Everyone has advice for libertarians

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/30/author-david-brin-on-dogmatic-libertaria

David Brin is interviewed by Tim Cavanuagh of Reason, and Brin, who says he's a libertarian but talks like a common liberal know-it-all, has advice for those libertarians who are too libertarian. Brin says that what libertarians must understand -- must understand -- is that our greatest societal problem is oligarchy, as if libertarians of any stripe promote oligarchs. Brin says we need fair competition. Wow. I've been so blind. Seriously, though, I suppose what makes Brin's ideas a little different than basic libertarianism is that he believes everyone should have a fair beginning in life, say, as they turn 25, so government must ensure that all kids grow up with proper nourishment, and that they have the ability to go to college, etc. -- in other words, a strong and powerful welfare state. Cutting edge stuff.

I suspect Brin is simply a modern liberal who cares about civil liberties. He says libertarians are too hung up on property rights, which probably means he's for wealth distribution, especially as it has to do with inheritance tax. To me, what makes a libertarian a libertarian is the belief that social problems can be handled in the private sector -- otherwise, a person is a conservative or a modern liberal. Perhaps it can be boiled down to statist or anti-statist, but, whatever, Brin doesn't seem like much of a libertarian. He sure is confident that he knows what's wrong with libertarians, though.

A return to liberty

The form of "liberalism" which grants the few such power as to design society is for sure a perverted form of liberalism. The sine qua non of liberalism as founded after the Enlightenment is the protection of individual rights, including, especially including, property rights.

Modern liberals are allowing the right to property to fade away, thus liberty will fade away. Owning property and having the right to do with it as we please, as long as doing so doesn't violate the rights of others, is a way of excercising all rights. Understanding the importance property rights and the danger of government's ability to take our wealth at will should cause Americans to rebel against our present statist system.

A revival of true liberalism is needed, badly. I will return to this in a few weeks. I'm finishing several books and will have much to say then. 

Occupy and nullify

It's easy to dismiss OWS protesters as a collection of leftist/anarchist misfits with mushy public school/liberal university mindsets, but the progenitors of OWS have put much thought into the effort to dismantle property rights and destroy capitalism. Upfront we can dispense with the common grievances -- government/corporate enmeshment is a problem, and this problem can be alleviated by limiting government and establishing a free market, but the progenitors of OWS have no intention of limiting government or allowings a free market.

To speed this along, though, we can dismiss the mush-heads, and we can even do it with understanding -- they simply don't understand -- they are immature emotionally and intellectually, and they want a world they think is better suited for their sensibilities. The majority of people suffering the weather and conditions in the parks are used by the progenitors of the movement. If an OWS world came about, the flower children would be given duties and pushed to the side as the Big Boys and Girls get down to serious business.

The serious business is to nullify property rights. The charge that wealth is stolen by the 1% corporate thieves is only justification for a power grab, so this issue will be sidedlined. Limiting government power to provide favors and protection for corporate alliances takes care of the 1%'s illegitimate activity.

Why is "occupy" the operative term in the revolution? Because occupying private space is an act of defiance against the laws which protect private property. Once the idea of private property as an inalienable right is demythologized, the right is alienated, or the possibility of alienation is now made legitimate. Elizabeth Warren established the alienation by stating that no one gets wealthy alone, that society made it possible for the rich person to amass wealth -- the construction worker who built the roads -- the police who protect the property -- the government officials who make the city run -- the military who protect the borders -- all these in the 99% make it possible for the 1% to succeed and profit. The people in the parks probably haven't contributed much to the success of the 1%, but this is why 99% is so important, because it includes all the people who make infrastructure and institutions possible.

Why are banks the enemy? It's the Willie Sutton Explanation -- that's where the money is kept and protected by law. It's not enough to occupy private space -- this won't further the cause -- but if banks themselves are attacked and demonized we go to the heart of the matter. The very idea of money is brought into question. The movement is about how to dismantle the laws and institutions which protect private property so that comprehensive redistribution is possible. We're not talking about traditional redistribution through taxing the rich and providing welfare and entitlements. OWS has something bigger in mind, like a minimum living allowance, housing, assurance of food and clothing and transportation. OWS is talking about social justice. The capitalist system might be necessary for economic growth, but transforming the capitalist system allows the Movement to use wealth towards a more humane existence for those who don't have the interest or the capability to be the 1%. This is the tease to attract supporters in the Movement.

Is the Movement honest? Do they possess good intentions? I'm sure there are many intelligent people on the Left who believe western capitalism is characterized by priveleged white men who have rigged the game for centuries, have amassed the greatest part of collective wealth, have put our environment at risk, have profited from a military/industrial juggernaut which has oppressed many nations of the world who are not in the White Man's Club, have oppressed the people of the western nations not in the upper tiers of the capitalist system and have prevented progress toward social justice. But priveleged white men are not the only game-riggers. In Africa, South America and Asia there are regimes in which power is in the hands of a few at the top. A case can be made that western Super-Powers play at a higher level, but this is just a matter of degree. The problem rests in the different forms of tyranny, from soft to hard, from Left to Right, from forced and obvious to gradual and subtle. The lack of universal promotion of liberty, individual rights and limited government suggests that the Left in America is about gaining power with a new set of tyrants and a new set of rules. For all the talk about liberating the 99% from the control of the 1%, without true individual rights, a free market and strict limits on power, it's just a transition of rulers and new roles for the subjects. And this new tyranny doesn't even have a plan to create the wealth intended for distribution -- so, I imagine the new game will entail forced production at some point when it becomes obvious that producers will not voluntarily produce for the good of the collective, especially when many in the collective intend to live off the production without contributing.

The leaders of Movement will face the same needs present today -- food, housing, clothing, etc, so someone has to work. This is where it becomes a guessing game, because as far as I know, no one has laid out a plan for provisions of goods and services in the OWS world. Some simpletons in tents have recommended going primitive, but this isn't serious. Most of the protesters depend on their smart phones and laptops, and they must be produced and distributed. There's no point in rehashing the USSR's difficulties and failures with these issues after the Bolshevik Revolution. The point is not specifics of production and the provision of goods and services -- the point is the Left gaining power. The leaders of the Movement surely believe they can figure out the details once the capitalist sytem is dismantled and wealth is controlled by the people ("the people" means the leaders of the people).

It doesn't take much consideration to see the flaws in the OWS movement and to understand the motives at the top. Nothing much would change in the OWS world for the 99%, except they will have less opportunity to succeed if they decide they want to advance in life. The 1% now present will move on to different challenges, if they haven't been imprisoned, and then another 1% will run the show and enrich themselves, just disguised as fighters for social justice. Forced labor will likely become necessary, but the leaders might convince the collective that a better world is around the corner. It's unlikely that America would survive long enough to find out.

Old ideas that linger

There are many erroneous, old ideas that linger in spite of a reality which constantly refutes the ideas. One such idea has to do with poverty. Most politicians and the media still represent poverty as a matter of a certain class which is static. Just recently I've been involved in a debate about the fundamental importance of property rights, but some still argue that property rights are of little value to people who don't own any property to speak of.

This assumes that there's a static class of people called the poor who don't have need of property rights and will never own property, so if the right to own property is taken away, it will not affect these people. Aside from the fact that most millionaires today are self-made and at one time had no property, the fact that we have the right to own property allowed them to advance and enjoy the fruits of their labor at a later time. But even if someone remains poor throughout their entire life, although the permanently poor are very few in a free nation, the fact that others can own property and thus prevent the State from controling all property can only help to prevent tyranny that would affect rich and poor alike.

I grew up in poverty and didn't own any property until I was 35 years old -- after I advanced, the fact that I had this right to enjoy the fruits of my labor enabled me to enjoy my other rights more fully. If it had been decided that since many people don't own property there is no need for the right to own property, I could never have improved my situation as I did, and all my other rights would have been restricted.

An atheist could be said to have no need for a right to freely excercise religion, but if this right of religious freedom had not been part of the American Revolution, the atheist might be forced to adhere to a State religion. Just because many people don't own property doesn't mean they don't benefit from the right to own property, especially when you consider the full meaning of property and the fact that many people escape poverty in fantanstic ways.

But the main point is there is no static class called the poor to whom basic rights don't really apply. The group of people who remain permanently in poverty is relatively small and there's no way of knowing when any one of them will escape poverty, as long as opportunity is open to them -- having the right to own property provides this opportunity.

Obama, pundits and the Cordoba House Mosque

Over the weekend, Obama and the political pundits on the left repeated endlessly that America is all about religious freedom and property rights. Some of the pundits have even gone so far as as to state that if someone buys a piece of propery they have the right to build what they want to build. If only this were true! Alas, it's not true. Government prevents private citizens everyday from building what they want to build on property they own -- ask any landowner who has a puddle of water on the land that's classified as wetlands -- ask anyone who wants to build a liquor store in an area where the government will not allow it to be built.

I'm not saying the government should disallow the building of the Cordoba House, but I am saying that the pundits and Obama are being disingenuous, to put it mildly.

This whole issue has been demogouged to death. For most of the protesters of the mosque, it's not a matter of religious freedom or property rights, it's about another freedom we still have -- the right to protest. The protesters have a right to make their voices heard, even if you disagree with them -- if they think the mosque is disrespectful and they want to protest and boycott, and use every means within the law to stop it, then they have a right to do so. This is how it would work in a free market - if people don't like what's being done, they have a right to protest and attempt to stop it by persuasion, by any non-coercive means possible. This is also representative of America. The hypocrits who are holding forth about property rights when in other cases they don't give a rat's ass about property rights are shameless.