Obama’s biggest re-election hurdles
- The Democrats. Obama ran a largely insurgent campaign in 2008. This meant that the people who cling to the coat tails of whomever they think will win all flocked to Clinton. The end result was that Clinton got an unmanageable operation full of egos with impressive resumes. Now all those egos are going to try to get Obama reelected. They’re a liability.
- Appalachia. Obama is not doing well in West Virginia and Kentucky primaries—even where he’s largely unopposed. That’s not too much of a problem. He wasn’t expecting to win there anyway. Unfortunately, the demographics that really don’t like Obama spill into parts of Ohio and Virginia where Obama does want to win. Some of the opposition has to do with race. Some of it has to do with messaging problems. Much of it has to do with a (reasonable) sense that Obama is not-too-keen on coal-mining.
- Wall Street. A lot of the investment bankers liked Obama in 2008. He was fresh. Technocratic. The kind of guy they could support. They were smart. He was smart. It was a good match. Except .. for some reason Obama isn’t going to let them loot the country like Romney would. This has made some people with a lot of money uncomfortable.
I like how Squashed rights off the entire midwest as racists who don’t understand Obama’s “message.” Did it ever occur to you that we don’t support his actual policies?
Here’s a brief list of why I wont be supporting Obama (and also why a lot of other college aged voters I’ve had contact with wont be voting for him).
- Gitmo is still open.
- We are still at war in the Middle East (even more so than when Obama was inaugurated).
- Drone strikes are increasing.
- NDAA
- Patriot Act reauthorization.
- Escalation of War on Drugs.
- Increased subsidies for “green” energy while obstructing coal, natural gas, oil exploration (hey at least one thing you said was right).
- Escalation of the deportations of illegal immigrants.
- The realization that he is just another politician who does not have the interests of the people in mind.
Note that none of these things have to do with a failure to message or the color of his skin. It’s because he fucking sucks as a human being and not to mention as a president.
I’d also like to point out that Romney and Obama agree on everything I’ve listed here except for maybe on energy.
Typical Obama Apologetics, putting “the blame of Obama’s failures squarely upon the shoulders of the unthinking masses, too stupid or self-centered or racist or confused to properly support the true savior.”
And to insinuate that Obama is no friend to Wall Street - who was bank-rolled by Wall Street, has repeatedly gifted Wall Street with bailouts, and whose administration is filled with Wall-Streeters - takes some serious chutzpah.
A partisan with any sort of intellectual integrity (I guess such a thing is an oxymoron) would start a list of Obama’s re-election hurdles with Obama himself, for reasons that include what Nate listed above. The peace president who loves war, the transparency candidate who’s denied more FOIA requests than anyone, the whistle-blower supporter who’s locked away Bradley Manning, the champion of minority causes who’s deported more immigrants in three years than Bush in eight, the constitutional scholar who who signed the NDAA, Patriot Act, ACTA, and the death warrants of Americans “tried” without due process… Obama is the biggest hurdle to his own re-election. Luckily for him and his supporters, they’re right that the masses tend to be un-thinking - which is why I consider his re-election likely. But fret not, Obamaites: if Romney does win, nearly nothing will change. The support for leviathan’s expansion will continue on schedule.
More on “Markets not Capitalism”
I saw Chartier speak in LA last summer. I like him. I like a lot of what he says. I thought Chartier’s “Conscience of an Anarchist” was pretty good. But that was an earlier Chartier and this book is not just Chartier; it’s a collection of essays by many of the bigger names in mutualism, agorism, and “left-libertarianism.” Think of it as C4SS in print. (You can always tell when the adjective free becomes the adverb freed.)
And while “Markets not Capitalism” is couched in the language of, as Dustin suggests, “anarchy without hyphens,” it looks to achieve this by playing with [fairly] agreeable rhetoric so as to push “left-libertarianism” generally and mutualism specifically.
So the press to unify anti-statists by dropping hyphens only works, then, if said anti-statists adopt mutualist ideas of rejecting wage labor in toto, rejecting all hierarchy (even voluntary hierarchy), rejecting subjective theory of value (favoring Labor Theory of Value), and rejecting Lockean/Austrian understandings of property rights - among other things. Which is fine. Every book pushes its own point of view. Just don’t think that this book is about universal principles or that it’s about understanding the differences between anti-statists and cultivating the common ground.
The authors are smart people, to be sure. And there are certainly a number of insights to be gained in understanding their arguments (which are often extremely thoughtful). Just don’t be confused about what it is.
See here (and here) for more of my thoughts on mutualism.
(Incidentally, I thought Rollback was excellent.)
I think it’s more than a bit of a stretch to say that a book including essays from Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Roy Childs, Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman, and Mary Ruwart —- six Rothbardians* plus Rothbard himself —- promotes “specifically mutualism.”
There is nothing in the freed market anti-capitalism position that indicates specifically mutualism (as you acknowledge in the previous ask box question that you link to.) In fact (as I indicate there), it seems that the majority of those at the C4SS (and I’d agree that the book is roughly “C4SS in print”) are themselves left-Rothbardian agorists. Rather, left-Rothbardians, mutualists, and left-agorists are all included within that broad tent. And the general superstructure of that kind of an anarchism would allow for smaller social anarchist communities within such a stateless society (hence the anarchism without hyphens).
Also, I have to disagree with your claim that: “So the press to unify anti-statists by dropping hyphens only works, then, if said anti-statists adopt mutualist ideas of rejecting wage labor in toto, rejecting all hierarchy (even voluntary hierarchy), rejecting subjective theory of value (favoring Labor Theory of Value), and rejecting Lockean/Austrian understandings of property rights - among other things.”
As stated earlier, there are several decidedly non-mutualist authors in the book. Not only that, rejection of wage labor isn’t a specifically mutualist idea (after all, both SEK3 and David Friedman reject wage labor as well), and it seems like you’ve over-simplified the actual account given of wage labor by most contemporary freed market anti-capitalists (including that given by contemporary mutualists). It’s certainly not clear (to say the least) that the book represents a rejection of “all hierarchy” (in the way that you seem to mean it), but rather a rejection of all unjust and oppressive forms of hierarchy. Long, Spangler, and Richman are all Austrians (and thus favor a subjective theory of value). Similarly, they favor the contemporary neo-Lockean account of land property rights (in fact, Long’s piece on public property is specifically framed from that perspective). The sole Rothbard piece, also, works specifically under the framework of neo-Lockean property rights.
Point being, you’re correct to note a strong presence of mutualism (especially with the nineteenth-century pieces) in the book, but to imply that the book itself is exclusively mutualist is inaccurate.*Hess is a little complicated, but at the time the writing from him was written, he was solidly left-Rothbardian.
Throw a few banana slices in a bowl of cereal and it’d still be a bowl of cereal.
Long, Spangler, Richman and the others you list are all (save for Rothbard himself) considered “left-libertarian,” yes? When I emphasize mutualism it is precisely in the way it deviates with traditional libertarian thought (in those ways that I list) that makes it what is “specifically” pushed, even if most are agorists. The reason I note mutualists in this way and not agorists is that while all agorists promote the same strategy (e.g. non-cooperation with the state, including not voting and actively seeking grey and black market options), there is a philosophical split between those who may be considered austrian agorists on one side and mutualist agorists on the other. The mutualist side is what is featured in this book because although, as you mention, there are authors who fall on the austrian side, their selected essays are not about those opinions. While Richamn, as one example, may adhere to subjective property rights, he also believes wage labor would become non-existent in a “freed” market. And in this book, if I remember correctly, he never wrote on any topic in a way that would be counter to mutualist thought.
You’re right. This is not specifically a book about mutualism. And I decidedly did not “imply that the book itself is exclusively mutualist.” The crucial point is that when this book reaches an area of disagreement, it falls (I think exclusively, though I don’t remember every single essay) on the side of mutualism.
(Source: disobey)
The passengers should just shut up and accept it…
“Epic bad days: You’re a TSA employee, and you’re working the Vegas airport the day after the Libertarian Party convention lets out.” — Radley Balko
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Forget the TSA agent, what about other fliers? This would be a nightmare for any person who had to fly that day. I wouldn’t blame TSA for it, either.
You’d blame the individuals asserting their rights instead of the agents of the state who seek to violate those rights? How very… patriotic of you.
More on Wage Labor and Mutualism
Following up on a post I responded to this weekend, fellow blogger logicallypositive (whom I will be responding to directly and is heretofore referred to as “you”) posted:
that C4SS article I reblogged yesterday talking about the conditionally exploitative nature of wage labor basically made the point i’ve been tryign to make all along. wage labor is not exploitative as long as you can employ yourself. but it’s your good friend the government that makes that impossible with fun things like zoning laws, liscensing requirements, permits, etc.
I guess it leads me back to my central point: all exploitation can be traced back to the cartelization of brute, physical force. Exploitative economic relationships are only maintained because if you try to break free from them, then suddenly you find yourself locked up in a jail cell. Absent coercive forces, capitalism loses its intimidating fangs so many people are scared of. If they can’t beat you or imprison you for not playing by their rules, then it’s really rather harmless. It’s not an inherent trait of capitalism, it’s a result of a bureaucratic monopoly gone wild thanks in part to the influence of capital.
In responding, it is my hope to clarify a perceived misunderstanding.
First, your premise: “wage labor is not exploitative as long as you can employ yourself.”
I absolutely agree. If one is prevented from self-employment, chiefly by the state, then wage employment becomes eo ipso ”exploitative” as the employers are themselves necessarily agents and proxies of the state (either directly or by crony corporatist grace) since no one can self-employ in order to eventually become an employer. Even if self-employment is not completely obstructed, the more impediments to self-employment and entrepreneurship, the more exploitative wage employment becomes.
So here is where your word “can” is key. Can one employ oneself? The more easily one can - without the state interfering - the less the likelihood for relative exploitation, as it were. In other words: the more the state impedes in the ability to employ oneself in order to drive laborers to certain employers, and in turn the more individuals are thus employed by such employers, the more control comes under direction of the state since those employers are themselves wards of the state. The artificial elimination of choice shifts the scales of fairness away from the individual and in favor of the state and its agents and proxies.
And it is abundantly obvious that the labyrinthine legal and regulatory code is weaved with the thread of the larger special interests and connected cronies, thus weighing more heavily on the smaller competition. And there’s no smaller business than a self-employed entrepreneur.
As Rothbard argued: “our corporate state uses the coercive taxing power either to accumulate corporate capital or to lower corporate costs.”
In fact, I agree with the crux of an argument - though decidedly not all his points in making his argument - Kevin Carson (the mutualist author of the piece you posted) presented a few years ago:
[T]he state, by artificially reducing the costs of large size and restraining the competitive ill effects of calculation problems, promotes larger size than would be the case in a free market—and with it calculation problems to a pathological extent. The state promotes inefficiencies of large size and hierarchy past the point at which they cease to be worth it, from a standpoint of net social efficiency, because those receiving the benefits of large size are not the same parties who pay the costs of inefficiency.
Further, Austrians view entrepreneurs - an historically ambiguous term, but chiefly as promoter-entrepreneurs (the driving, “quick-eyed,” visionaries) and capitalist-entrepreneurs (the entrepreneurs who risk their own capital in their endeavors for profit) - as ultimate Homo agens.
Said Mises:
The driving force of the market, the element tending toward unceasing innovation and improvement, is provided by the restlessness of the promoter (entrepreneur) and his eagerness to make profits as large as possible.
More Mises, later in Human Action:
The driving force of the market process is provided neither by the consumers nor by the owners of the means of production—land, capital goods, and labor—but by the promoting and speculating entrepreneurs. These are people intent upon profiting by taking advantage of differences in prices. Quicker of apprehension and farther-sighted than other men, they look around for sources of profit. They buy where and when they deem prices too low, and they sell where and when they deem prices too high. They approach the owners of the factors of production, and their competition sends the prices of these factors up to the limit corresponding to their anticipation of the future prices of the products. They approach the consumers, and their competition forces prices of consumers’ goods down to the point at which the whole supply can be sold. Profit-seeking speculation is the driving force of the market as it is the driving force of production.
Murphy condenses the Austrian respect for the self-employed entrepreneur as such:
Following Mises, modern Austrian economists stress the primacy of the entrepreneur. At bottom, the entrepreneur simply buys low and sells high. But in order to do this, the entrepreneur must see an opportunity in the market pricing structure that others have overlooked.
By pursuing personal profits, the entrepreneur ends up rearranging goods in a way more pleasing to consumers. [There is] harmony between personal profit and service to others in the voluntary market economy.
Lachmann explains the crucial role played by the self-employed entrepreneur:
We are living in a world of unexpected change; hence capital combinations … will be ever changing, will be dissolved and reformed. In this activity, we find the real function of the entrepreneur.
Rothbard elaborates:
Every entrepreneur, therefore, invests in a process because he expects to make a profit, i.e., because he believes that the market has underpriced and undercapitalized the factors in relation to their future rents. If his belief is justified, he makes a profit. If his belief is unjustified, and the market, for example, has really overpriced the factors, he will suffer losses.
The profits and losses, in turn, inform the market (the various other economic actors) on what is viable. (Related: The Calculation Problem and Price Theory.)
But the mutualist position, which, again, is what Carson subscribes to, doesn’t end with simply advocating for the option of self-employment to not be obstructed. Mutualism sees all hierarchy, even truly voluntary (or euvoluntary), as problematic.
Confusion, however, is understandable considering Carson presented his argument as such:
As libertarians, we don’t want to abridge the freedom to contract wage employment any more than [the typical libertarian] does.. But we see subordination and hierarchy as undesirable. And we want to reduce, as much as possible, material constraints that promote entry into such authoritarian relationships.
His first sentiment flatly asserts that he adheres to the “libertarian” ideal of not wishing to interfere with “the freedom to contract wage employment.” All well and good… until we reach his “but.” It is in that contrasting conjunction where we find truth. The second sentiment belies his first, and through the use of “but” we learn that it is the second sentiment that counts. Wage employment is definitionally hierarchical. Carson goes one further and refers to wage employment as authoritarian (and he earlier describes a wage-paying workplace as an “authoritarian workplace”).
Ultimately, that is the mutualist position: (1) all hierarchy is illegitimate, exploitative, and intolerable, (2) eliminating the state would eventually lead society to eliminating hierarchy. Wage employment, thus, is illegitimate, exploitative, intolerable, and only prevalent because of the state. Indeed, the title of the post calls for the outright abolition of the wage system - a pillar of mutualism per Pierre-Joseph Proudhon himself.
As an Austrian anarcho-capitalist, I see it differently.
Not everyone is a visionary. Not everyone has the capacity to develop techniques in improving production methods. Not everyone has the capital to supply the start-up costs. Not everyone has the capacity or willingness to take risks. And even among those who do, not everyone will be successful. And among those who are successful, expanding business to meet consumer demands (and thus creating further wealth) would mean to expand production - and to do so requires different roles at different levels of productivity (i.e. labor), which establishes a natural hierarchy. And even those who are successful, they may not always be successful.
So for these individuals, wage labor offers the opportunity for employment without risking initial capital, offering insight on production methods, or being inclined to creativity and inventiveness in postulating future demands.
Here’s Mises again:
In the context of economic theory the meaning of the terms concerned is this: Entrepreneur means acting man in regard to the changes occurring in the data of the market. Capitalist and landowner mean acting man in regard to the changes in value and price which, even with all the market data remaining equal, are brought about by the mere passing of time as a consequence of the different valuation of present goods and of future goods. Worker means man in regard to the employment of the factor of production human labor. Thus every function is nicely integrated: the entrepreneur earns profit or suffers loss; the owners of means of production (capital goods or land) earn originary interest; the workers earn wages.
Rothbard explains that the wise entrepreneur is thus rewarded:
[The entrepreneurial] loser… receives his penalty in the form of losses. These losses drive him from his poor role in production. If he is a consistent loser wherever he enters the production process, he is driven out of the entrepreneurial role altogether. He returns to the job of wage earner. In fact, the market tends to reward its efficient entrepreneurs and penalize its inefficient ones proportionately. In this way, consistently provident entrepreneurs see their capital and resources growing, while consistently imprudent ones find their resources dwindling. The former play a larger and larger role in the production process; the latter are forced to abandon entrepreneurship altogether.
There is no inevitably self-reinforcing tendency about this process, however. If a formerly good entrepreneur should suddenly made a bad mistake, he will suffer losses proportionately; if a formerly poor entrepreneur makes a good forecast, he will make proportionate gains. The market is no respecter of past laurels, however large. Moreover, the size of a man’s investment is no guarantee whatever of a large profit or against grievous losses. Capital does not “beget” profit. Only wise entrepreneurial decisions do that. A man investing in an unsound venture can lose 10,000 ounces of gold as surely as a man engaging in a sound venture can profit on an investment of 50 ounces.
[It is a flawed] view that working for wages is somehow nonmarket or antilibertarian, and would disappear in a free society. … [H]ow [anyone] can say that a voluntary sale of one’s labor for money is somehow illegitimate or unlibertarian passeth understanding. Furthermore, it is simply absurd for him to think that, in the free market of the future, wage labor will disappear. Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it, is simply grossly uneconomic for manufacturing activity. The transaction costs would be far too high. It is absurd, for example, to think of automobile manufacturing conducted by self-employed, independent contractors. …
[T]he emergence of wage labor was an enormous boon for many thousands of poor workers and saved them from starvation. If there is no wage labor — as there was not in most production before the Industrial Revolution — then each worker must have enough money to purchase his own capital and tools. One of the great things about the emergence of the factory system and wage labor is that poor workers did not have to purchase their own capital equipment; this could be left to the capitalists.
Contrast the above with Proudhon:
Mutuality, reciprocity exists when all the workers in an industry, instead of working for an entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products, work for one another and thus collaborate in the making of a common product whose profits they share amongst themselves.
So your interpretation of Carson’s position - that wage labor is “conditionally exploitative” - is incorrect. To mutualists, wage labor is inherently exploitative because of its hierarchical (authoritarian, per Carson) nature.
This is what Carson implied when he mentioned “the culture of subordination in the workplace,” and “the economic power structures on which it depends.”
This belief ultimately stems from the mutualist shunning of anarcho-capitalist/libertarian understanding of private property in favor of a Marx-Proudhon distinction of personal property through the mutualist adherence to the labor theory of value and its corollary that the laborer must be the owner of the means of production. The employer/owner/capitalist, thus, is robbing the laborer of his full value.
Property is key to the argument here:
Improved productivity depends on capital goods, which in turn depend on delayed consumption. People who choose to delay consumption extensively can come to own a stock of capital goods beyond what they can physically use themselves. If such people cannot hire labor to work with those goods without thereby losing title, they will consume their capital and stop saving. …
A capitalist/worker arrangement is effectively an intertemporal exchange. Workers are advanced present money in exchange for enabling the capitalist to own and sell a future product. Abolishing wages would therefore be injurious to both would-be consenting parties in the exact same way that abolishing interest, another phenomenon of intertemporal exchange, would be. …
By rigidly yoking ownership with physical manipulation, anarcho-syndicalists [and mutualists] would severely constrain the public’s horizons by making it so those who provide for them can only do so in a severely limited variety of ways. Under [this] legal order, not only would shareholder/capitalists have to be workers and vice versa; they would have to be shareholder/capitalists in the same industry in which they are workers and vice versa.
Again, that would preclude innumerable mutually advantageous intertemporal exchanges, and plunge savings, capital accumulation, and future productivity to levels that are fathoms below what the public as consumers (users of final goods) would have preferred. The result would be starvation for most, and a return to a primitive, hand-to-mouth existence for the rest.
And Austrians (indeed - most libertarians, voluntaryists, and anarcho-capitalists), of course, also adhere to the idea that value is subjective.
Per Menger:
Value is a judgment economizing men make about the importance of the goods at their disposal for the maintenance of their lives and well-being. Hence value does not exist outside the consciousness of men.
If you wish to dip your toe in mutualist waters, simply be aware of what lies beneath.
Where Wisdom May Be Found
Back in 2010, I posted:
Einstein had great insight into science and man, but was a socialist. Mikhail Bakunin was a great enemy of the oppressive state, but was wrong about economics. Alexander Hamilton understood that even democracy could be tyrannical, but he was a central banking, quasi-statist, proto-Keynesian.
I know the left specializes in the ad hominem, but I separate the message from the man - for wisdom can be gleaned even from the unwise.
This was in response to a rejoinder from a leftist blogger who found it quizzical that I would quote Emma Goldman. Her husband also took offense at a libertarian’s quoting of Nietzche because - as he put it - “nietzsche is on our side.”
But, you see, wisdom need not only be found in those with whom you always agree with. Despite everything else, Emma Goldman was an outspoken activist against war and found great value in the individual - in a way that is admirable to libertarians. Whatever Nietzche was, he was certainly an individualist. And in this arena, we can learn from his thoughts.
In neither case did I “claim” Goldman or Nietsche to “our side.”
In a back and forth earlier tonight with another blogger, I offered a link pondering whether Mohandas Gandhi fit in “the libertarian tradition,” which in context meant anti-statism, individualism, non-aggression.
Though my initial comment included a tongue-in-cheek knock against Reason and their recent streak of fairly un-libertarian commentary (which apparently was not read as such), there were ultimately no definitive declarations made.
And I reiterated the initial point I made with this post: “If we all only valued those who were pure in ideology, we’d learn nothing.” In other words: if we insulate ourselves from the insights of those we’d otherwise disagree with, what kind of static and intellectually stunted “society” would result?
[H]e’s not an individualist,
I defer to the original link that I offered: In contrast to the supposedly Oriental view that the individual counts for nothing, Gandhi argued that “the individual is the one supreme consideration.” “No society,” Gandhi wrote, “can possibly be built upon a denial of individual freedom. It is contrary to the very nature of man. Just as a man will not grow horns or a tail, so will he not exist as man if he has no mind of his own. In reality even those who do not believe in the liberty of the individual believe in their own.”
His concern for the collective seems to have sprung from his concern for the individual, some argue.
and he doesn’t follow the libertarian ‘non-aggression’ principle.
Again from the original link: It’s true that libertarianism is not pacifism — at least, not necessarily. On the other hand, pacifism is libertarianism. If you abjure all violence, you must abjure the state.
The non-aggression principle was never mentioned. Pacifism is simply a form of non-aggression, particularly his anti-statist pacifism.
He’s only an anti-statist. But you claim him because “If we all only valued those who were pure in ideology, we’d learn nothing.”
I never “claimed” him. For those who believe in communal property rights, leftists sure say “mine!” a lot. I thought sharing was principal to the ideology?
I therefore claim that Mises lived in socialist tradition, and that many people can follow these jagged guidelines and classify as living in ‘libertarian tradition’.
I’d be interested to hear this argument. I, for one, invite leftists to read Mises and Rothbard and Hoppe and Spooner and see if there are any points of agreement. I think that would make for some compelling discussions.
In fact, that’s part of the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist argument: we believe our ideology is instinctual. Indeed, it would be uncontroversial to suggest that most people would be opposed to “theft, assault, battery, murder, slavery, rape, fraud, trespass, destruction of property, and the threats thereof” - which are all the basic violations of the non-aggression principle, and the “laws” that would naturally arise in a voluntary society. We believe most people can sympathize with at least some elements of the libertarian philosophy, and, since we also believe ours to be a logically consistent ideology, calling attention to points of agreement can bring better understanding to the points of disagreement.
If one only needs to follow one out of the three requirements, then every individualist (and thus most conservatives) is a libertarian. Anti-statist? Most progressives and anarchists. Non-aggression? Almost every buddhist/hindu/follower of eastern philosophy.
There you have it, a shit ton of people live in ‘libertarian tradition’.
Good thing most of them don’t support Ron Paul.
And here is where logic unsurprisingly fails. Perhaps it’s an incorrect interpretation to suggest Gandhi was an individualist, and perhaps you’d invalidate the common impulses of non-aggression because the philosophical origins are different… but that doesn’t mean that the original argument, which was about multiple points of correlation, can now be distilled to one singular point. That would, indeed, be meaningless - and an irrelevant conclusion.
(And Ron Paul was never mentioned.)
I have great admiration for Mohandas Gandhi. He expressed reservations with private property and capitalism, to be sure, though many of his criticisms of “capitalism” can be understood as critiques on colonial mercantilism (or what we’d consider corporatism, today - hardly a free market). In fact, I doubt Gandhi would be opposed to the free, consensual exchange of free individuals, which is what a free market is. So perhaps Gandhi can be seen as at least a mutualist?
(Update: whakatikatika makes his case that even Gandhi’s private property reservations are not as pronounced as generally understood and there may be more points of commonality with libertarians.)
In any case, I need not “claim him” to value his wisdom, and to consider him an inspiration in fighting against the oppressive nature of the state. If we can put aside his domestic shortcomings to appreciate his life’s work, we can also find individual elements we value as separate from the whole.
Governor Vetoes Prenatal Bill As Promised →
Alternate headline option: “Governor Vetoes Pro-Baby Bill As Promised”
Here’s the story, a follow-up to yesterday’s post on the same topic:
Gov. Dave Heineman was in Grand Island earlier talking about why he vetoed the bill allowing cities to raise their sales tax rates with a vote of the people.
Late Friday, Heineman vetoed a bill that would restore prenatal care to low-income women, including illegal immigrants.
Across the state, lawmakers held news conferences at hospitals explaining why they voted in favor of the prenatal bill.
They said that care would prevent babies from being born prematurely or with other complications.
“But what about the baby of that illegal immigrant that’s going to be born a citizen, who, with bad prenatal care or no prenatal care, may end up the ward of the state for the rest of their life?” asked Sen. Mike Gloor.
Nebraskans — who are generally a staunchly pro-life bunch — seem to agree with the Governor, or at least the 700+ who have voted in this unscientific online poll:
I wonder how people would have voted if the poll had asked the question a bit more honestly: “Should babies whose mothers are in this country without proper documentation — and who will be American citizens when they’re born — get state-funded care while in utero?”
Frankly, this seems like the easiest and most obvious thing to support. You don’t like undocumented immigrants? Fine. I get that. But the fetuses that you typically love so much? What’s your problem with them?
You know, perhaps the wording in the poll doesn’t matter. Perhaps all that really matters is the race of the babies and mothers in question. Perhaps …
I just can’t stand the naked hypocrisy. And when it’s so obviously coupled with blatant racism … well … then at least the hypocrisy isn’t the worst part.
And what about those who’d oppose the “State-Funded” part even if it said “American residents of Nebraska”? Or those who simply oppose the “State-Funded” part irrespective of whatever words follow? They’re probably racists, too, right (I mean, you say it’s both “obvious” and “blatant”)? After all, that’s the only reasonable conclusion: anyone who opposes something done by the state opposes it being done in toto, ergo RACIST!
Gunpowder Kumbaya
“You present a cake to your family. Is it fairer to: a) give everybody a slice of [equal] size, or b) make everybody fight with broadswords, so they all have [equality of] opportunity to win the entire cake for themselves?”—
Comments, Slacktivist: Jason DeParle on Mothers and Their Children
I would give them equal slices of cake and broadswords. But that’s just me.
While certainly a nice sentiment, it’s foolish to extend the dynamic of a family - with its close relationships, genetic bonds, emotional entanglements, and shared experiences - to the world at large. The world at large is not party to my private decisions like my family is. They don’t have the vested interest in my well-being like my family does. They wouldn’t be there when I got a flat tire, or the stomach flu, or to hear my gripes about that unpleasant co-worker - and they needn’t be. The world at large needn’t be forced to make sacrifices for my well-being. And, in turn, the world at large needn’t be forced to suffer the consequences of my mistakes. They shouldn’t have to bail me out because I made bad investments with my time and resources.
I take offense I find it repulsive when people try to dilute the love of my actual family by rhetorically lumping the rest of humanity with them. If I buy a cake for my family, I’ll distribute it in whatever way makes me and my family most happy - even excluding myself from taking a slice. How dare anyone try to make me treat strangers the way I treat my daughters in order to justify their redistributive whims.
If someone wants to treat the world like his family - for religious, or ecological, or for any selfish reason, really - nobody is stopping him. But no one should be forced to do so. No one should be threatened with violence and rape cages if they don’t relinquish portions of his or her life in ways central planners (and their cronies) demand. And that’s exactly what DeParle is arguing.
As Bastiat said, “True charity does not begin with the robbery of taxation…”
Charity is not charitable, it is not noble, when it is forced. When you make giving compulsory, also known as taking, you can no longer claim the moral high ground - especially considering the unintended consequences of government welfare, not least of which is causing the “unable” and “unwilling” difficult to distinguish.
Related:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”—
James Madison, “Federalist #51”
And yet who composes “government” but those very same men who are not angels?
The solution to the understanding that men aren’t angels is not to give some of those non-angels tyrannical power over all others. This merely makes a bad situation (being surrounded by non-angels) worse (being surrounded by non-angels, some with a monopoly on force). And as history has shown, the worst, most power-hungry, and repressive non-angels would gravitate to the state’s power, wreaking more havoc to mankind than they would otherwise be able to. The list of history’s worst despots and mass murderers, after all, is filled with heads of state.
Re: Silly Libertarians: A Response
So the blogger who (partially) inspired my post yesterday has responded. You can read his piece for yourself here. You, of course, will draw whatever conclusions you will. For my part, his claim that things like clean water, clean air and clean food are only “supposed” goods not necessarily worth making cross-generational commitments to ensure pretty much exposes the uselessness of libertarianism as an actual plan for social action, as opposed to a tool of social and political criticism.
Just fyi—
I’ve read this whole thread…starting with the post that inspired your initial response. After taking it all in, it’s pretty clear that, in this argument, you’re losing badly and know it. I can’t think of any other way to explain the blatant misdirection and dishonesty.
From your use of exceptions (infants and psychopaths) to disprove the rule (sound-minded adults) of the inviolability of self-ownership, to your quoting of the word “supposed” above (a word which doesn’t even appear in LA Liberty’s response), you refused on all counts to engage with his ideas.
You suggest that because he believes no one should be forced into cross-generational commitments, that he is against them in principle; that he believes that “commitment[s] beyond…one-to-one agreement” are unnecessary. You ignored the responses to your argument and decide instead to disparage him for something he didn’t even say.
Also, I can’t help but point out that shortly after saying that “a blanket statement ‘never’ is, well, silly,” you say that you’ve “never, ever heard a libertarian even vaguely hint at an” alternative to coerced cross-generational participation. [ LA Liberty note: the word ‘never’ didn’t even appear in my original post, nor any subsequent one. ] An assertion that is both silly and shocking, since I, in the course of my varied careers in food service, ministry, graphic design, and web development, have encountered a number of specific and general alternatives; how is it that in the course of your study and teaching of Politics and Government you haven’t?
It seems politicalprof has doubled down on yesterday’s irrelevant conclusion with yet another dishonest deflection.
At no point did I ever hint, much less outright “claim that things like clean water, clean air and clean food are only “supposed” goods not necessarily worth making cross-generational commitments to ensure.” I didn’t say they were only “supposed” goods at all, whatever that means. I didn’t discuss cross-generational commitments outside of noting that a father’s oath is not automatically applied to the son, and that the actions of a previous generation do not lock in decisions for subsequent generations, even if the subsequent generations benefitted from the explicitly unrequested actions. In other words, my argument was consistently one regarding consent. (Private property, by the way, can span many generations through natural mechanisms of trade and inheritance.)
Further, I offered a number of entire volumes dedicated to discussing how goods normally seen as “common” or “public” are made available in a voluntary society without the need to preclude consent.
Professor: that we disagree is abundantly clear. I believe that no peaceful individual should be forced into any obligation that he or she did not consent to, that the individual is the ultimate authority over his or her life. You, in contrast, believe aggressively forced obligations to be fundamental to a safe and functional society, that the individual does not necessarily have final say over his or her life. The only reason I can come up with as to why you persist on misrepresenting our point of disagreement is that you’ve realized the barbarity of your position when presented it in plain language.
Re: Silly Libertarians
Well, it finally happened: I finally read a libertarian post so silly I couldn’t resist a response.
Yet you could resist directly responding… (thanks to huskerred for bringing this post to my attention).
To simplify, the libertarian in question claimed that no decision was legitimate unless he had consented to it, and that no prior decision could compel his compliance as he had not consented to it.
As quite obviously the “silly” libertarian in question, I’d like to clarify that what I “claimed” was two-fold: 1. “I believe people should be able to peacefully associate with others in any way all parties voluntarily agree to.” And related to the first, 2. “Someone cannot make an agreement for me,” or as the title of my post read, “Self-ownership is not conditional on the agreements of past generations.” (How foolish of me to consider such thoughts so uncontroversial!)
But your summation is sufficient if we slightly alter it to read: “no decision [affecting his self-ownership, or regarding his life, liberty, or property] was legitimate unless he had consented to it, and that no prior decision could compel his compliance as he had not consented to it.”
There are at least three profound things wrong with this argument: it’s wrong on its face; it’s wrong on social institutions; and it has no promise for building a real world social order. Let me take each in turn.
First, as to the premise: it’s just wrong. For example, I have an 8 1/2 month old son, and I make decisions for him all the time that are entirely legitimate and (probably) appropriate. Likewise, we generally don’t advocate letting crazy people kill themselves, or allowing gunmen to walk into crowded rooms and open fire. There are all kinds of circumstances in which one legitimately has one’s right to make a specific decision taken away, and in which one’s freedom to consent to an act (such as your incarceration) is denied. A blanket statement “never” is, well, silly.
Irrespective of your forthcoming anticipation of the objection, the objection still remains. You say “it’s wrong” and you do not elaborate or explain, simply offer examples of an infant, a “crazy” suicidal person, and a dangerous criminal. Therefore your argument is that my premise is wrong because infants, crazies, and villains exist? Seeing as how my example, in the post that caused an irresistible response, was about a non-crazy, non-criminal adult - this seems to be an irrelevant conclusion.
Now, anticipating the objection that what the person meant to say—but didn’t, even in a follow up post—was that all RATIONAL people should have absolute freedom of choice, let me state that the politics of determining who is and isn’t “rational” are fraught with bias. Ask any woman in history who was denied the right to vote on the grounds that they were “emotional” not “rational,” or any ex-slave who was deemed (by their former masters) to be too “child-like” to be a full member of society. “Rational” is a lovely word. It’s also a tool of repression.
I agree with your last few points here: determining rationality is often fraught with bias and certainly can be (indeed, often has been) a tool of repression.
The fact remains, however, that in every “system,” people find different ways to determine whether a child has reached the mental capacity to offer “rational consent.” (In most countries and territories, an arbitrary age is used which ultimately has little bearing on an individual’s ability to reason or self-govern.) In every “system,” people find different ways to determine whether an individual merits intervention that would otherwise violate the non-aggression principle due to said individual’s mental instability.
This is, without question, a controversial topic that merits thoughtful deliberation: how does one make these determinations in the most fair, just, and humane way possible? In fact, in libertarian and anarchist circles, fervent debate is made of this very difficult question (particularly with regards to children and the role of their parents/guardians). Some examples of anarcho-capitalist view(s) may be found here, here, here, here, and here - though minarchist or consequentialist libertarians may have other ideas. As a father of two young daughters, this is a question that I have pondered many a time.
My view is that in essentially all cases, self-asserting individuals should be treated as self-owners with full rights over their lives, liberty, and property. Yours - as your examples seem to imply - is to view all individuals as potentially irrational (in an self-asserted, mentally-capable sense), so there must exist an entity to place us all as equals in subservience - that we are all effectively repressed.
Perhaps I misunderstood where you stand… but whatever the determination, it is wholly irrelevant to my original post. In that post, I was discussing an unambiguous property owner and a clearly rational self-owner. Your first “profound thing” is both unsubstantiated and immaterial to the idea you wished to refute.
Second, as to the way social institutions work, the simple fact is that by the time my son is of an age where he might choose to be, god help us, a libertarian, he will have benefitted from a vast array of social goods and services that depended on inter-generational commitments of time and labor and money. He will have drunk, bathed and played in untold gallons of safe water. He will have breathed safe air and eaten food that (basically) was safe. He will have not been electrocuted each time he turned on a light switch—which delivered power across an array of regulated mechanisms over large spaces of territory. And he will have enjoyed much, much more. Here’s the thing, though: all of it—ALL OF IT—will have been organized and paid for at least by his parents’ taxes and fees, his grandparents’ and fees, and his great-grandparents’ taxes and fees.
You’re arguing in circles. Is the fact that someone before you paid taxes and fees that they never consented to justification for you to pay taxes and fees that you never consented to?
And that one receives an unrequested benefit does not behold one to whatever demands and reciprocity the benefactor claims to be entitled to. If you arrive home from work tonight and your neighbor has mowed your lawn without any prompting from you, you are not required to pay whatever bill your neighbor leaves in your mailbox.
Furthermore, you offer the implicit (and ridiculous) assumption that safe water, clean air, wholesome food, and regulated electrical power would be non-existant without a loving state extracting fees and taxes to provide them. Funny, that.
The simple fact is that if you wish to have any kind of structure, institution or practice that lasts more than the time it takes two people to exchange whatever good or service they are exchanging, then a commitment beyond a one-to-one agreement is necessary. This need only grows more significant and more complex and social organizations expand in size and scope. Of course, as an adult one can choose to live outside these social orders: go and become a hermit. But if you wish to enjoy the benefits of society, you have to pay some of the costs of society. At least in a democracy you (ideally) get to have some say over those costs.
Again, you’re saying a whole lot of nothing baked into a cake of saccharine statism. We need the state and its monopoly on force to compel people to do things they do not consent to, otherwise we’d be dead in ditches from razor blades in our unregulated oatmeal.
That most regulation actually helps the larger corporations (and connected politicians, bureaucrats, plutocrats, et al) within an industry and typically shields them from wrongdoing is, I’m sure, a necessary evil. It’s merely an unfortunate side-effect that every area in which the state has inserted itself - education, health, nutrition, transportation, etc. - it is a giant, bureaucratic, expensive, dangerous, corporatist mess.
Third, on what should we do instead, let me say that I have never, ever heard a libertarian even vaguely hint at an answer to this. I have seen an endless number of “the government sucks” posts from libertarians but not a single answer to the question: how do I get electricity in a libertarian world? Where everyone has to consent to everything all the time? How do I get safe water? How do I make NASA and a national park and, yes, how do I make sure that actual enemies don’t attack?
Well, this is the big one isn’t it? You trot out this sanctimonious refrain regularly (here and here): “where oh where are the smart libertarians who actually offer solutions?!”
You’ve “never, ever heard a libertarian even vaguely hint an answer… [as to] what [we should] do instead.” You “have never seen a libertarian do this in even a vaguely compelling, real world way.” You claim that “[m]ost of the libertarian posts that come up on [your] dashboard are little more than ideological screeds.” You are “still seeking libertarian blogs that [explain] the alternative [to the state].” But then you add “Don’t offer me fantasies. Offer me an argument, preferably one grounded in historical experience” - so that just like the slave owners not so many years ago who dismissed the idea of abolishing slavery, you can shrug off an argument, not on its ethics or merits, but on whether it has successfully been implemented somewhere.
Of course, reality is that if you’ve “never, ever heard a libertarian even vaguely hint an answer… [as to] what [we should] do instead,” then the problem lies squarely with you. Because most of the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist blogs, sites, books, economists, historians, philosophers, educators, and thinkers I read seem to fairly regularly discuss alternatives.
But, of course, you only offer this straw man objection to feign good faith that you’re willing to consider the counter-argument - despite the fact that counter-arguments abound. Indeed, this is such a broad objection that there is no single link I could offer to cover it all. Instead, I offer you what - to a formidable professor such as yourself - likely amounts to little more than light summer reading on not just the libertarian alternative, but the more “extreme” anarcho-capitalist alternative: Chaos Theory, Power and Market, The Machinery of Freedom, Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to 10 Objections, Practical Anarchy, The Private Production of Defense, The Privatization of Roads and Highways, Society without Coercion.
Ultimately, however, offering practical alternatives is secondary to recognizing that, as I stated in the post you found so silly, 1. “People should be able to peacefully associate with others in any way all parties voluntarily agree to.” 2. “Someone cannot make an agreement for me.”
A wife being beaten by her husband need not offer a “practical alternative” to declare his violently aggressive treatment of her wrong and a violation of her self-ownership (much less consider what benefits she gains in return), especially if the husband reserves the right to determine if the alternative is a “fantasy.” Indeed, she’d need only say (to borrow your phrase): “just stop.”
“[E]very argument usually ends up becoming a defense of what’s possible when government is not there to provide a good or perform a service (poorly and inefficiently).
But the salient point in my consistent position against government overreach is: no one could really know how something may best be done once free people are able to utilize the market’s ingenuity-incentivizing system of supply, demand, competition, cooperation, and comparative advantage to create efficient alternatives.
The mutually beneficial trade of a free, decentralized market is far superior to central planning, and … the results of which are essentially unknowable for two fundamental reasons. First, to paraphrase Hayek, there’s no way to imagine what can be designed by millions of people acting freely; and second, to paraphrase Mises, it would be impossible to implement any scheme properly or efficiently even if planned by intelligent, well-meaning angels.”
It’s one thing to critique the way the US does these things now. Indeed, I do it all the time. But it’s quite another to think through an alternative. And I have never seen a libertarian do this in even a vaguely compelling, real world way. Until you can answer these questions, and address my first two points with more than a mocking tone and a fantastical story, please, libertarians, I beg you:
stop claiming no decision or action taken by anyone else can ever be legitimate over you in any way. Just stop.
So to recap, your three ”profound things” countering my assertion that people are not obliged to participate in activities they do not consent to are:
- Infants, crazies, and villains exist, therefore believing people can’t be compelled to agreements against their will is “just wrong.”
- Compelling people against their will is acceptable because people [arguably] benefit from others being compelled against their will. Also, compelling people against their will is fundamental to preventing society from descending into a dangerous spiral of death and destruction.
- Compelling people against their will is acceptable because it’s the best idea we can think of.
An enthralling argument.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you have fundamentally disregarded consent.
On libertarianism and racism.
I’ve often heard the claim that libertarians can’t be racist because they believe in individualism instead of collectivism, or something like that.
You know what? I call bullshit.
Racism can be done on a collective level, as well as an individual level. A form of collective racism would be state segregation laws. A form of individual racism would be not interacting with someone because of their skin colour.
It happens.
It would also happen in a libertarian society, where people would be free to interact or not interact with whom they please, including people of colour.
Of course, instituting the state to deal with issues of racism creates far worse problems, as it leads to collective racism in the form of systemic discrimination.
Racism isn’t an issue for states to deal with, but for societies, and people on a micro level. Passing it off to benevolent overlords doesn’t solve the problems, it only widens them, and creates new ones.
While I agree that it is possible for a libertarian to be racist, the point usually being made is that racism itself is a collectivist idea in that it views people as parts of a group instead of as individuals. Therefore, an individualist libertarian who disparages and mistreats a person because of the group she belongs to is not being consistent with his libertarian ideals. This is not unlike the ostensibly devout religious person who nonetheless violates the teachings of his faith and eats a forbidden meat, or commits adultery or theft or murder.
And while it’s true that one’s freedom to associate means that he or she may choose to not associate with anyone he or she chooses (even for reasons as ridiculous as skin color), in a libertarian “society,” racists would not be protected from the natural costs and consequences of their behavior.
Self-ownership isn’t conditional on the agreements of past generations
L.A. Liberty: On the Legitimate Role of Government
I believe people should be able to peacefully associate with others in any way all parties voluntarily agree to.
If a group of people want to call their associations a “team,” or a “corporation,” or a “marriage,” or a “commune,” or a “government,” fine - so long as they do not aggress against…
And the flaw is revealed.
[Redacted for brevity, click for full statement]…
The moral of the story: If you’re going to advocate for voluntary unions and voluntary collectivism. Don’t forget that The States voluntarily agreed to the same thing. That agreement can’t be thrown away every time someone new is born.
Someone cannot make an agreement for me. I am not subject to some other parties’ decisions. What kind of Game of Thrones mentality is it that makes the oath of fielty of a father applicable to his sons? As I’ve previously noted when discussing the illegitimacy of democracy:
[O]nly those who agree to participate are bound by the policies of participation: subsequent generations are not automatically beholden to the decisions of whichever ancestor agreed to [certain] terms. Everyone who agreed to the creation of the “United States of America” is long dead, yet somehow we are all tied to not only their constructs but the ensuing (and, due to their internal incongruity, even less legitimate) agreements and constructs of later generations? (Which is putting aside the fact that even at the creation of the United States, there were multitudes who not only objected but didn’t even have a say in the matter - women, slaves, natives, among others.)
I agree. You should not be forced to agree to anything. But please recognize the community has agreed prior to you being born (as I’m sure you’ve heard: You are not the center of the universe). You’re welcome to move out. That’s the point you miss there. No where in the moral of the story did I advocate you being forced to agree to something you don’t want to. So I will disregard the rest of your reply as it does not pertain to the point of the story. Regardless if you think Democracy is illegitimate, you are not forced to stay there. And so, it goes without saying, that if you don’t like the situation where you live, move out instead of trying to coerce and persuade everyone to your side of the table.
Thank you for your cooperation. :)
Let’s try again.
No one who made said agreements is alive. Even when said individuals were alive, there were many - many - who were forced to comply to those agreements despite not consenting.
Since you seem to think in terms of stories, pull up your teddy bear and follow along: Imagine if your father owned his land and his home outright and unambiguously. Then, his four neighbors in every direction banded together and decided to form a coalition for, say, the sake of making lawn-care universal among the participants. Could they compel him to pledge loyalty and pay into to the coalition or be forced out of his land? Of course not. And it wouldn’t make a difference if instead of four neighbors it was 20 or 200,000.
Now, let’s say your father did agree to join the coalition. Why would such an agreement be upheld in perpetuity? If a husband can divorce his wife, why can’t an individual alter terms on other agreements? Cell-phone contracts are for a limited time, and terminating them early only requires a pre-determined fee. No matter what one may turn over in a voluntary contract, the present will is not alienable (ie. one always reserves the right to change one’s mind).
But let’s go one further and accept that at no point in his life did your father terminate his agreement with the coalition. When you inherit his private property (if he found you suitable as an heir), then the decision to accept or reject the terms of the coalition falls to you. You do not suddenly lose your rights to your life, liberty, and property simply because you refuse to opt in to an agreement your father once made, especially if those people he made original agreements with have also passed. So if you decide that you do not want to be a party to the coalition, you do not suddenly lose your rights on your land and thus must move. Further, you do not owe any termination fees or penalties since death (your father’s) is what terminated the contract to begin with.
Again: since you were not the person who made the original contractual arrangement, no one can claim any part of your life, liberty, or property. Any such claims are illegitimate. Therefore, your illogical conclusion to “move out instead of trying to coerce and persuade everyone to your side of the table” does not apply since your demands to be left alone are in response to others who wish to violate your self-ownership under the guise of pre-existing contracts. And if the neighbors call it a government instead of a coalition, the only thing that changes is the noun.
Related:
- On Understanding Freedom and Self-Ownership
- Unjust Laws are Threats
- Alienable Rights?
- Re: Non-Aggressive Coercion
- Government is the Biggest Bully of All (more)
- I am the 100%
(via hob-nob)
Self-ownership isn’t conditional on the agreements of past generations
L.A. Liberty: On the Legitimate Role of Government
I believe people should be able to peacefully associate with others in any way all parties voluntarily agree to.
If a group of people want to call their associations a “team,” or a “corporation,” or a “marriage,” or a “commune,” or a “government,” fine - so long as they do not aggress against…
And the flaw is revealed.
[Redacted for brevity, click for full statement]…
The moral of the story: If you’re going to advocate for voluntary unions and voluntary collectivism. Don’t forget that The States voluntarily agreed to the same thing. That agreement can’t be thrown away every time someone new is born.
Someone cannot make an agreement for me. I am not subject to some other parties’ decisions. What kind of Game of Thrones mentality is it that makes the oath of fielty of a father applicable to his sons? As I’ve previously noted when discussing the illegitimacy of democracy:
[O]nly those who agree to participate are bound by the policies of participation: subsequent generations are not automatically beholden to the decisions of whichever ancestor agreed to [certain] terms. Everyone who agreed to the creation of the “United States of America” is long dead, yet somehow we are all tied to not only their constructs but the ensuing (and, due to their internal incongruity, even less legitimate) agreements and constructs of later generations? (Which is putting aside the fact that even at the creation of the United States, there were multitudes who not only objected but didn’t even have a say in the matter - women, slaves, natives, among others.)
(via hob-nob)
A man can dream…
Wait, what? Pay them to do nothing so you can keep your tax money?!? That would be a fast track to anarchy and inflation. Also how is it bad to believe in something, especially your government?
“anarchy”? “inflation”???
