Hi Kevin,
I'm just catching up after several days offline. As Billy said, we greatly
appreciate your perspective and participation. That said, there are a number
of things about the Libertarian mindset that still flabbergast us. We went
through many of these before with another Centrist-leaning libertarian in what
we now refer to as The Great Libertarian Dispute of '06. It was both exhausting
and inconclusive, and I'd rather not let history repeat itself...
I get the impression that we're operating from a very different set of
assumptions about the nature of reality. I'd like to identify what those
underlying differences are, to avoid arguing over minutiae.
Here's a list of statements I think you'd agree with, but I'd disagree with.
Let me know if I'm right -- or if I'm wrong where and how you disagree.
1. Market failures are natural and self-correcting. Governance failures are
artificial and structural because they stem from government being too big.
Corollary: Market inefficiency is minor and tolerable. Government
inefficiency is massive and intolerable.
2. Governance at the state level operates on a completely different set of
rules than corporations and civil society, because i) membership is
involuntary, and ii) the state has a monopoly on legitimate physical coercion
3. All the societal problems that were historically solved by government
intervention (e.g., slavery, child labor, elder poverty, racial segregation)
were either i) caused by government intervention in the first place, or ii)
would have eventually been solved by market forces anyway.
4. When the market gives us crap, it is our fault. When the government gives
us crap, it is because of design flaws.
5. Governments which support a strong volunteer military for defensive
purposes, and strong legal protection of property rights and contracts, but few
others services, are inherently stable.
6. Enlightened businesses want no public investment in any "commons" so as to
maximize the scope for private enterprise.
7. The collapse of our present social structures would be a good thing, because
the principle of spontaneous order ensures that a superior society would soon
replace it.
8. The U.S. Constitution reflects a Libertarian view of the role of
government, because the Federalists largely shared most key Libertarian beliefs.
9. There is abundant evidence supporting the Libertarian viewpoint. There is
virtually no evidence contradicting it.
10. Human beings can be trusted to act rationally when incentives are not
distorted by government intervention.
My hope is that if we can at least agree about where we disagree, we might
actually make some forward progress.
Thanks!
-- Ernie P.
P.S. If any of the rest of you want to share your answers, feel free!
On Nov 27, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote:
> Sure. The market gives people what it wants in order to sell stuff. But the
> market also creates demand by offering prurient crap and telling us it is
> gold.
>
> I blame us.
>
11/25/2011 5:54:38 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
> My response is how have we devolved to a place in which so many people are so
> susceptible to so much such trash? A few reasons:
>
> Empty people - created by the entitlement culture and the mental health
> industry.
>
> Single parent and divorced families - fueled by Great Society government
> failures and postmodern philosophies.
>
> Cultural Marxists in bed with Progressives and University overseers tell us
> that God is dead, thus anything goes. Anything traditional is bad.
>
> Fatherlessness - a creation of the Great Society and Gender Feminism, both
> Progressive onslaughts.
On Nov 27, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote:
> I agree that Libertarians are usually great believers in personal morality,
> but it often seems that they want the state to be amoral -- or at least
> maximally agnostic about moral issues (beyond "natural rights" narrowly
> defined). Is that a fair characterization?
> I would think so Ernie. And this does get at the core disagreement.
>
> Human nature tends toward central organization and consolidation of
> leadership as systems evolve. So, healthy systems need to be in a constant
> state of reform and reinvention in order to thrive and prosper. The danger
> of a Progressive impulse is that it sets the stage for institutional
> consolidation of power. Roosevelt's moral crusade opened the door for the
> coming welfare state and the foreign policy expansionism that is oppressive
> today.
>
> I want government to ensure freedom and to protect an individual when another
> assaults his rights. Laws should be minimal and should follow community
> morality not the other way around.
>
> To respond to your question about how far I'd like to roll back the clock in
> the United States, I'd rethink the moral conclusions and the draconian
> solutions derived therein during the Progressive Era orchestrated by
> Roosevelt, Wilson, and later Roosevelt, et.al. When man decides he can fix
> stuff by adding and regulating, he opens the door for abuse of power, tyranny
> of the majority, and related unintended consequences.
>
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
