81 thoughts on “Libertarianism

  1. walto: Ok, I’m ranting now, but I’m sick of libertarian know-nothings calling people who disagree with them thieves.

    I agree with that, except I wouldn’t use the “know-nothings”.

    I don’t have a problem with the broad principle of libertarianism. I just think that they should live in the jungle and fight it out with the tigers. What’s their’s is their’s and what’s the tiger’s is the tiger’s.

    But I object when they want to the benefits of living in a society, but expect to be able to freeload on that society. The libertarians, particularly the rich libertarians, are the real welfare queens — and self-righteous welfare queens at that.

    (I hope that’s enough of a started for the “debate” to move here from noyau).

    Hmm, maybe we should declare this a guanoing free zone.

  2. In the other thread, Patrick said:

    My personal morality is that other people are their own ends, not means to my ends. I don’t care if you call yourself the Crips, the Cosa Nostra, or the government, once you start using force against people who aren’t harming you, you’re on the wrong side.

    An authoritarian who supports that initiation of force, who thinks that it is acceptable to have a career using government coercion to interfere with otherwise peaceful people, and who was paid in tax dollars has the ethics of a thief.

    I would like to understand this thinking by offering an example.

    Someone who drives a car on public roads without having taken out adequate third-party insurance is potentially harming me. If they cause an accident that involves me and my car, they may not be able to compensate me. To prevent this risk the government makes it mandatory to be adequately insured before you take your car on the road. A police officer may check drivers to see if they have such insurance, and if they don’t, he can fine them. If they refuse to pay the fine, they will eventually be forced to do so by the government.

    Do Libertarians object to this arrangement? If so, what alternative can they offer to make sure that I, as a law abiding driver, am not at risk of ending up being harmed by someone who thinks that it is nobody else’s business if they take out a car insurance or not?

    fG

  3. Neil Rickert,

    I agree, the only problem with this is that Libertarianism is a euphemism for “I am white and privileged, and I want to keep it that way”, and pasty white people are notoriously bad at living in the jungle.

  4. I see a lot of straw men being burned here.

    The first rule of politics is to demonize the opponent.

    Playing demon’s advocate, abortion rights is an archetypal libertarian idea. As is secularism.

  5. I’ve been surprised that the Atheist community in general has got so left leaning! There are some right-wing libertarian atheist thinkers, most notably Ayn Rand who has admirers like TJ Rodgers.

    Probably better known is Jillette:
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jillette.atheist.libertarian/

    I’m not going to believe things that TV hosts state without proof. I’ll wait for real evidence and then I’ll believe.

    And I don’t think anyone really knows how to help everyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. Take my uncertainty about what’s best for me and multiply that by every combination of the over 300 million people in the United States and I have no idea what the government should do.

    President Obama sure looks and acts way smarter than me, but no one is 2 to the 300 millionth power times smarter than me. No one is even 2 to the 300 millionth times smarter than a squirrel. I sure don’t know what to do about an AA+ rating and if we should live beyond our means and about compromise and sacrifice. I have no idea. I’m scared to death of being in debt. I was a street juggler and carny trash — I couldn’t get my debt limit raised, I couldn’t even get a debt limit — my only choice was to live within my means. That’s all I understand from my experience, and that’s not much.

    It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

    People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

    Crony capitalism and socialism are not libertarian nor free enterprise systems.

    Cuba and Greece are examples of socialism going down the tubes. China and to unfortunate extent the USA are Crony capitalist states. Hong Kong and Taiwan were examples of more libertarian economies. I would take the free enterprise leaning of the old Hong Kong over the centralized welfare states of say Detroit Michigan or the District of Columbia in the USA.

  6. Neil Rickert: Hmm, maybe we should declare this a guanoing free zone.

    Meaning, no moving overly-personal comments to Guano?

    No way!

    This topic grew out of Patrick’s unprovoked attack on walto’s morals.

    I don’t think there’s any way to move forward from that, but if there is, it surely will not be in allowing Patrick to continue to repeat his “you’ve got the morals of a thief” slur ad nauseam.

  7. maybe we should declare this a guanoing free zone.

    A free-fire zone? Bwahaha! 🙂

    Does anyone object?

    I have my “Ignore Commenter” shields up, so I guess Mung can throw all sorts of mung at me, and my deflector shield (courtesy the TSZ super software guys) will just keep all that mung off my computer screen.

  8. faded_Glory: Someone who drives a car on public roads without having taken out adequate third-party insurance is potentially harming me. If they cause an accident that involves me and my car, they may not be able to compensate me. To prevent this risk the government makes it mandatory to be adequately insured before you take your car on the road. A police officer may check drivers to see if they have such insurance …

    The state I live in won’t renew car license plates or drivers license without proof of insurance, so liability insurance is pretty much an inescapable requirement.

    That’s a good thing.

    No one loves their state motor vehicle departments. The people who work there don’t love their jobs, the customers waiting don’t like the service, the people who get their license revoked for one reason or another hate them. But it’s something we all mutually agree we need in an attempt to assure a minimum level of competence and responsibility in those millions of drivers we’re going to encounter over the years.

    That’s something which is completely beyond any of us acting individually.

    I don’t want to live or drive in a world where I’m a rare one who voluntarily takes the responsibility to buy insurance and get tested as a knowledgeable driver, only to find out after he nearly kills me in a wreck that the other guy didn’t do so. Because it was, you know, voluntary, there being no government-force allowed in Libertarian world, and he never volunteered to pay or to study the rules of the road. A nightmare world to have to live in, no thanks!

    (Although that begs the question of why there would even be “rules of the road” in Libertarian world. When red-light-means-stop is nothing more than a social convention, without enforcement, who’s going to remind the foolish driver that next time they run a red light they might not be lucky enough to get away with just a little ticket? )

  9. There’s a difference between Libertarianism and Anarchism. The definition of Libertarian means “minimal” government involvement. What “minimal” means, or can effectively be, is up to debate. For example, I’m libertarian in the sense that I think that there shouldn’t be any moral or self-harm laws – prostitution, assisted suicide and personal drug use should all be legal, IMO.

    I also think that the government shouldn’t be in the business of providing corporate welfare or funding businesses outright, nor should government employees be unionized, at least not in the current way. It should be right-to-work and the union must be an entirely non-political entity.

    Much of what the federal government does should be the province of the states – I’m also a federalist. The federal government has gotten way, way too big. Baseline budgeting is like a corruption virus that is stealthily destroying the country.

  10. Legalization of mind altering drugs? Depends which. Things that could make people kill others — don’t legalize those.

    Legalization of prostitution? Prostitution is wrong in God’s eyes but government isn’t to legislate morality. Quit wasting police resources on this unless there is pimp abuse or trafficking.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Jeane_Palfrey

    No more IRS CTRs:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report

    Cyber democracy, yes. Let voters be taxed but they can decide which public works the money goes to — i.e roads vs certain public schools. What’s the point of using representatives?

  11. Back in December, there was some discussion in Noyau about US-Libertarianism. Resident US-Libertarian Patrick’s contribution to that discussion was rather limited, and a large chunk of said contribution was Patrick saying he just didn’t have time to defend US-Libertarianism, but maybe later he might. I had a couple things to say at the time, which Patrick largely did not respond to; perhaps Patrick has time to defend US-Libertarianism now.

    Or perhaps Patrick still doesn’t have time. [shrug]

    My first note:

    cubist:
    The main problem with Libertarianism—the US strain thereof, at least—can be summed up in six words: All the freedom you can afford. If you’re wealthy, US-Libertarianism works out great for you; if you’re on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale… well, sucks to be poor, don’t it? The US-Libertarian verbiage about “force” sounds good at first blush, but if one digs down under the attractive generalities to discover the details of how it would play out in actual use, it turns out that “force”, in US-Libertarian cant, generally works out to being more-or-less synonymous with “Government action of any sort at all”. As well, US-Libertarians tend to go out of their way to define actions taken by wealthy people as not qualifying as “force”, regardless of what sort of harmful consequences said actions might have on other, not-so-wealthy, people.

    US-Libertarian thought tends to ignore/minimize/deny the notion of economic force; if John Doe happens to be the only employer in town, and Doe doesn’t feel like hiring any of those damn dirty niggers, US-Libertarians think that Government should in no way interfere with Doe’s absolute right to be a bigoted employer. In such a case, US-Libertarians tend to propose that the proper sort of reaction to Doe involves the affected (black) people forming their own businesses, or moving to a different town which has non-bigoted employers who might choose to hire them.

    My second note:

    cubist:
    Patrick has disgorged a load of bog-standard US-Libertarian cant, nicely adorned with attractive generalities which gloss over the realities of how the hell US-Libertarian policies would actually play out in real life.

    If Patrick does indeed wish to discuss US-Libertarianism at some later date, I have some suggestions for topics he might wish to address:

    Company stores: Proof of employers’ benevolence towards their workers.

    How US-Libertarianism could have prevented the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire from ever happening.

    Why externalities don’t matter, or at least don’t matter enough to justify the use of ‘force’ or ‘coercion’ to address them.

    My third note:

    cubist: I am confident that [Patrick’s] stated interest in the morality of a particular Government-recognized form of corporation is rooted in a desire to explore and elucidate the general question of morality as it relates to Libertarian policies, as opposed to… say… said stated interest being rooted in a desire to do more bashing on the obvious, unalloyed evils of Government and thereby divert attention from the existing topic of the perhaps-not-as-obvious possible flaws of US-Libertarianism. Accordingly, I have some more suggestions for topics [Patrick] might wish to discuss:

    Under what circumstances is it moral for John Doe to perform actions which have the effect of causing misfortune to befall Richard Roe?

    What should be given greater weight when judging the morality of a given action: That all the actors who took part in said action did so purely voluntarily, or that said action caused misfortune to befall persons outside the restricted circle of those who took part in said action?

    Under what circumstances is it moral for John Doe to profit from Richard Roe’s misfortunes?

    If there are indeed circumstances under which it is moral for John Doe to profit from Richard Roe’s misfortunes, is Richard Roe’s misfortunes were consequences of actions taken by John Doe among the circumstances in which it is moral for Doe to profit from Roe’s misfortunes?

    In [Patrick’s] experience with presenting US-Libertarian concepts to persons who are not already US-Libertarians, do[es Patrick] find that the reception of said concepts is helped or hindered by the presence of palpable contempt for persons outside the US-Libertarian ‘choir’? (i.e., “ethics of a thief”, “living at the expense of others”, asserting that those who disagree with US-Libertarianism “[do not value] honesty, integrity, and honor”, etc)?

    I look forward to seeing Patrick’s responses to the above.

  12. Those are great questions, cubist. But, as you may know, Patrick doesn’t like the idea of repeating the same question(s) to a poster. As this is only the first time, you are hereby placed on secret moderator probation. When you get up to 375 times, double secret moderation probation may be in order.

  13. Walto

    From what I can tell from Wikipedia, the US Libertarian was formed in 1971 and has never yet achieved enough support to implement any of its policies in any legislature. Do you think we need to worry what the consequences of those policies might be, whether they are even feasible, when there is no real danger of a Libertarian party majority in the near future?

  14. Alan Fox: From what I can tell from Wikipedia, the US Libertarian was formed in 1971 and has never yet achieved enough support to implement any of its policies in any legislature.

    That’s the libertarian party. However, libertarian thinking is a lot broader than the libertarian party.

  15. Exactly, Neil. We don’t have a parliamentary system In the U.S., which means that it’s not the Libertarian Party, but libertarian doctrines influencing either or both of the only two parties that ever get elected here that matters.

    Interestingly, IIRC, the first Libertarian candidate for president here was a professional philosopher, John Hospers. In his actual field, Hospers was known for a single short paper on rule utilitarianism.

  16. Neil Rickert: However, libertarian thinking is a lot broader than the libertarian party.

    Sure. I could even agree with some of the stated principles myself though several seem ridiculously naive and I’d not want to live anywhere near a society where keeping and carrying guns was the norm.

  17. Alan Fox: Sure. I could even agree with some of the stated principles myself though several seem ridiculously naive and I’d not want to live anywhere near a society where keeping and carrying guns was the norm.

    The most important thing to keep in mind here is that the party’s Lockean “principles” are thought to always (because necessarily) trump any contrary utility considerations. So, even if the carrying of guns resulted in every third individual being murdered annually, it would be wrong to consider changing policies on the matter. That’s fundamental to the doctrine. It would allow harsher penalties for murder, but never any “abridgement of freedom to carry.”

  18. cubist,

    Resident US-Libertarian Patrick’s contribution to that discussion was rather limited, and a large chunk of said contribution was Patrick saying he just didn’t have time to defend US-Libertarianism, but maybe later he might. I had a couple things to say at the time, which Patrick largely did not respond to; perhaps Patrick has time to defend US-Libertarianism now.

    I have neither the time nor the inclination. I participate here primarily to understand the type of arguments that are likely to arise when creationists, including the intelligent design variety, attempt to impose their dogma via school boards and state legislatures. They are a major threat to education and personal liberty in the U.S.

    There are numerous places on the ‘net dedicated to the topic if you’re interested in discussions about libertarianism. I’ll simply say that my basis for supporting many libertarian positions stem from the principle of non-aggression and the view that if an action is immoral when taken by an individual it doesn’t magically become moral when taken by a group of individuals.

    I may in the future elucidate further on my personal blog, but don’t expect me to engage on this topic here. It’s an enormous time sink and I have other priorities.

    In [Patrick’s] experience with presenting US-Libertarian concepts to persons who are not already US-Libertarians, do[es Patrick] find that the reception of said concepts is helped or hindered by the presence of palpable contempt for persons outside the US-Libertarian ‘choir’? (i.e., “ethics of a thief”, “living at the expense of others”, asserting that those who disagree with US-Libertarianism “[do not value] honesty, integrity, and honor”, etc)?

    My response was to someone who was criticizing my behavior while lacking the moral standing to do so. I stand by it.

  19. walto: That’s fundamental to the doctrine. It would allow harsher penalties for murder, but never any “abridgement of freedom to carry.”

    That’s another strike against them for me. I’m opposed to the death penalty on the two grounds that it isn’t effective as a deterrent compared to life imprisonment and the judicial system that gets convictions close enough to match to perpetrators hasn’t yet been invented. Better detection, along with prevention, would have more impact.

  20. Patrick: I may in the future elucidate further on my personal blog, but don’t expect me to engage on this topic here. It’s an enormous time sink and I have other priorities.

    Admirable self-discipline. I could do with some.

  21. Alan Fox: Sure. I could even agree with some of the stated principles myself though several seem ridiculously naive and I’d not want to live anywhere near a society where keeping and carrying guns was the norm.

    I find that silly when stated as if it were a universal principal. Everything depends on context, and social contexts are complicated.

    I live in a country where 30,000 people die each year in automobile accidents. About half involve drunk drivers. A hefty percentage of those are innocent people killed by drunk drivers.

    You might say automobiles serve a need, but my adult children have never owned an automobile, and my daughter had petit mal epilepsy as a child and has never had a drivers licence. We do not need private automobiles and we do not need alcoholic beverages. These things are just cultural norms in parts of the world. And we live with the consequences.

    I am not a gun owner and have no strong desire to be one. But I was a gun owner at age 12, and most of my friends were allowed to use shotguns and .22 rifles, pretty much unsupervised. No one in any of my schools was shot, none of my neighbors were shot.

    Things have changed, and the culture I grew up in no longer exists, except perhaps in rural areas. I don’t advocate for gun ownership, because the necessary cultural constraints no longer exist.

    But there are far more dangerous things in the world. More Americans have died of AIDS than of gunshots. Promiscuous unprotected sex is not necessary, but people do it.

    I consider myself a libertarian in principle, but I do not argue politics. I belong to no political party and do not see any candidates in any recent elections that I would like to vote for or even be in the same room with. I think politics corrupts everyone and everything it touches. But anyone who has followed my ravings on other threads knows that I accept politics as the best available means of implementing morality. It still sucks.

    One reason politics sucks so badly is that we are still, for the most part, creationists when it comes to human behavior. Almost everything done in the name of public policy is counterproductive. We depend on counterproductive prohibitions when we should be designing incentives. We build soul killing welfare systems instead of ladders. We, as a society (all over the world) are complete creationist dolts when it comes to managing people.

    When I say I am a libertarian, I do not imply that I want the world to be a jungle. I mean I would like to see sane policies that substitute incentive systems for draconian mazes of prohibitions.

  22. petrushka: I find that silly when stated as if it were a universal principal. Everything depends on context, and social contexts are complicated.

    If you’re referring to libertarian ideals in general then I agree. Regarding guns, I grew up in a culture where the only firearms were shotguns mostly owned by farmers for pest control. The police didn’t carry guns and incidents involving guns were incredibly rare even as reported in the media. Handguns etc need have no place in a civilized society.

    I live in a country where 30,000 people die each year in automobile accidents. About half involve drunk drivers. A hefty percentage of those are innocent people killed by drunk drivers.

    A big success claimed by the European Union is the reduction in road safety over the last ten years or so.

    You might say automobiles serve a need, but my adult children have never owned an automobile, and my daughter had petit mal epilepsy as a child and has never had a drivers licence. We do not need private automobiles and we do not need alcoholic beverages. These things are just cultural norms in parts of the world. And we live with the consequences.

    Preventing people from drinking and driving is the key rather than preventing drinking or driving. Devices that prevent a car being started by someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs are in development, I believe.

    I am not a gun owner and have no strong desire to be one. But I was a gun owner at age 12, and most of my friends were allowed to use shotguns and .22 rifles, pretty much unsupervised. No one in any of my schools was shot, none of my neighbors were shot.

    In a stable, rural culture, where hunting is common and vermin control necessary, I can see that sporting guns need to be available, subject to controls and safeguards.

    Things have changed, and the culture I grew up in no longer exists, except perhaps in rural areas. I don’t advocate for gun ownership, because the necessary cultural constraints no longer exist.

    We’re a couple of old farts, regretting the passing of a time long gone. 🙂

    But there are far more dangerous things in the world. More Americans have died of AIDS than of gunshots. Promiscuous unprotected sex is not necessary, but people do it.

    Aids is on the decline in industrialised countries. It’s virus that causes aids. Education regarding avoiding risky sexual practices has diminished the threat.

    I consider myself a libertarian in principle, but I do not argue politics. I belong to no political party and do not see any candidates in any recent elections that I would like to vote for or even be in the same room with. I think politics corrupts everyone and everything it touches. But anyone who has followed my ravings on other threads knows that I accept politics as the best available means of implementing morality. It still sucks.

    One reason politics sucks so badly is that we are still, for the most part, creationists when it comes to human behavior. Almost everything done in the name of public policy is counterproductive. We depend on counterproductive prohibitions when we should be designing incentives. We build soul killing welfare systems instead of ladders. We, as a society (all over the world) are complete creationist dolts when it comes to managing people.

    When I say I am a libertarian, I do not imply that I want the world to be a jungle. I mean I would like to see sane policies that substitute incentive systems for draconian mazes of prohibitions.

    We’re not far apart at all here.

  23. Alan Fox: We’re not far apart at all here.

    Glad to be able to rant a bit without having my head taken off.

    From my perspective I fit in nowhere. I watch the tribal political wars with the same fascination I might watch gladiators tear each other to bits.

    I’d prefer to be in the lobby.

  24. petrushka: I mean I would like to see sane policies that substitute incentive systems for draconian mazes of prohibitions.

    I agree with that. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

  25. Neil Rickert: I agree with that. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

    I live in the real world.

    Watching politics evolve is like watching religion evolve.

  26. Patrick: I have neither the time nor the inclination. I participate here primarily to understand the type of arguments that are likely to arise when creationists, including the intelligent design variety, attempt to impose their dogma via school boards and state legislatures.

    Imposing atheist dogma is just so much better.

    Given that I don’t appear before school boards and state legislatures in order to advocate teaching creationism or intelligent design, feel free to put me on ignore here at TSZ.

  27. Mung,

    I have neither the time nor the inclination. I participate here primarily to understand the type of arguments that are likely to arise when creationists, including the intelligent design variety, attempt to impose their dogma via school boards and state legislatures.

    Imposing atheist dogma is just so much better.

    No, just good science and respect for others’ choices.

    Given that I don’t appear before school boards and state legislatures in order to advocate teaching creationism or intelligent design, feel free to put me on ignore here at TSZ.

    But, you’re the heart of TSZ (2015)!

    The ideas that are discussed by the IDCists here, including your good self, reflect and inform those that make it into the political discourse. I’m keeping an eye on you.

  28. Libertarianism is a beautiful ideal, I self-identify with libertarian values.

    Unfortunately, there is a scientific issue that may make it difficult to realize libertarian ideas as a matter of principle, namely the problem of population explosion and the consumption and eradication of environmental resources.

    Though I’m not persuaded Global Warming is due to anthropogenic causes mostly, I can’t think we’re helping the situation and we are adding serious risk to our environment in so many levels.

    Can we enact laws to get people to stop having so many babies? Even at modest growth rates we’ll go from 7 billion people to 100 billion in a relatively short span of time (geologically speaking). One could say humanity is growing at epidemic rates (on old-Earth geological time scales). This would put the libertarian ideals at risk since people will tend to abuse their liberty and make so many more babies than the environment can sustain.

    Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What if the pursuit of happiness entails for some having huge families of 11 kids — I knew a girl who dreamed of having so many kids and she liked me — I ran.

  29. stcordova: Even at modest growth rates we’ll go from 7 billion people to 100 billion in a relatively short span of time (geologically speaking). One could say humanity is growing at epidemic rates (on old-Earth geological time scales).

    I guess that’s one way to avoid genetic entropy.

  30. Libertarians tend to love trial by jury and some even like the idea of nullification of laws by juries, which are two reasons I thought it might be interesting to report on this thread that I served on a jury this week. (There’s another reason which will become obvious.) This was the fourth time I was called to report, but the first time I wasn’t excused for one reason or another.

    This was a criminal case–DUI–at a Middlesex County district court in Massachusetts. Six jurors and one alternate are impaneled and are required to make a unanimous determination of Not Guilty unless the Commonwealth can prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The defendant was stopped for hitting a snow bank in a residential area last winter (when the banks were five feet high here). A policeman pulled the driver over and asked him if he was OK. The driver said he was, but seemed to the cop to smell of alcohol, have slurred speech and glassy, bloodshot eyes. So he asks the guy to get out of the car and administers two field sobriety tests. One involves walking nine steps heel to toe along an imaginary straight line, pivoting and returning, again heel against toe The other involves standing on one foot for 30 seconds or until told to stop. The driver can’t do either of these and seems distracted/out of it. So the cop runs him in and books him.

    Why was there no breathalyzer or blood test? Because, in Mass. it’s considered an unconstitutional “search and seizure” to require such tests. Furthermore, refusing to take them is not admissible in any court proceeding because that’s somehow considered tantamount to being required to testify against oneself–another Constitutional No-No. Furthermore, only prior convictions may be introduced–no matter how many times someone has been arrested for the same thing.

    So there’s no mention of any objective test of intoxication by either party at the proceeding. Just testimony by the cop and the defendant and a lengthy (over an hour) surveillance video (no audio) of the booking. The latter showed that the guy wasn’t falling down drunk–at least at that time–and was completely cooperative.

    So we hear intros from the seasoned defense attorney and the fresh out of lawschool assistant D.A., the direct testimony and cross, watch the (endless) video, hear closing arguments by the two lawyers, and get a half-hour’s worth of instruction from the judge. The defendant says he had one “Jack and coke” in New Hampshire and, an hour later, one Miller Lite. He says he’s had both a brain aneurysm and neck cancer, each of which could explain problems he had with the field sobriety tests. He says there’s fresh snow on the ground, while the cop had reported that there wasn’t. There are no dashboard videos, no doctor’s reports confirming any prior aneurysms, no bartender’s bills, not even a photograph of the pavement where the sobriety tests took place. Nothing but two guys telling very different stories.

    We “deliberated” for about five minutes. All six of us thought the guy had probably had closer to eight drinks than two. But nobody could deny the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. So….poof! The guy is acquitted and may kill somebody next time.

    Now, admittedly, the Mass. law has a sensible provision that anybody who refuses a breathalyzer test gets a license suspension of 180 days (if s/he has no prior convictions). But, of course, a conviction would have been way worse than a six month license suspension. And if you drive under the influence regularly, you will know this: NEVER SUBMIT TO A BREATHALYZER TEST.

    Also, the jury is combed to remove anybody who has ever lost a friend or loved one to a DUI driver or who belongs to MAD or any like organization.

    YAY, Constitution! Thanks for keeping us safe!

  31. Mung:
    Things would be different in a theocracy!

    Right. Things would be much worse.

    The point isn’t that the U.S. system is terrible–as systems go both in today’s world and historically–it’s pretty good. The point is that it’s not either perfect or as good as any system can possibly be in our imperfect world. It’s to get people to understand that enshrining the particular principles that have been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, gospelizing them so that they can never be altered, abridged or enlarged, is an anti-democratic attitude founded on fear. It’s something that prevents improvements based on assessments of actual utilities.

    The attitude that any change to a current way of thinking is too scary to try is– how shall I put it–religious.

  32. I thought people interested in this thread might be interested in this short review essay by historian Eli Cook, on Thomas Pickety’s recent bestselling opus, Capital in the 21st Century.

    Warning: It mostly concerns matters that most free marketeers don’t like to think about.

  33. walto:
    I thought people interested in this thread might be interested in this short review essay by historian Eli Cook, on Thomas Pickety’s recent bestselling opus, Capital in the 21st Century.

    Warning: It mostly concerns matters that most free marketeers don’t like to think about.

    There doesn’t seem to be a link..?

  34. I was wondering last night what is the objective, scientific (or other empirical basis) for any of these:

    1. That libertarianism is superior to any other political position
    2. That there is a natural right to free speech, gun ownership or anything else
    3. That that government is best which governs least
    4. That individual citizens are safer from harm in inverse proportion to the governmental powers in the jurisdiction in which they live
    5. That where commerce operates with the fewest restrictions the most utility is is produced
    6. That working for a government agency is unethical
    7. That, wherever possible, it’s fair for “votes” to be allocated by numbers of dollars rather than by numbers of persons
    8. And so on

    If that sort of evidence can’t be produced regarding these, should we infer that they are not the sort of topics that it makes sense to be either skeptical or ingenuous about and so require a JMO prefix and always move them to Noyau. Or what?

    I take it that some of the Most Skeptical here will take them to be personal preferences only and so no different from “I like cabbage.” If so, I don’t see why they ought to be discussed here at all, and this entire thread should be moved into Noyau. I mean if nobody can have anything like “objective evidence” one way or the other, political economy seems like a pretty silly subject.

    Weird you can major in it.

  35. There’s a piece in today’s Boston Globe giving the results of a recent poll regarding a bunch of issues that will be on the ballot here in November. The survey asked questions about legalization of pot and whether one ought to be able to grow one’s own. The respondents were about even on those. (They also asked about a surtax on millionaires, which, based on the poll, will win easily.)

    I don’t think the questions about marijuana are very hard, because there’s little evidence either about harmfulness or addictivity. But suppose the question were about cocaine or heroin. Would people here vote to legalize those on the theory that nobody should be allowed to tell any adult what he/she may do to him/herself?

    As I don’t buy that libertarian tenet myself, I find such questions difficult. I mean, who has the info necessary to assess the various utilities that are involved? Prison populations, cost of policing, overdoses, traffic accidents, sales to kids, etc. etc. Such issues are nearly paralyzing for me. Obviously, it’s much easier if one has “natural laws” to lean on (fictitious or not).

    How would others here vote on stuff like that?

  36. walto: But suppose the question were about cocaine or heroin.

    I’m undecided on that one.

    For me, it’s a pragmatic question.

    Having these drugs illegal (as at present), forces up the prices and leads to a black market. And one way to pay for the drugs becomes to get other people hooked so that you can profit by selling to them.

    So I see it as a question on whether the prohibition does more harm than good. I don’t know the answer.

    I sometimes wonder about making the drugs legal, but only if used in a sleazy opium den. The idea would be to make it unattractive.

  37. Neil Rickert:

    walto: But suppose the question were about cocaine or heroin.

    I’m undecided on that one.

    For me, it’s a pragmatic question.

    I’ve been spending a lot of time this year in the local ER (I’m fine, thanks, but have family with medical issues which can’t always be cared for in 9-5 clinic hours).

    I now have questions on whether drugs which (predictably) cause harm to an individual should be legal — because it’s never just that individual who ends up affected. It’s the landlady or neighbor who got worried enough to call the EMTs, it’s all of the first responders and the ER staff who care, it’s other patients who would have had their own relatively minor ailment seen to quickly if the ER weren’t busy with an overdose …

    In a small town there’s been at least one drug abuser in the ER every time I was there. ‘

    Now, the Libertarians would say something like “no public health care, only (pre-paid) privatized care” so no problem, junkie has health plan, they’re entitled to as much care as they’ve paid for; junkie has no health plan, too bad, they die in the street. And maybe that’s how the world should be.

    But there’s a reason civilized people want health care for everyone, at least ER as a minimum. Because we actually don’t like watching people die in our streets. And stepping over the bodies until someone (who??? ) gets around to clean it up is pretty disgusting. So we collectively got our representatives to use a tithe of everyone’s resources to build and staff public hospitals.

    I’m sure no sane person wants to go back to the bad old days of no health care, but given that we’re paying for it directly or indirectly, I think it makes sense to spend a little on the side to discourage those behaviors which (predictably) lead to overuse/abuse of health facilities we fund.

    Then the question is: is making heroin, for example, illegal the most effective way to discourage heroin abuse, to deal with the costs of addiction, to minimize the number of victims we end up with in ER, etc?

    I don’t know. I don’t know if legal-but-socially-disapproved would work better. It seems to be working with cigarettes, which are more addictive and dangerous than heroin.

  38. The question is not really about whether drugs are harmful, but whether prohibition is effective and useful.

  39. hotshoe_: Then the question is: is making heroin, for example, illegal the most effective way to discourage heroin abuse, to deal with the costs of addiction, to minimize the number of victims we end up with in ER, etc?

    I don’t know. I don’t know if legal-but-socially-disapproved would work better. It seems to be working with cigarettes, which are more addictive and dangerous than heroin.

    petrushka: The question is not really about whether drugs are harmful, but whether prohibition is effective and useful.

    Yes, these are questions that I would like to see answered, or at least researched.

Leave a Reply