Let me add the RC views in BF to the list of propositions , so that the terms of debate are made as clear as possible-- Billy ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 11/29/2011 4:51:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
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. Markets would not exist except for government empowerment. Markets are sustained through a system of laws and government support even if this is not apparent in a day-to-day sense. Market failures may be "natural" in some sense but self-correction can be extremely damaging to society and have lasting negative effects. Unregulated markets invariably lead to disaster. Corollary: Market inefficiency is minor and tolerable. Government inefficiency is massive and intolerable. Market efficiency is a function of the free enterprise system. Government efficiency is a function of conscientious members of Congress ; when Representatives or Senators are corrupt, then efficiencies are compromised or even lost. 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 Markets at the state level are susceptible to capture by a small number of businesses or industries, likewise to a small cabal of the wealthy and powerful. 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. There are entire classes of problems that the Market cannot solve. Government intervention may, indeed, make matters worse, but this is anything but necessarily the case since many interventions of the past were all ( or mostly ) for the good. 4. When the market gives us crap, it is our fault. When the government gives us crap, it is because of design flaws. When the market gives us crap the reason is breakdown of morality in the free enterprise system. When the government gives us crap the reason is also breakdown of morality. But in both cases the problem also concerns lack of the right kind of ideas. People do have the responsibility to perceive problems they bring upon themselves, but this task, for most citizens, long ago became unresolvable because of (a) media dominance and media biases , and (b) the demand for specialized knowledge that is out of reach for nearly everyone but experts. 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. Governments need to have a variety of responsibilities but must always strive to be self-critical because of human limitations. 6. Enlightened businesses want no public investment in any "commons" so as to maximize the scope for private enterprise. And if the public gets screwed this is unimportant as far as an entire class of business people are concerned, namely, profit maximizers who live for just about nothing except return on investment. We might call them the "sonovabitch class." 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. Actually , such a collapse would be horrific and should be avoided at almost any cost. 8. The U.S. Constitution reflects a Libertarian view of the role of government, because the Federalists largely shared most key Libertarian beliefs. Historically, an early form of proto-libertarianism can be found in the Anti-Federalist Papers and in that movement, but this is to speak of people who opposed the Constitution They did, however, bring us the Bill of Rights, and to them we owe an enormous debt of gratitude. But with ratification of the first 10 Amendments most of the Anti-Federalists were won over to the then-new system of centralized government, but a system in which checks and balances limited anyone's powers. 9. There is abundant evidence supporting the Libertarian viewpoint. There is virtually no evidence contradicting it. In general, Libertarian philosophy is one-dimensional and overly simplistic. It is damned not so much by contradictions in it, but by how much is not covered by its philosophy, which is most of the political realm outside of economics. This huge void in interests leads to all kinds of absurd positions being taken by Libertarian office seekers in their public statements. Libertarianism is almost a religion and is the antithesis of pragmatic politics-for-results. 10. Human beings can be trusted to act rationally when incentives are not distorted by government intervention. Human beings have a natural tendency towards BOTH rational and irrational actions. We need to deal with this fundamental inconsistency in human nature. 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 -- 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
