parameters, and this is not the type of change, I don't think, that many who voted for Obama had in mind -- but it's becoming apparent that it is the type of change that progressive supporters had in mind. Obama clearly won the independent vote, but many, if not most, of these independents didn't understand what hope and change means to Obama and his progressives supporters, many of the supportes in congress and prominent government positions.

The conservatives are right to resist this type of change -- however, conservatives are being challenged to refrain from relying on state power to resist changes in society, based on moral preferences, which are within the proper parameters. This type of resistance to societal change, based on morals, has turned off a large part of the public which are socially liberal. This doesn't mean that morals have no place in public discourse, just not in legislation -- there are plenty of private forums to work out moral issues, but modern society has grown beyond moral enforcement.

The conservatives are building the right position by resisting government over-reach and promoting the free market -- now they need to understand the importance of civil liberties and the moral space free people need in order to change and grow, become responsible and work out their own spiritual path ("spiritual" meant in the broadest sense of the word). This is where a libertarian-conservative alliance can take place to roll back progressive madness and return America to prosperity, charity, liberty and opportunity for everyone.

Libertarians and discrimination

Jamelle's apparent attempt to marginalize libertarianism is a common tactic, reducing the libertarian thinker to influences of gender, race and social status. Then he places liberalism in a superior position, because, of course, liberals have had more well rounded experiences. Libertarians, being mostly financially well-off white guys, have difficulty "grappling with cultural sources of oppression."

The libertarian, according to this theory, can't understand the plight of women and minorities, because his mind is formed by his privileged experiences as a well-off white guy, therefore libertarianism, which is made up primarily of well-off white guys, is insufficient. However, the liberal who is a financially well-off, white guy can somehow grapple with the sources of cultural oppression even though he hasn't directly experienced the oppression -- I assume this is because liberalism has more culturally diverse adherents, so the influence of diversity informs liberalism, while the homogeniety of libertarianism keeps it uninformed.

 

I think Jamelle will agree that most people who call themselves libertarians are well-read and fairly intelligent. I don't know of any studies which show a weakness in comprehension skills among libertarians, so we can safely say that most libertarians are familiar with the liberal positions. Surely there can't be any psychological factors which prevent RWG (rich white guy) libertarians from grappling with the sources of cultural oppression, if RWG  liberals don't have this same psychological defect. Then, it must be within the ideas themselves. Libertarianism and modern liberalism differ mainly in the area of state involvement -- liberals support an interventionist government to solve societal problems, while libertarians are prone to support private realm solutions to societal problems, but this is a different subject -- it has nothing to do with whether libertarians have difficulty grappling with the sources of cultural oppression.

 

Jamelle's premise is that libertarians find it difficult to grapple with sources of cultural oppressision. Jamelle states that "libertarians experience oppression or constraints on their liberty....through the actions of the state rather than through culture", but, this is true not only for libertarians, it's true for RWG liberals, socialists, communists, independents, etc. The RWG liberal is not culturally oppressed, just oppressed by the state. So, what enables the RWG liberal to accept the liberal political movement? Since this is not making much sense, I guess we would have to focus on the heart of Jamelle's premise which is "grappling".
 

What does Jamelle mean by "grappling"? It makes more sense to discuss individual responses to discrimination than to marginalize libertarians with the charge of cultural retardation, which is in itself a form of cultural oppression applied by the left against libertarians.

Some individuals respond by involving the state in coercive measures to make laws prohibiting discrimination -- some individuals repond by leaving it to individuals in society to deal with discrimination.

 

It's true that the modern liberal political movement more often than not will favor state intervention, while the libertarian political movement will more often than not favor society dealing with discrimination without the coercive power of the state getting involved. Oppression might take different forms other than discrimination, but what we do about it seems to be the underlying problem -- whether to legislate against cultural oppression or not.

 

There's no evidence that I am aware of showing libertarians, as individuals, lack concern regarding cultural oppression. It is true that libertarians, politically, have no desire to violate an individual's right to discriminate, if the individual is not unlawfully using coercion. A business owner who owns a business and wants to hire only white men should have the freedom to do so. The libertarian might find this abominable and as a concerned citizen join a protest movement to ostracize the business owner, boycott the owner's products or services, write blogs showing how stupid and biased the owner is, and choose to help the owner fail in every legal manner possible, but aside from all this, the libertarian doesn't promote the state stepping in, as it has done, to violate the owner's right to hire as he sees fit. If the business owner was female and hired only females, then no one would likely mind, but the libertarian as an individual could be just as upset, personally, at such discrimination, yet still not want the state to step in.

 

So, I'm not sure about Jamelle's point. Does he mean by "grappling" that the Libertarian Party should take a stance against discrimination? The Libertarian Party platform says this:

 

3.5    Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

This is about all that can be said by a party which advocates government be limited to protecting individual rights. I think most individuals who claim to be libertarian agree that bigotry is irrational and repugnant. There is nothing in the libertarian's psychological make-up, even the RWG, that creates callousness toward cultural oppression, and nothing which prevents that individual from protesting bigotry -- otherwise, the RWG liberal/socialist would be callous. So, what should be done?

 What is Jamelle proposing as the proper libertarian response to cultural oppression? Where is his proof that libertarians experience difficulty grappling with the sources of cultural oppression? As individuals we should all condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant, and fight to stop it whenever we can, short of state coercion. We should all try to change our culture to one which respects women and minorities -- and this is taking place all over the world -- libertarians aren't excluded from this societal effort to change hearts and minds.

Jamelle's post appears to be a simplistic effort to place libertarians in a certain limited light -- for what purpose, I don't really know, but I imagine it's to marginalize the libertarian political position which is opposed to progressivism. Nice try, but it doesn't stick. 

The Private Sector Narrative -- Part II

In my previous post, I created two broad categories -- Statists and Libertarians. Libertarians are all those who believe the government should not have the power to violate individual rights or possess the ability to control the economy through central planning and policy -- this category can include conservatives, moderates or liberals, and it has nothing to do the Libertarian Party.

We are in dire need of universal principles to guide political philosophy so that the private sphere is protected from government intervention. The private sector story is a story of individualism and community. America was created as a reaction to domination. The story of freedom is a story of progress pushed forward by the creative tension between individuals and communities. How to live together in freedom was a problem our nation had to answer, and the answer was a Constitution which describes what type of government is necessary to protect basic, individual rights so that free people can live in community with respect for each other's rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. However, it could have been decided communities could contract with private protection agencies, a totally different arrangement than a federal government, and the principles would be the same.

Other political theories exist which deny the existence of individual rights and subjugate the individual to domination by the state -- the state decides which, if any, rights exist. In America the idea is, or was, that rights exist prior to the state, and government is instituted to protect these rights, and protection of rights is the only valid justification of government.

Libertarians, in my broad sense of the word, believe the private sector is capable of using universal principles as moral guidelines to live in community, to work together in cooperation and competition in order to live well and flourish. A morally just society does not use physical coercion -- the government (or a private protection agency) which is created to protect rights is given a monopoly on coercion to use only to prevent coercion in the private realm. In other words, an individual is protected from anyone, or any group, taking that individual's life, liberty or property or preventing that individual from pursuing happiness.

By "taking" it's meant through murder taking life, through enslavement taking liberty or through force or fraud taking property. Although, the protective entity has a monopoly on coercion, this entity is also limited in power and prevented by agreement from violating individual rights -- it only has the authority to protect individuals from rights violations and to punish the violators.

So, this is a simple outline of a free country, but it's a good place to start to see where we are today. Can the libertarian principles of our Founders be revived? Some of the Founders such as Hamilton had a different view of how we should be governed, giving the federal government a much more powerful role in central planning and control. There has been a conflict and a battle since the beginning between statists and libertarians. I suspect it was the intention of those like Jefferson for Americans to deal with the problems of domination and freedom on an ongoing basis so that rights are alway protected from would-be autocrats. Has American government become too powerful?

Between the two World Wars and the Great Depression, American government, as did states all over the world, took more control over the economy and society at large. Somewhere along the line the American story of limited government, liberty, individual rights and a free market became the story of a powerful state instituting laws, regulations and social programs based on what politicians and state officials thought was the best way for the economy to work and for society to interact, although the "moral space" of individuals in the private sector, as Nozick put it, was still greater than in most other countries.

In this story, it's less important what are the right or wrong ways for humans to live, there's always been disagreement along these lines, than the importance of being able to choose how to live as long as living that way doesn't violate the rights of others. Any argument from any country, in the west, east, middle-east, Africa, whatever, that their way of life is right and moral makes little sense unless there's freedom of choice. People living under tyranny, forced by authorities to act in certain ways, can't be said to be moral if they don't have the choice to act otherwise.

So, the question in the private sector narrative is not so much that America should be, or is, morally superior, it's if we are going to have the ability to choose what we think is moral, guided by universal principles which promote community respect by preventing violation of individual rights? We still have moral space, but it's shrinking. Is this the way we want to live? Are we going to choose universal principles which allow us freedom of choice, or are we going to be guided by statist directives regarding morality and the correct to live?

More later.

The Private Sector Narrative

When you think of all the organizations, countries, businesses and individuals who are dependent on the U.S. government it boggles the mind. For someone like me, who advocates limited government and empowerment of the private sector, it seems like an impossible task to stop Leviathan and limit its power. It's just too damn powerful. I sometimes think that the only way we'll ever break the power of the state and limit it to appropriate duties is for the government to collapse under its own weight. Given the current national debt, this is conceiveable, although not the preferable way to limit government.

It would be much better if the public woke up and cleaned house in Washington D.C. by electing representatives who will roll back power and institute limits on government power -- this is a long shot, but it could happen if we get too close to the brink of disaster and the public becomes concerned enough to act. But, this type of revolutionary change will require many people acting against their perceived short-term personal interests.

There, unfortunately, will have to be a period of sacrifice in order to limit government, and this a huge obstacle. People don't usually act against their interests unless they can see some future benefit -- a benefit which is not too far removed in time. But people are also capable of thinking outside a cost-benefit analysis of their decisions.

Why should we limit government and empower the private sector? Each person has to answer this question. Is being free important? There might be many people who would rather have security provided by the state than freedom, but they don't have a right to violate my rights to achieve this security. Many proponents of a powerful state which provides security are interested in their own welfare and want others to pay for that security. I don't mind pitching in with everyone else to pay for police security, national security from foreign attacks, or the security provided by courts to settle disputes and apply justice, but I don't want to be forced to pay for your financial security, or anyone's financial security. I will be glad to give to charity, but I don't want government confiscating a part of the money I earn then distributing it to others.

So this is where my private realm narrative begins. The players are:

The Statists -- The Free Online Dictionary defines "statism" as -- The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

So, for the purpose of my narrative, a statist is anyone, inside or outside government who believes that government should have the power to control economic policy and planning. I'm making these categories broad for a reason, one being to force an understanding of the power of ideas. So, I will add - those who believe the state should have the power to violate individual rights under normal circumstances for the greater good is a statist.

By "normal circumstances" I mean all circumstances except national emergencies which threaten the foundation of the nation, like a foreign attack where we are endangered here in America and are forced to take extreme measures to survive -- then the issue of individual rights are temporarily suspended, using other libertarian values to deal with the situation, until the immediate threat passes. Recessions fall unde"normal circumstances", so forget about destroying the Constitution because unemployment is high.

The Libertarians -- I'm taking liberty (no pun intended) to really stretch (or limiting, depending on how you look at it) the common understanding of libertarian to apply my own definition for the sake of stark differientiation. The Libertarians are all those who believe the government should be limited and does not have the power to violate individual rights. The only rights I will include are the traditional rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. But the main difference is that the Libertarian doesn't believe the government should control the economy through planning and policy.

I see this division as where we are at in America, although not many realize it yet. Of course there are many moderates who believe a little of both are necessary, but for now they will have to fall on the side of the statists if they believe the government should have the power to violate basic, individual rights in any way.

No one gets to hide or obfuscate in this story. I will start the narrative tomorrow, hopefully.