Back in the early days of The Liberty Papers, one of the founding contributors was Quincy. Life interceded into his desire to blog, and he eventually took an unspecified hiatus from the blogosphere.
Thankfully, he’s back!
Head on over and see what he’s up to.
The Constitutionalism of Ron Paul has ignited a debate that’s sorely needed in this country. The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of individual States, each with its own quirks and ideas, and each with wide latitudes to set its own internal laws and policies as it saw fit. The central government was tasked […]
it must always be remembered that the message must be about freedom, not about federalism. Federalism is a potential means to the end, but it is not the end in itself.
But how do you sell freedom to people who think they’re already free? Or to people who honestly believe freedoms aren’t absolute?
I can sell federalism; that’s easy. I just point out that one-size-fits-all solutions are guaranteed to piss off 49% of the country (and they’re liable to be in that group 50% of the time) and then invite them to stake out their own little no-smoking enclave so long as tolerate the neighboring smoking enclave.
But freedom? That word has been so mangled that I don’t know how to sell it to anyone that doesn’t already agree with me.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 30, 2007 @ 4:31 am
The only way I can think of to sell freedom is to set a good example and win the war on ideas.
Comment by uhm — November 30, 2007 @ 5:25 am
If people choose to believe in hypotheses — adopt them as working beliefs in conjunction with others who share those beliefs on their own TERRITORY — it cannot be the business of a free society to oppose them. If the 13th and 14th Amendment are consistent with a free society then their interpretation must be limited to providing equal access to such territorial freedom of association for all citizens.
This means Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is — and any other so-called “anti-discrimination” laws that violate territorial freedom of association for all citizens — are simply a way for one group of people to impose their beliefs on others providing “no place”, ie: TERRITORY, to put opposing beliefs to the test by freely associating adults and their families.
You do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others if others are not imposing their religious beliefs on you. The moment you do, you lose your rights and self-defense justifies any action against you.
Comment by James Bowery — November 30, 2007 @ 5:41 am
The big positive to Federalism, the way I see it, is that if you live in an area or state that limits too many of your freedoms, then you can at least consider a move to a state which is more in line with your personal views. While that may or may not be practicable for most people, it is one of the few ways to effect change when your views are outnumbered.
Comment by Kay — November 30, 2007 @ 5:58 am
“Well, the ideal government would be a single world government that was only powerful enough to protect freedom but disciplined enough not to infringe on individual freedom for the “common good”. However, such a government has never existed, will never exist, and with the incentives inherent in government, can never exist. So looking at the ideal government is not a useful way to answer this question.”
I’ve been kicking a somewhat similar concept around in my head for awhile. Ultimately, I think the ideal government is more realistic and achievable than you’d think, albeit extremely far off.
My feeling is that the concept of federalism really does come close to an ideal since it attempts to create something resembling a free market in government. A real global federalism would thus be something equivalent to an ideal. The biggest problem is with the high costs of moving, but a properly run system of federalism at least can prevent local governments from imposing additional costs to moving.
Federalism’s greatest advantage is its ability to limit the effects of “tyranny of the majority” to smaller geographic areas. Properly instituted, the preemptive power of the central government can also be used to protect minority rights in areas where the “tyranny of the majority” has relegated the minority to the status of being powerless. The trouble of course is the phrase “properly instituted.”
Jeff,
I can sell federalism; that’s easy. I just point out that one-size-fits-all solutions are guaranteed to piss off 49% of the country (and they’re liable to be in that group 50% of the time) and then invite them to stake out their own little no-smoking enclave so long as tolerate the neighboring smoking enclave.
The problem with that is that the best you can offer them is that they’re going to be pissed off 20-30% of the time, not 50% of the time. And it doesn’t get to the root of the problem, because they then believe it is moral to vote away the freedoms of the 30% that are unlike them.
It’s a pragmatic answer, but not a really effective sale (more on that in a moment).
But freedom? That word has been so mangled that I don’t know how to sell it to anyone that doesn’t already agree with me.
Again, if you’re looking to sell, let me give an example. I work in the technology industry, in a commodity market. But our product is differentiated from the commodity suppliers by our technology and our business model. I can go into a customer and try as hard as I can to sell on price, but my sale is only as effective as long as I can remain the low price guy. If I sell the technology, though, and make the customer believe in what we’re doing, not only are they willing to pay a higher price but they know that they’re receiving value for that price. The sale is permanent, as long as I live up to the promises made.
It’s the same way with freedom vs. federalism. Federalism is an easy sell: “Go live with people who believe what you believe, and you’ll be generally happy.” Sure, that works, but it doesn’t necessarily enhance freedom. All it does is create pockets where different aspects of life are more or less free, and allows individuals to choose a mix of freedom vs. regulation. That’s an improvement, but it’s not changing hearts and minds. Freedom is a much harder sell. Especially when you’re selling something that runs contrary to someone’s personal preferences (such as the smoking ban). After all, most people don’t like being around smoke, so to get them to understand that they still don’t have the right to stop people from smoking on a business owner’s private property runs contrary to their personal wishes. But if you make the sale, it’s a permanent sale. Once someone “gets it”, they get it for good.
I understand where you’re coming from. You’re selling federalism, i.e. find people who you can live with that will give you the freedoms most important to you. I’m selling freedom, i.e. it is wrong for you to take away others’ freedom and it is wrong for them to take that freedom away from you, and BOTH should stop. You’re selling a pragmatic compromise, I’m selling a value system of right vs. wrong. It’s a lot harder to do the latter, but when it works, it’s much more effective.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 30, 2007 @ 8:14 am
I am a libertarian not only because I would enjoy my life more if the government weren’t involved, but because I think freedom actually WORKS and is practically better (Socially, economically, whatever). More prosperity, more freedom, higher standard of living for the most people.
In the case of federalism there very well may be instances on a state scale or smaller where individual freedom is infringed for the “greater good” or some other dreamt up viture. I believe those schemes will fail , and a situation very similiar to the free market will occur where states and local governments compete for the best policies (if your state is failing, and a neigboring state is prospering, you’re going to want to change to be like them). This is how we got to have the municipal services that we like (public roads, schools, police, etc.) they were tried on a small scale, they worked, the idea spread to other localities.
Based on that philosophy I think the more localized govt the better. By contrast the stronger centralized govt is worse.
Comment by mike — November 30, 2007 @ 8:37 am
It is also important to keep in mind that the original 1789 Constitution, even before the Fourteenth Amendment and even before the Bill of Rights, still placed individual liberty above states powers. See Article I, Section 10 and especially Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.
Comment by KipEsquire — November 30, 2007 @ 9:09 am
This is an excellent article. By citing federalism and what it is capable of, you have correctly pointed out the possibilities of freedom.
I will have to disagree, however, that federalism does not equal complete liberty and has a negative side regarding anything that does not equate to small government.
A concept that enjoys remaining elusive is that true freedom is the freedom to not be free just as much as it is to be free. Choosing big government is just as related to freedom as choosing small government.
That’s because freedom is about choice. And the fact of the matter is that many people WANT to have big government in their lives. Forcing small government on everyone is just as tyrannical as forcing big government on everyone, simply because it’s an ideal being forced against many people’s choice. It’s no different than forcing any other ideal. Force is force.
What might be your preference for freedom is not going to be someone else’s preference. This is why we are so divided as a nation. This is why we have politics to begin with, because we keep trying to force only one preference on everyone.
Confederations and federations provide the only answers we have yet to come up with that provide true freedom, by allowing multiple states to be “experiments in freedom”, as you said.
Those experiments are going to represent a range of ideals, whether socialist high-tax states, to libertarian low-tax states, to blue law religious doctrine states, to moderate states that include an even mix of everything, and all in-between. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s freedom.
The freedom to choose any of those things is true freedom. Federalism provides that freedom.
As a libertarian its hard to find a good compromise without giving up too much of the core belief in freedom. I think federalism still offers the best chance at pragmatically increasing the ability for like-minded libertarians to find a place in the American system. There is also the simple matter of economic efficiency - that is, sending taxes halfway across the country in hopes that they will make it back to you in the form of public services is like begging for a lower return on your dollar. I don’t mind spending tax money on schools and hospitals, but it only makes financial sense to do so at the local/state level.
Comment by underground — November 30, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Well, technically, the only “services” that you should be provided at the federal level by your taxes are things like national defense, national justice system, commerce regulation, and things of that nature.
The more the federal government becomes involved, the less chance federalism and the ability for states to create their own levels/forms of government has to work.
Schools and hospitals, as you said, should be paid for at the local and/or state level in any manner that each local or state sees fit, whether through a high-tax socialist state, or a low-tax libertarian state, or whatever.
“The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of individual States, each with its own quirks and ideas, and each with wide latitudes to set its own internal laws and policies as it saw fit. The central government was tasked only with foreign affairs and acting as arbiter of inter-state matters. The individual States had nearly full sovereignty with most other affairs. In many ways, the United States was set up with a roughly similar mix between central authority and State sovereignty as the current EU.”
Is this really a good thing? After all, the Founding Fathers promoted this system because the Southerners didn’t want a strong national government threatening slavery and I’m sure that some Northerners didn’t like the idea of a national government threatening their system of state-sponsored religion.
Comment by FreedomDemocrat — November 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Wrong. The whole idea of going to a stronger central government than that provided by the Articles of Confederation was due to the the slave-owning founding fathers wanting a stronger central government with which to suppress Shay’s Rebellion, which arose because the Yeomen farmers who had fought the Revolutionary War were being put in a position of paying off war debts which endangered their subsistence.
It was slave owning that resulted in a strong central government.
Proof of this is even found in the Civil War where slavery of individuals was replaced by slavery of all States — even those which had never participated in slavery in a major way.
Proof of this is the fact that if New Hampshire were to try to secede, for example, they would find themselves subject to armed invasion by the Feds.
Comment by James Bowery — November 30, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
individual states should know better how to tax themselves and take care of their affairs. “should.” states with high %minorities would actually be more represented in this era. “would.”
i think irl in this era, your average citizen is both much more apathetic to any democratic process, as well as much stupider. much, much stupider. so given the deterioration of the populace, federalism will be the only choice in the future.
Comment by oilnwater — December 2, 2007 @ 11:13 am
^^^ d’oh! i meant central govt, not federalism, is the only choice in the future ^^
Comment by oilnwater — December 2, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
oilnwater,
Funny thing. As the Department of Education in Washington spends more and more money, our populace becomes ever “stupider”…
Maybe if we broke the government’s monopoly on education (with a voucher system) we might see a better-informed populace?
Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 3, 2007 @ 8:25 am
Brad,
People tend to become as dumb as they can get away with. If they can’t get away with being really stupid about their decision, they’ll learn quickly and smarten up.
That’s why protecting the consumer from themselves is the worst thing you can do for the intelligence of the American population. Whereas before regulations, we only had a subset of people that made unwise decisions, under the new regulations, everyone can afford to be stupid and thus become that stupid.
Government’s monopoly on education merely destroys the quality of education. At least people still crave better education. They’ll try to figure out ways around it (homeschooling!). Against the dumbing effects of regulation, there is no such motivation and there is no such desire to be smarter.
Comment by TanGeng — December 3, 2007 @ 8:46 am
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”–James Madison
Indeed that is exactly what we have seen in this country is a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. Because of the use of such arbitrary interpretation and therefore application, I think we should not be surprised when someone like Bush overtly trespasses against the Constitution. The Constitution’s standing in this country has been neutralized by a variety of political philosophies, the least of these are those who advocate original intent based upon a Christianized view of the founding of this country. Others have simply sought to render it so flexible that it no longer retains the viability of protection that they claim to support. These factions fail to see the meanings behind the principles, those both philosophical and practical. The principles, upon which the Constitution was structured, in a real sense, are neither totally static nor dynamic, but both and are essential to good government and to the pursuit of happiness by the people.
This country has not seen such a critical a time in our political concerns as we now face and it is primarily due to the fact that we have allowed various political ideologies to arbitrarily interpret the Constitution to fit their particular ideological points of view. Today, our country not only stands before a period of extremes, but dangerous extremes that could, with ease, erase what we have always considered as particularly and essentially the American guarantee of the individual’s claim to Liberty. Instead of a country filled with free people, who assert their dignity through Liberty, we have become subjected to the will of a government that sets its own parameters of its reach and authority through the arbitrary interpretation and application of law. Principles are no longer considered inviolate, but are subject to the political whims of the day, whether those whims are Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Conservative or any other political ideology. Today we happen to be witness to the “living Constitution” as the Neo-Conservatives view it; tomorrow we might be witness to another group and their interpretation. Therein is the danger of such an arbitrary interpretation.
When any political ideology or philosophy extends an arbitrary utility over a Constitutional principle, it does so at its own peril. I say that because, as we see with the Bush Administration, it is then easy for any group to take liberties with those principles and thus affect one or more sections of an opposing party or interest. Once the door is open to accept and approve the arbitrary interpretation and application of the Constitution, and then it becomes much easier for abuse to ensue. If the principles found within the Constitution are not foundational to both government and the People, then those principles will always be usurped, abused or denied. When the principles of the Constitution are no longer viewed as essential and therefore open to any interpretation, then they provide no protection from potential abuse by those of any political agenda.
One amazing fact is that the various political ideologies always seem to support some degree of Constitutional stretch when it follows their own particular political agenda, but when an opposing agenda stretches beyond the bounds of the Constitution there is an uproar and condemnation. It was easy for the Republicans; for instance, to condemn the Clinton Administration over its Constitutional abuses but not its own abuses now that Bush is in office. Likewise, the cry from the Democrats is equally as adamant when a Republican abuses those powers and reaches beyond the Constitution in one way or another when those breaches are contrary to their own agenda. The government seeks the ease of power and yet the Constitution was created to make it cumbersome to govern, thereby removing the potential for both consolidation of powers and the abuse of such powers. Checks and balances are extremely cumbersome, viewed as outdated and inapplicable in our day and age, is it any wonder that the view of foundational and inviolate principles is looked upon with such disdain? It is symptomatic of all centralized governments to seek power for it eases its ability to rule, a fact that history bears out to be true.
When we allow a very relative interpretation and application of Constitutional principles to prevail then not only will power seek the level of its own expression, but, in every case, the People will end up being the ones to eventually suffer the consequences of such relativity. Government bureaucrat’s prize relativity, for it removes restraints regarding the application of government statute over the principles designed to constrain such powers.
This government cannot do anything unless we cede it the power to do so, that includes the abridgement of our Rights. The Bush Administration is only following a path that was already well beaten when it came to power. Granted, it has extended its power beyond anything seen since the Wilson Administration, but never the less, it is far from being an action beyond precedent.
Political decentralization, a key structure found within the Constitution, is interwoven with the ideals of Individual Liberty. While it is the responsibility of the individual to place demands upon government for the appropriate execution of the Rights that foster such Liberty, it is not without precedent for any government, limited or not, to usurp and consolidate power to the bereft of the individual. Today we are witness to a vast number of powerful interests, both social and economic, manipulating government to the benefit of their particular agendas, all done, of course, under the carefully crafted guise of democratic freedom. People have always clamored over the promises of politics rather than the reality of politics and politicians are all too eager to oblige such inclinations of the People thus gaining their allegiance and support. The political reality of the day however, is far too disturbing to be spoken by the majority of politicians today; it is simply not palatable to the electorate.
Currently we are asked to “voluntarily” relinquish a great many of our Rights, in one degree or another, for the sake of security. It is not the first time the government has made such requests, doubtless it will not be the last, but we must remember what we do when we allow such license to government. When extra-Constitutional license is ceded to government, the government will always willingly accept for it is in the nature of government to govern more by force than by consent.
It is easy to see that the decline of Classical Liberalism in our society is mirrored by an increased power and centralization of The State as it takes advantage of the decline of citizen action and influence. The philosophy of Classical Liberalism that once prevailed in this country has been silent for far too long and thankfully it is experiencing a revival of sorts, partly out of necessity and partly out of the utter disgust with the quandary that passes as government in this country.
Until the People openly oppose all attempts to evade Constitutional Order then we will all continue to be in jeopardy from those who have shown no qualms at its usurpation at the expense of the People. Unless we oppose all efforts to abridge our Rights and Liberties by any government, political party or ideology then we will continue down the road where our Rights are totally contingent upon the winds of political expediency.
If the People take those vital principles for granted or if we continue to excuse them as outdated or ineffectual for our time, even though they were specifically designed to protect all of us, then why should we be surprised when the government takes advantage of our own complacency as we readily cede such power and grant such license to those are only too willing to accept a power with far less restraint then is ordered by the Constitution.
Once again I want to bring up the superior system of the Republic in respects to the equal application of the Rights of all Citizens. The erosion of this extremely important principle from the governance of this country has been devastating to the cause of the individual, no matter what race, creed or gender.
Those who seek majoritarian rule have transformed us into a national society and that fact has, in essence, crippled the proper and equitable functions of the Republic. The Constitution was not given by the assent of individuals that composed a nation, but as individuals that composed the independent and very distinct States in which they held citizenship. The States, based upon the authority of the People, then assented to the ratification of the Constitution as being federal in nature and not national. There is a very distinct and important difference that directly effects the not only the legislative process, but the application of law relating to the Right of the People and how the government functions.
It is rare that we refer to ourselves as citizens of the individual State Republics; it was once the only reference to citizenship within this country. The reason for that was that this country was not viewed as a nation state, but a nation of States united under a federal system and not a national one. The thought of being a national citizen was contrary to the entire Republican ideal and for good reason; the federal government was only a reflection of the States and the authority the citizens invested, through the States, to the federal government. The People always acted as citizens of their respective States and not as citizens under the auspices of an aggregate national government.
The Founders, well aware of the tendency of majoritarianism, intentionally placed walls of separation within this Republican system and for a very good reason. They knew that if the Constitutional transaction were to work properly, it would not, could not be regarded as forming one nation, but a federal union of States. They knew that if such a national system were to be placed above that of the federal union of States then the will of the majority would gradually bind the minority within society.
Yes, I am aware that there will be those who will relate this to the catch phrase “States Rights”, and will dutifully denigrate any suggestion that we return to a system that allowed the States such authority and powers, yet there is nothing more Constitutional then doing just that. I make no apologies whatsoever for such a stance, for I know that it is one of the primary factors in saving this country from the terminal illness it now faces under the increasingly dangerous usurpations of the so-called federal government. While the Founders instituted attributes to the government that are national in nature, such as those relating to foreign relations, treaties, and interstate commerce; those attributes were extremely limited and were delegated to the federal government but not innately expressed.
The Founders never adopted principles that remotely resemble the system that we now allow ourselves to be subjected to in this country. It was clear that the Framers of the Constitution always considered each State to be a sovereign body, composed of sovereign individuals, independent of all other States and bound only by the voluntary act of a reflective union of States. The Constitution established this union of States federally, not nationally. I will not, at this time, delve into the various actions and acts that have transformed this federal union of States into a National Union, but suffice to say, it has had the exact effects foreseen by Our Founders. They pegged the results of such a transition exactly and indeed their fears have become a reality in this country.
The Founders were extremely wise in their delegation of powers, the system of elections that provided for the House of Representatives severed a national attribute because the their powers are derived directly from the People who are proportionally represented. On the other hand, the Senate [although no longer due to the 17th Amendment], served a federal attribute because it derives its powers from the State Republics and indirectly from the People. It was an incredible system that functioned to protect the People not only against the possible abuse of powers by the government, but from the possible threat of majoritarianism.
Federal powers were limited to a defined sphere of influence because the Founders realized the propensity of power to corrupt those who hold power. It is readily easy to see that they were correct in their assumptions and had this country remained a Republic, such corruption would find a rather difficult expression due to all the checks and balances embedded within the system. At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, the Founders placed the dependency of the federal government on the States rather than the States being dependent upon the federal government. Ultimately however, both the federal and the State governments were to be dependent on the People and their consent to be governed.
While the federal government was fitted with a multiple layer of checks and balances, so too the States were placed under an equally powerful system of checks and balances. The interconnectivity of the system balanced the system and kept the respective powers and authorities in check. As the federal government was to reflect the States, so too was the States to reflect the districts, counties and local governments. Each layer of governmental processes reflected the consent and will of the People and in that reflection there was a high degree of restraint placed on each level of government. Those facts are extremely important if the application of law is meted out with justice and equality.
The possibility of ambitious encroachments by either the States or the federal governments would be inhibited by the opposition of either level of government, not to mention the possibility of the vocal opposition of the People. The Constitution did not combine powers in a way that would lead to an accumulation powers that would pose a danger to the Liberty and Rights of the People. They were very precise in purpose to decrease, although not eliminate, the possibility of such consolidation.
The Founders took particular note of the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu in the formation of this system of government. Indeed, the Baron stated: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body there can be no liberty because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.” He was, of course, right in his assumptions and we see such combined powers in play today as the various branches of our government either relinquish powers or their powers are usurped by another branch. Likewise, the powers and authorities of the States have been trumped by the increased powers of the federal government.
I will refrain from going into the various delegations of powers found within the Constitution, but suffice to say that the Founders thought of just about everything regarding the proper uses of powers and authorities within the system. Perhaps it is once again time to place our trust in a system that proved far wiser then the fading credibility of our present government; once again we should hearken to the voice of wisdom when it comes to the proper role of government in this country.
Comment by Republicae — December 19, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
As I’ve pointed out, I’m a believer in prediction markets. For me, though, it’s more of an intuitive expectation that markets (i.e. revealed preference) are likely to be more accurate than stated preference. The question has come up with Doug, who isn’t yet a believer in prediction markets, as to whether there is […]
Hi, Brad. You’re absolutely right. I consult with companies to help them implement prediction markets in their business.
It’s a bit of a fallacy that prediction markets “know the future.” What prediction markets really do is aggregate all of the knowledge out there together in one spot. While we can never know the future, a forecast based on the best current knowledge and experience will be better than virtually any other system. A prediction market forecast may very well not be as accurate as you want it to be, but it is more accurate than anything else you can try.
Regarding elections, lots of people have lots of reasons to answer the way they do when polled. But when you ask “Who is _going_ to win” (instead of “who are you going to vote for”) and people put money behind it, you’re going to get what they really believe!
Regards,
Jed
http://blog.mercury-rac.com
Comment by Jed Christiansen — November 9, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Doug recently posted a “Libertarian Hard Cases” thread about how to deal with issues related to children. Libertarianism is one of the few political systems that treats adults like adults and holds them responsible for their actions; it assumes that people are rational actors who are capable of making decisions in their own life […]
Question 1: Yes, you do have the right to not vaccinate your child. The question that needs to be asked is if you are putting someone else in harms way. Some people will say that not vaccinating your children puts other children at risk. I think that, for the most part, this is hogwash. If little Joey dosn’t get his shots and little Mary does then Mary should, for the most part, be safe from the diseases that Joey might get because he is not vaccinated. Now, should Mary catch something from Joey and Joey wasn’t vaccinated you might have a specific case of wrong doing that could be punished. But this is not an excuse for collectively pushing medical proceedures on to the public at large.
Is it child abuse? That is hard to say. There are all sorts of things that put a child at risk. Where do you draw the line at what is abuse and what is not? Again, deciding this collectively is a bad idea.
Question 2: absolutely not. Society, in general, has no more rights than the individual does. I cannot come to your house and force your kid to have a vaccination. You would clearly be in the right to tell me to take a hike and use force against me if I persisted. It would be considered a crime if I tried to do this individually. Society cannot vote collectively to make a criminal act legal as that would be highly unethical. Yes, I know, government does this all the time. That doesn’t make it right.
Democracy does not confer legitimacy.
Comment by tkc — November 5, 2007 @ 9:44 am
I’d say that increasingly we’re going to see “post-scarcity” or “post-economic” issues becoming more and more important within American politics. Today’s environmentalism is only the start. I think more and more we’re going to see a rise in concern for animal rights, and I think that it’s a very hard case for libertarianism in the future.
Specifically, how would a libertarian approach something like Arizona’s Proposition 204 from 2006. Here’s a state that voted down a gay marriage ban and voted for laws requiring pigs and calves be given enough room to move around.
Comment by FreedomDemocrat — November 5, 2007 @ 9:48 am
What would be a ‘post-scarcity’ or ‘post-economic’ issue. Environmentalism most certainly has to do with scarcity and economics. Ignoring this is usually its downfall.
It is hard to argue for animal rights as we regularly raise them simply for the point of killing them and eating them. Animals don’t have the first and foremost right, that being their own life.
Comment by tkc — November 5, 2007 @ 9:53 am
Brad,
As a general rule, I think its clear that the state doesn’t have the right to force you, as a parent, to vaccinate your child. The question becomes how far parental rights go.
Does a parent have a right to refuse to allow their child to receive emergency medical treatment that is necessary to save the child’s life ?
Do they have the right to refuse to allow the child to receive non-emergency elective surgery that would make the child’s like “easier” in some way (i.e., an operating to correct a cleft palatte, which is not a life-threatening condition but is disfiguring if not corrected) ?
And if the answer to Question # 1 is yes, how far does it go — do parents have the right to starve their children and treat them like slaves ?
I have more thoughts about this that will end up in a future post this week, but I think the basic position on children’s rights should be as follows:
Children have rights in the same sense that they have the same natural rights that every other human being has. However, since they are physically, mentally, and emotionally, immature, their parents are charged with the task of safeguarding those rights in what they believe to be the child’s best interests. To the extent that the state has a role in protecting children, it is step in when parents either are unable or unwilling to fulfill that role or when they become a danger to their children’s rights, specifically the rights to life and liberty.
I know that leaves a lot open to interpretation, but I think its a start.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 5, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Here is tough one for you. Let’s say that Junior has a critical problem that most likely can be corrected by a competent medical operation. The parents, for whatever reason, don’t want the kid to have this proceedure done.
The kid then turns to the doctor or some other third party and says, “Please save me.” What do you do? What can you do?
Comment by tkc — November 5, 2007 @ 10:11 am
My fortune cookie from lunch says, “The will of the people is the best law.”
Heh. Hogwash.
Comment by tkc — November 5, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Tkc,
Must be those commies in China :-)
Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 5, 2007 @ 10:31 am
tkc, most political scientists have identified environmentalism as a “post-scarcity” issue because it’s something that tends to pop up in developed counties. Only affluent countries can afford to focus on conservation of land and similar issues. And if you’re just on the edge between starvation and having a meal, you’re not going to care that much about the activists telling you not to hunt whales or other appealing animals in the media.
One could very easily modify your statement to:
“It is hard to argue for slave rights as we regularly raise them simply for the point of working them to near death. Slaves don’t have the first and foremost right, that being their own life.”
My point is that in affluent societies you’re more likely to see people considering giving more rights to animals, and I think this is a hard case for libertarians.
Comment by FreedomDemocrat — November 5, 2007 @ 10:36 am
FreedomDemocrat: since the ‘post-economic’ thing got thrown in I assumed the economic definition of scarcity was being used. Obviously a bad assumption on my part. You’re right, affluent societies have more disposable resources to deal with environmental problems.
As for the modification there is a clear difference between human slaves and cattle. The humans have an ability to reason. For example, cattle don’t raise us for corn feed and pasture space. The ability to reason seperates us from animals. Again, a more affluent society will deal with this in a different way than a poor one.
Comment by tkc — November 5, 2007 @ 11:31 am
tkc,
“The humans have an ability to reason.”
And these “libertarian hard cases” are in areas where the subject is incapable of reason, like the mentally handicapped or children or people in comas. I think that another “libertarian hard case” may be with animal rights, where a number of species (like chimpanzees and even bees) show advanced mental thought processes.
Comment by FreedomDemocrat — November 5, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
I don’t consider animals rights a difficult question at all. Animals have no rights. But realize this isn’t a libertarian answer. It’s not un-libertarian, either, it’s a question outside libertarianism.
As for vaccination, I think the answer is that parents have the right to withhold it. Parents are the guardians of the rights of their children, and they should have broad discretion to raise them, feed them, educate them, and care for their health. There needs to be some imminent danger to a child to override the duties and responsibilities of a parent. To vaccinate is something that I disagree with, but I do not think it poses an imminent danger to the child. Hence, the parent gets to choose.
Comment by Joshua Holmes — November 5, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
FreedomDemocrat: I don’t think they are as hard of a case as one might think. With the mentally handicapped, children, or chronically disabled most libertarians will give a wide berth to the wishes of the family over most dictates of the state. Only in the hardest of cases would I think a third party would be called for. Such ‘hard cases’ should be dealt with individually based on the facts of that case. 99.99% of the people can get by 99.99% of the time without intervention. It is the busy bodies who invent problems for themselves to solve. Libertarians have very little use for these busy bodies.
When it comes to animal rights, the arguments, for me, seem to be on the fringe. Bees have a hive mentality that seems to lend itself to survival, not to reason. One can teach a dog to sit and fetch and rollover but I doubt the dog ever bothers to reason his way about it. Things learned by instinct or by trained repitition is not reasoning. Most people will swat a bee if it disturbs them too much. Most people will not think twice about giving the dog swat to the nose if it misbehaves. If I tried either with you then you’d have me up for assault charges. That is because you have rights. The dog and the bee do not.
As for chimps, most people won’t run into one outside of a zoo. Yet most people, except for the fringe, don’t think twice about a chimp being kept captive in a zoo. Replace that chimp with a human being and there will be a stir.
Comment by tkc — November 5, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
what the freaking blog about facebook proxy can i use it for my emule software
Comment by GabrielLawana — November 23, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
OSHA is now considering regulating ammunition as explosives. If OSHA has its way, ammunition will become very difficult to purchase, store, or transport and would seriously curtail the individual’s constitutional right to bear arms without specifically banning firearms. One can only wonder how the courts would rule if OSHA’s proposed regulation were challenged. I for […]
Oooh Oooh! Stephen, I know the answer!
It’s because American liberals want a strong totalitarian state that serves their own ends. Look at the reaction to Gonzales v. Raich. Many liberals were quite happy to prevent sick people from having access to a medicine they need in order to not weaken the principle that the Federal government may regulate purely local activities.
The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.28 Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed “to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses . . .†and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20–21, supra.
Supreme court judgment concerning Gonzalez vs. Raich
They want to get George Bush off the throne, not cripple the power of the throne itself. They need that power to produce their version of a Kingdom of God on Earth.
Comment by tarran — July 11, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
I think you’re exactly right Tarran. For many on both the right and the left, it isn’t about principle its about who controls the levers of power. Those on the left who complain about the way Bush abuses his power had nothing to say when Clinton did many of the same things.
Comment by Stephen Littau — July 15, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Nick, who responded to Doug’s recent post made some great points and some which I disagreed with. I was going to respond to the original post’s thread, but as my response became longer and longer, I thought it should be a stand alone post.
Here’s what Nick had to say:
Ron Paul is dead wrong […]
>> I wish I could focus on Ron Paul’s domestic agenda and ignore his naiveté about external threats to our way of life. I think it’s this issue which is keeping him from having more wide spread support because I think many rank and file Republicans are libertarian at heart on the domestic side
I agree with your post, and I think the above statement is quite true, except for one thing. I don’t think Ron is naive about external threats. That is giving him way too much credit. No serious person could possibly dismiss external threats in this way. I didn’t see the debate, but I understand that he even defended Iran. Since he cannot be intellectually honest, and have the views he does, I think he is must be rooting for the bad guys.
Someone who only believes in the right to life for americans doesn’t really believe in the right to life, even for americans.
Comment by Gunnar — June 6, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
It will be difficult for Ron Paul to discuss his domestic agenda in any of these debates. He has to answer what questions he is given in a very short time, and they are giving him fewer questions and less time than the other candidates.
However, you will find at my site and all over the Internet, particularly at the Lew Rockwell site, many essays, speeches, YouTube videos, mp3 files, etc, from which you can learn a lot about his domestic policies. I encourage anyone to check them out. One thing that separates Ron Paul from the pack is how he fully discloses his positions on everything, and how he always votes consistent with what he says he believes in.
Also, I continue to add to a catagory called “essential viewing”, many documentaries that, though they aren’t directly about Ron Paul, they do educate and cover the areas of his greatest concern, such as monetary reform, bringing back sound money and ending the federal income tax.
I don’t think Ron is naive about external threats. That is giving him way too much credit. No serious person could possibly dismiss external threats in this way. I didn’t see the debate, but I understand that he even defended Iran. Since he cannot be intellectually honest, and have the views he does, I think he is must be rooting for the bad guys.
No, Ron Paul is just in isolationist libertarian lalaland. A place many libertarians were in even post 9/11. Perhaps it was merely perception, but I always felt my interventionist viewpoint was unpopular with other libertarians.
He’s got his head on straight about border control, which a lot of other libertarians do not, or at least did not.
The problem is that a lot of libertarians suffer from basing foreign policy on the notion that other nations will have a similar outlook.
Stephen,
I agree with you. I’d rather see Ron Paul talking about domestic issues than foreign policy, but I think the current political climate makes that unlikely.
It’s becoming exceedingly clear that the Iraq War and what to do about it will be the dominant issue in the 2008 Presidential race.
That, combined with the fact that Paul takes a position on the war that differs from every other Republican candidate for President, makes it inevitable that his statements on foreign policy are what the media is paying attention to.
Think of it this way — do you think he would’ve gotten the media attention he has since the second debate if the Iraq War didn’t exist ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — June 6, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Doug,
do you think he would’ve gotten the media attention he has since the second debate if the Iraq War didn’t exist ?
The media attention he’s been getting is akin to the attention that Dennis Kucinich gets due to his war stands. He’s treated as a freak show and not a serious candidate by the media.
Is the media attention that Paul has gotten helpful to the cause of liberty?
“Anyone with any understanding of history knows that ‘Palestine’ was created purely as an anti-Israel propaganda tool.”
Get your facts right idiot. Palestine’s existence/creation (and by existence I dont mean a US approval stamp to legitimize its existence) was long before creation of state of Israel 1948 (US approval and all). Maybe you’ll be oevrjoyed if I camped in your house and claimed that a holy book says its ok to do so.
And btw, christianity and islam started off the same way - violent,horribly proselytizing and intolerent towards other religions. Currently the only difference is that christianity doesnt entirely suscribe to the violent part.
Comment by bar — June 6, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Is the media attention that Paul has gotten helpful to the cause of liberty?
You might disagree, but I think it has been.
Given the choice between the cause of liberty being associated with Ron Paul and it being associated with phony libertarians like Rudy Giuliani, the choice is rather obvious to me.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — June 6, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
I wish I could focus on Ron Paul’s domestic agenda and ignore his naiveté about external threats to our way of life. I think it’s this issue which is keeping him from having more wide spread support because I think many rank and file Republicans are libertarian at heart on the domestic side. If there was such a candidate who would advocate Paul’s domestic policies and a more effective foreign policy than the current administration, I would support that candidate in a heartbeat.
Why does a strong position against Islamic Terror necessarily mean an interventionist foreign policy ?
Right now, I can’t think of anything that the United States is doing in Iraq that is actually helping win the War on Islamofacsism.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — June 6, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
And btw, christianity and islam started off the same way - violent,horribly proselytizing and intolerent towards other religions. Currently the only difference is that christianity doesnt entirely suscribe to the violent part.
Actually, there were plenty of differences between the Early Christianity and Islam. The main one being that, very early on, there was a clear distinction between Church and State in the West. There has never been such a distinction in Islam.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — June 6, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Doug, I’d have to agree with you that the media attention has been helpful.
Without his anti-war stance I doubt he’d even get the undeservingly meager attention he’s gotten.
But I think its’ most important role is as a way to get to know his policies better. His disagreement with the Iraq War is the least of the things which make him unique.
I have a feeling the online community will help people learn more about him and what makes him different from the other candidates. I just wish the mainstream media would take a cue from them.
His daily show clip had a LOT of domestic policy stuff in it. That’s the way he needs to trend if he’s going to get votes.
I see people are finally talking about what free market healthcare reform means and how its different from the system we have today. Thank god. I’ve only been stumping about that for what? three years now?
That’s what’s going to get noticed. A lot of people right now have a misguided view of what the free market is, what the constitution is, and what liberty is. Paul has the clarity of speech and the demeanor to get people to listen to him on those issues.
On Kevin’s liveblog of the first debate, I said that Ron Paul was focusing too much on the war. He’d take a question about taxes and turn it into an anti-war rant. I also think he’s lining himself up as a single-issue anti-war candidate, and if he doesn’t expand his rhetoric to other small-government topics, he’ll have a tough time getting the support of the disaffected Republicans needed to give him a shot.
There are some people who would support him in spite of his anti-war views if they knew his other positions. He’s not doing a good enough job, IMHO, of highlighting those positions.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 6, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
“Actually, there were plenty of differences between the Early Christianity and Islam. The main one being that, very early on, there was a clear distinction between Church and State in the West. There has never been such a distinction in Islam”
Early christianity differenciated between state and church eh? - hmm. I guess a powerful church steering western political stances/issues in most of known history is something I made up in my mind.
Most of western foreign policies are skewed. They are based on obtaining power through dividing nations, creating conflicts and depleting someone else’s natural resources. What long term good can ever come out of such an ideaology? You can disguise that motive with “spreading freedom” banner, but the ppl affected by it arent that stupid.
Non-intervention is something that is hard to practice- especially when personal gain and enormous power are at stake. These terrorists are brainwashed to fight “injustice” and israeli “occupance” of what has been their land. I doubt they blow themselves up because they find short skirts, drive-thru fast food and 300+ tv channels offensive.
Comment by bar — June 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
I don’t see the problem. Congress can declare war. In that situation he would be a puppet to do Congresses bidding. I’d like Congress to declare war for now on and take responsibility for it’s actions.
Why don’t you critique the other Candidates on their Pro-War stance to see if they know what the hell they are talking about?
I want one of those 4 Star Generals that rejected being Bush’s war czar to run if we are going to continue interventionism.
Either the Islamic fascist will get us or it will be a Soviet style government at home that will. In the Primary I’m going to vote for liberty rather than perceived temporary security.
Comment by uhm — June 6, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Nick,
No, Ron Paul is just in isolationist libertarian lalaland. A place many libertarians were in even post 9/11. Perhaps it was merely perception, but I always felt my interventionist viewpoint was unpopular with other libertarians.
Although interventionist and non-interventionist are antonyms, interventionist and isolationist are not. Many confuse Ron Paul’s position as isolationist when it is non-interventionist. This is a subtlety that is lost on many WOT champions. Just because RP wants to pull our troops out doesn’t mean that he is a “do nothing” isolationist. RP just wants to follow the Constitution. That means that Congress must declare war or bring our troops home. We know that will never happen so we must bring our troops home. That’s what the Constitution says.
On the other hand there are other things RP could and should do to fight the WOT. He supports the hunt for Osama and tried to get Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against those responsible for 911. Unfortunatly Congress was more interested in passing the buck and gave the decision to goto war to the President so that they would have plausable deniability.
Unfortunatly our invasion/occupation has drawn many terrorists/insurgents into Iraq and been a great recruitment tool for the terrorist ranks. We have “mismanaged” the war and really screwed things up. We being the Republican party. Our zeal to have leverage against liberals with the WOT let us stay the course for so long a time that we no longer can fix things in a civilized manner. Now it would require us to “get mideval on there ass” which we shouldn’t and won’t do.
Comment by Norm Nelson — June 6, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
I’m beginning to contemplate more of a “survivalist†attitude as it relates to Islamic terrorism. Maybe its time to adopt an “every man for himself†policy? We know the government cannot or will not defend us from every threat, whether foreign or domestic. Hell, far too often the threat comes from the government itself! Truthfully, the first and last responsibility of self defense belongs to the individual. This is why the right to bear arms is so critically important and why every effort to limit the individual’s access to firearms should be resisted at every turn.
Watch it Stephen… I sense a transition here… You’re becoming a radical!
Seriously, though, I think you answered your own question. The responsibility of self defense is on the individual. The government can only give us the illusion of safety, they have neither the resources nor the competence to provide the real thing. And they demand huge swaths of liberty in order to provide that illusion.
It took me a long time to see it, but I don’t see anything the government has done as making this situation better. I personally believe that if we had executed the war in a better fashion, it might have been a net positive for our security. But in typical fashion, our government has created a situation that’s far worse than if we’d never gotten into Iraq in the first place.
Not only are they not capable of protecting us, the actions they’re taking are actually making the situation worse, and have been for the last 60 years. Don’t fall into the classic trap of assuming that the stated goals of the war will be achieved. It’s the same trap that those on the left fall into, when they think that the promised results politicians have for a social program will actually be realized.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — June 6, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Brad:
“Watch it Stephen… I sense a transition here… You’re becoming a radical!”
Isn’t that a requirement for being a contributor to The Liberty Papers? :)
Comment by Stephen Littau — June 6, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
All I can figure is that this website if filled with naive 20 somethings. Trust me when I say this is the last time you will see a Ron Paul in your lifetime. It will get uglier from here on in.
I can’t understand how a site that claims Pat Henry as their father is so mainstream, that is just lame conformity. Whether you kids like it or not, and I know you don’t which is why you pro-war folks don’t sign up to join the fight, the armed citizen, with no standing arym, is the only defense that fits the libertarian model. Otherwise, at the least, cease being cowards on the intellectual front, and state that you will trade with Lucifer, liberty for security.
Comment by C Bowen — June 6, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Given the choice between the cause of liberty being associated with Ron Paul and it being associated with phony libertarians like Rudy Giuliani, the choice is rather obvious to me.
Doug, that’s a false choice and you know it. Nobody in their right mind is claiming Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian.
If given a choice between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, I choose none of the above.
“the armed citizen, with no standing arym, is the only defense that fits the libertarian model.”
I call BS on that. It is the only defense that fits the libertarian model provided other countries are libertarian. Which is entirely different.
Several brands of libertarianism acknowledge the need for a government and/or a standing army. Consequentialists and minarchists easily fit into this framework, as do the Founders for that matter.
To say there is no difference between the above and mainstream conservatism is intellectual dishonesty. To say its something you disagree with is something else.
Disagreement with you based on pragmatism does not make one naive. I can’t speak for the others, but my stance on the need to do something in the middle east is one that is due to direct experience and a whole lot of learning.
Gunnar, watch the debate on Youtube or something, so that you will know what you are talking about. Ron Paul did not defend Iran. Confused people, like Rudy G. seem to have extreme difficulty confusing explanations for events and ideologies with defending them, or blaming the victims, which Ron Paul has not done.
Take a step back and look at the big picture.
Comment by Paul — June 7, 2007 @ 12:51 am
[…] debate — sounding even more libertarian than libertarian Ron Paul. In fact the audience didn’t have a chance to listen to Ron Paul’s position on Health Care. And despite the fact that many would like to blame the […]
Pingback by It looks obvious » Blog Archive » Trapped in a corner — June 7, 2007 @ 10:08 am
The only issue that matters at this time is the war and it will continue to be the only issue that matters until it is over.
Comment by Chris S — June 7, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Nick;
If you want me to pay for what you want to do in the Middle East, and don’t see a problem with liberatarianism demonstrates a lack of philosphical discipline that I cannot pretend to over come in this setting. We are reduced to mere politics, and swaying the mob with tales of annecedotal imporatance, where you learned the Truth, and thus must, albeit regretfully, steal from me to pursue your scheme.
Ron Paul stated that he did not believe Iran was a threat to our national security, and he has also stated in the past that he did not believe Iran was a threat to Israel (since Israel currently has 75+ nukes). Iran is years away from a weapon if they are even pursuing one, and much, much farther from any sort of delivery system or a weapon small enough to be snuck inside a country for use in terrorism.
I believe Ron Paul has the best approach to keep our country safe: Kill the terrorists who attacked us (Osama), and re-evaluate our policies which contribute to people wanting to come to America to kill us. He acknowlegdes that we simply cannot, even if we needed to, police the world and remove every possible threat to America. He knows free trade and interdependence is a great deterrent to war, and that pre-emptive attacks against people who might one day have something which might be able to hurt us will only gain us far more enemies than we can deal with.
One of Ron Paul’s best points about Iran, though, is that the same people who are telling us Iran needs to be bombed (and maybe even nuked) are the same people who lied to us before and told us to go into Iraq…
Comment by G — June 9, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Depending on how aggressive he would be with the Letters of Marque and Reprisal, I think Ron Paul could be decent enough as far as pre-emptive strikes though.
But I also think that to the public at large, doing nothing and waging wholesale war are somehow more palatable.
i wouldn’t worry about Ron Paul. he’s so down pat with understanding these simple life intrusions, ordinary citizens deem as intricate problems. ron could solve the madness with one hand tied behind his back. because we are always left out of wretched government officials advances, it always leaves us scratching our heads, wondering how did whatever happen. stacks and stacks of facade laws and double speak legalese is what really happens. a stack of a million simple lies create the illusion of intricacy and intelligence when all it is, is just a tedious job when trying to clear the lies away. these government guys ain’t no smarter than any one of us. don’t forget that. This is 2007 and we’ve been through a lot of intricate espionage type movie plots that have tweaked,groomed and heightened our awareness for identifying falsehoods. we see the plot way before the ending here in 2007. we’re just way slow at stopping the snowballing before it becomes an avalanche.
Comment by greg porter — June 9, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
&
RSS 2.0 Feed
Hey Brad, thanks for the plug!
Comment by Quincy — January 24, 2008 @ 12:52 am