|
Post by robeiae on May 23, 2017 18:16:42 GMT -5
1) As I noted and Don further clarified, he's not suggesting anarchy, so such examples would be immaterial.
2) I agree, there's no example of a true libertarian state--as Don would envision it--in evidence here.
That doesn't mean what he's suggesting wouldn't work, however. Nor does it invalidate the premise in the OP: that the "state" people are pining for, the state that would solve all of society's problems via policy and/or government action, is a pipe dream, a unicorn. Because we already know that the all-encompassing state, the fully socialist state, is a fucking train wreck.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 23, 2017 18:38:28 GMT -5
1) Don's claim is that the government is incapable of solving anything, so while he hasn't said no government at all, his view of its efficacy is so extremely limited as to render it virtually nonexistent. Police, military, courts... that's it, as far as I can tell. No consumer protections, no civil rights, no social safety net, etc.
2) Don's further claim, as I understand it, is that this supposedly perfect state of libertarianism can never and will never even exist (outside of the underground and/or revolution) because people are "dependent" on the state and, as you say, "pining" for it to solve all of their problems. Since it can't ever exist and we're all too lazy or something to fight for it, all of this rhetoric is nothing more than Don's pleasant pastime of yammering on about "stupid sheeple" and "get off my lawn."
I am certain that most people do not want pure socialism, just as you are sure Don doesn't want pure anarchy. Most people want jobs and food on the table and Wifi. If the argument is whether government can provide those and other specific things--like consumer protections, civil rights, safety nets, education, healthcare etc.--better or worse than the free market can, not in theory but realistically, keeping in mind where we are RIGHT NOW, then we can have a reasonable debate. But I'm sorry, when every debate starts out with government being equated to a unicorn or some such? Meh. Not interested in reading further anymore. Nothing in any of the articles Don ever links proposes a viable plan to get us from the "terrible" place where we are to the "wonderful" place where Don and the articles' authors believe we should be. It's ideological in the extreme, with no substance.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 24, 2017 6:10:18 GMT -5
1) Don's claim is that the government is incapable of solving anything, so while he hasn't said no government at all, his view of its efficacy is so extremely limited as to render it virtually nonexistent. Police, military, courts... that's it, as far as I can tell. No consumer protections, no civil rights, no social safety net, etc. That's not anarchy, nor is it "virtually nonexistent." Not even close. It's just maybe not the government you might want or expect. Again, I disagree with Don. But I don't need to strawman his position to disagree with him, at all. He's not arguing for anarchy, he's not arguing for no government. Arguing that that such is the case, demanding evidence of successful anarchies or even libertarian paradises, isn't much of a counter to what he's said. The thread start was a piece arguing that the state was something of a unicorn. And Don pulled quotes to defend that argument. No one's really taken issue with that (Does that mean everyone agrees that the state is a unicorn?) And I think the article is making a fair point. I get the feeling that no one in this discussion has actually bothered to read the piece at all. Let's go back and look at some of it. From the OP: Is he wrong? Maybe in some specific situations, but in general I don't think so. The NSA's spying is a good example, imo. People were worried about spying and their solution was, ultimately, FISA and the FISA court, an expansion of state authority as a means of controlling state excesses. The "Munger test" is also interesting, I think, if a tad simplistic. Still, we're in the midst of a situation where it plays quite nicely: "The state should be in charge of protecting the rights of minority groups" vs. "Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress should be in charge of protecting the rights of minority groups." "The state should be in charge of protecting the environment" vs. "Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress should be in charge of protecting the environment." The same sorts of props would work equally as well using conservative hot-button issues and "Obama and a Dem-controlled Congress." I think it's true: people like the idea of expanding state power for noble causes under the assumption that the state will be run by benevolent leaders.
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 24, 2017 6:24:12 GMT -5
I think it's true: people like the idea of expanding state power for noble causes under the assumption that the state will be run by benevolent leaders. Ahem. Permit me a Jessup moment here. "Goddam right it's the truth. But you can't handle the truth!" Rob has it right again. Freedom of choice is not binary, it's analog. THERE ARE NO BINARY EXAMPLES, although there are far more examples of relatively authoritarian states than there are of relatively free states, and anybody who can't see the correlations on that continuum, either by examining historical trends or drawing comparisons between modern states must be either blind or disingenuous. I can conceive of no third option, so someone, please enlighten me. Meanwhile, people are watching the wrong hand of the magicians. In most of the developed world, politicians have been using identity politics to show their dedication to equality on the one hand while they've been restricting overall opportunities for choice with the other. True, battles are being won on the beaches of marriage equality and marijuana usage. OTOH, everyone is a lot less free to make choices and to live their life unmolested by government functionaries than even 20 years ago. Whiny babies are even trying to get laws to destroy what little free speech we have left, and this is being done in the name of "tolerance." So precisely how are we "free?" Can anybody seriously defend the title "land of the free" today? It's precisely this binary thinking that's gotten us the massive state we have today, and that makes threads like this derail in precisely the way rob keeps pointing out. If you want less government, you must be an anarchist. If you think government is consistently failing at performing its core functions, you must be an anarchist. Those are the only two choices. Bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 24, 2017 7:25:44 GMT -5
1) Don's claim is that the government is incapable of solving anything, so while he hasn't said no government at all, his view of its efficacy is so extremely limited as to render it virtually nonexistent. Police, military, courts... that's it, as far as I can tell. No consumer protections, no civil rights, no social safety net, etc. That's not anarchy, nor is it "virtually nonexistent." Not even close. It's just maybe not the government you might want or expect. I didn't say it was anarchy. Compared to what we have now, it's virtually nonexistent. Hence, my second point, which you didn't address. That's not expanding the power of the state, though. That's setting up a check and balance for an existing power. Now, does it work? I don't know. But I don't see it as expanding power. So, "should a state do something," versus "how should the state do it." Isn't this why we have political parties - we vote for who we think will do these things properly? It doesn't seem to me to be as you state above. When Trump was elected, I didn't suddenly not want government to protect the environment anymore. I'm fine with arguments for or against using government to solve specific problems, using real-world examples. It's the blanket pronouncement "government iz bad" that gets very wearisome. Anyway, I'd like to ask Don for some examples of how he is unfree. All morning I've been trying to come up with an example in my own life of lack of freedom due to the government. Things I would like to do but can't, because of government oppressing me. I can't think of anything, but I live a very dull life, so...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 24, 2017 8:37:28 GMT -5
I didn't say it was anarchy. Compared to what we have now, it's virtually nonexistent. Lol. Anarchy vs. "virtually non-existent." A distinction without a difference. Regardless, the piece in the OP doesn't call for a "virtually non-existent" government, at all. Actually, I addressed it up thread, more or less, with this: I'm not in favor of a minimalist state, myself, but I think there's value in recognizing the utopian fantasies of what some term "statists" for what they are: fantasies. Because doing so may actually lead to some pullback from a state that is just too fucking expansive right now.Beyond that, your second point is much like the first: less about the subject matter and more about Don. That and you saying you can't be bothered to read the articles that are the basis of a given discussion, that you're more interested in criticizing Don's views in general. Disagree. The government was never authorized to spy on the citizenry, to collect data on individuals, to the extent that it now does. FISA and the FISA Court were set up to curb this kind of behavior--the government doing something that it really wasn't supposed to be doing to begin with--but had the opposite effect: providing a means of legalizing such behavior. This is reflective of Hamilton's still valid point about enumerations of rights: I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.There's no way to not see this as an expansion of the power of the state, imo. Other areas where this kind of expansion is obvious include the EPA: the Federal Government has far more say over issues related to the environment than it was ever granted. You can argue that this was a needed thing of course (I won't disagree entirely), but it represents an expansion of power. The question is: do you want Trump to be tasked with protecting the environment, do you trust him in this regard? No, of course you don't. You trust the idea of government looking out for the interests of the country, of being responsible for things like protecting the environment, in the same way as maybe some conservatives (or other citizens) trust the idea of government protecting business interests, but maybe wouldn't trust, say, Sanders and the Dems in Congress if they were in charge. And that's Munger's point: an expansive government is okay in theory with people, based on their assumption that such a government would act according to their expectations. Yet when given parameters that would suggest a different outcome, they're likely to rethink such expansions of power, that or they'll need to qualify and/or turn it back to a theoretical, as you have done. Now I think the problem in all of this is that the very same standards Munger is using in his test are equally valid when it comes to individuals and communities/collections thereof. Let's say I don't want the state regulating the electric car market (to use his example), because I don't trust it in this regard, I think that the Detroit automakers and Michigan have too much of a say, that they'll be able to screw over Tesla. Does that mean that therefore I have to trust Elon Musk and and a handful of others, instead? Maybe that's okay if I think Musk can be trusted. But let's take him out and replace him with...Donald Trump (assume Trump opted to buy in to the electric car business instead of running for office). Sorry, no. I--for one--would rather trust the government in general than someone specific like Trump. And that leads to my conclusion--which I kinda expressed upthread, as I already noted--that there needs to be a tension here; we need people with Munger's viewpoint just as we need people with Sanders' viewpoint, the extremes as it were that pull as back when we go too far in one direction. Yet, it seems to me that the pullback is becoming more difficult from the "libertarian" direction. Kinda like government spending cuts, all we're talking about these days is just trying to slow the rate of growth, and that gets unfairly labelled as a "cut." We need actual cuts, imo. The government is too big, has too much authority. And the weight of opinion has tilted in favor of expansion as a matter of course. People like Munger are dreamers, are arguing for things that can never be, while people like Sanders raise good points, even if they go a little too far in their offered solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 24, 2017 13:59:01 GMT -5
I didn't say it was anarchy. Compared to what we have now, it's virtually nonexistent. Lol. Anarchy vs. "virtually non-existent." A distinction without a difference. Regardless, the piece in the OP doesn't call for a "virtually non-existent" government, at all. Actually, I addressed it up thread, more or less, with this: I'm not in favor of a minimalist state, myself, but I think there's value in recognizing the utopian fantasies of what some term "statists" for what they are: fantasies. Because doing so may actually lead to some pullback from a state that is just too fucking expansive right now.Beyond that, your second point is much like the first: less about the subject matter and more about Don. That and you saying you can't be bothered to read the articles that are the basis of a given discussion, that you're more interested in criticizing Don's views in general. Yeah, I do tend to criticize views in general when they always and without exception include the premise of the State as evil. I would do the same with views in general that require a premise of people as evil. Or good, for that matter. E.g., I think your synopsis upthread of how conservatives, liberals, and libertarians view the state and people is part of the problem. Call me crazy, but I think sometimes the state does bad things and sometimes it does good things. Sometimes people do bad things and sometimes they do good things. No group or individual is "inherently" anything. It always depends on a host of factors, and even accounting for those, it's only statistically more or less likely "the state" or an individual will behave a certain way in any given situation. And I think anyone who's lived long enough can see this, unless they continue to insist on looking at government or people as inherently good or bad. Okay, now I understand what you meant. My initial reading of "expansion of power" assumed the initial power was perceived as legitimate in the first place. "I want the government to protect the environment" was your example. Again, Trump in office / a GOP Congress doesn't change what I want. I'm not qualifying anything. It's likely they won't do anything to protect the environment and will stop (have stopped) previous programs, because protecting the environment isn't on their agenda. In general, if government claims they are going to take action to protect the environment but don't attempt to take any such steps, they lied. If they claim things they are doing will help the environment but which don't, they are mistaken. If they are mistaken, I don't want to take away the power for future efforts because of a mistake. I don't regret the power given if it turns out they screwed up. Everyone is fallible, "the state" included. Now, if they were lying, we've got the power of the vote, right? Lying politicians don't tend to last long. People get offended by that stuff. Fair enough. (Note: I finally read the article because I did actually want to read what was said about Tesla. ) On an emotional level, it does matter whom one trusts. I'd add that trust is often both misplaced and withheld unnecessarily. Of course people want officials they trust to have power; people don't (or wouldn't) want that same power in the hands of officials they don't trust at all. This is not news. Nothing ground-breaking here. Of course, there is a more balanced view of it all: the power the government currently has (with a few exceptions), with checks and balances in place, the media, the voting public, etc., is not going to be disastrous, regardless of whether someone half the people strongly disagree with gets ahold of it. Hell, this happens every time the house/senate majority flips, and every 4-8 years on average in the executive branch. Now, with wastefulness, I agree with what you say regarding "cuts" (below). I do take issue with government wastefulness - and huge, lumbering, bureaucracies with little to no risk of bankrupting themselves tend to be wasteful. I think that could be fixed if enough of people cared. I don't think enough people care. I think you're a rare bird if you actually care about spending on a nonpartisan basis. Extremist views keep us from being too extreme in the opposite direction, you think? I tend to see it as having more of a polarizing effect. I prefer more moderate views, and the practical application of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 24, 2017 15:01:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I do tend to criticize views in general when they always and without exception include the premise of the State as evil. And where in this thread did someone actually offer that premise? No, it really was not. My example--consistent with Munger's piece--was this: "The state should be in charge of protecting the environment" vs. "Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress should be in charge of protecting the environment."It's not the same proposition, at all. Your misstatement of what I said presumes a particular course of action. What we are talking about here is authority to pursue a course of action. It's not about what you want here, it's about the extent of the state's authority/power. You are. You're saying you want the state to have the authority to protect the environment based on the assumption that it's going to eventually protect the environment. Moderate views are a product of finding a middle ground, by and large. If there are no extremes, there's no identifiable middle ground, no moderate views. Regardless, history is pretty clear here: people seeking the extreme drove change, whether for good or ill. Labor unions, for instance, owe much to the demands of socialists and communists. The EPA owes much to to people like Rachel Carson and other environmental activists with extreme points of view.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 24, 2017 15:17:00 GMT -5
I don't think he's doing that, at all. He's suggesting that rather obvious conclusions can be drawn from such comparisons: more freedom of choice leads to better outcomes over time (as compared to socialist states). If you want to say that this doesn't prove that even more freedom of choice would lead to even better outcomes, you have a fair point (and I would agree with you). But Don is not--by my reading--offering up West Germany as an example of a libertarian state at all. He's just offering it up as an example of a state that runs better than a socialist one? Okay - so what? His argument was not just "Socialism doesn't work" or pretty much everyone here would agree, though perhaps not with the same level of vehemence. There's a huge difference between "relative to today" and "on an absolute scale." I would not cal the U.S. government in 1900 "minimalist" in the sense Don seems to be using the term.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 24, 2017 15:22:30 GMT -5
Yeah, I do tend to criticize views in general when they always and without exception include the premise of the State as evil. And where in this thread did someone actually offer that premise? Oh FFS, Rob. In this very thread, we've read about the state performing "immoral acts" with their "shiny badges," that they're "magicians," that we're all less free to live our lives "unmolested" by the government, and that anyone who believes the state should have any power (other than what some people deem appropriate) is "suspending their own moral compass." And that's in this thread. People have been holding back, I'll grant you that. If it never does, does that make it "wrong" to believe they should have that power? Let alone the responsibility. Great. Extreme away. I'll be the one over in the corner waiting for someone to present a moderate view.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 24, 2017 15:23:02 GMT -5
It's precisely this binary thinking that's gotten us the massive state we have today, and that makes threads like this derail in precisely the way rob keeps pointing out. If you want less government, you must be an anarchist. If you think government is consistently failing at performing its core functions, you must be an anarchist. Those are the only two choices. Bullshit. Whereas according to you, anyone who doesn't want "less government" (never mind that "less government" is also not binary, and most people just want "less government" where they don't like it and more where they do) is a statist who believes their unicorn government can solve all problems. Bullshit right back at you.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 24, 2017 17:20:41 GMT -5
Great. Extreme away. I'll be the one over in the corner waiting for someone to present a moderate view. You're missing the point. My views really aren't that extreme (with some exceptions). As I've said, I don't want a minimalist state at all. Moderate views are fine, because more often than not they're the ones that inform things. But they are--more often than not--a product of far less moderate views. Extreme views--grounded in noble/just causes--serve a purpose, imo: by having competing ones--both of which have valid points--they can provide the impetus to correct problems, to advance society in many aspects. Of course, when the extreme views become the norm, that can be a bad thing. Still, I think socialist screaming about how everyone should have the same resources and libertarians screaming about how more freedom is always better than less freedom helps keep us all honest, helps correct policies/actions that go too far towards one extreme.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 24, 2017 17:49:10 GMT -5
I understand that you believe extreme views are necessary. I understand that you think moderate views wouldn't exist without extreme ones. Since moderation can be defined as the "middle" (of opposite sides), I suppose that's true by definition.
But in practical terms, the lengths to which you defend certain extreme views while dismissing others altogether is telling, imo.
Throughout this thread, you have clarified, explained, and defended extreme arguments in response to pushback against them, "even though you don't agree" with them.
Would you do this in response to pushback against the posts of, say, a "regressive liberal"?
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jun 7, 2017 14:31:21 GMT -5
|
|