Say Anything Blog

The proper role of government should be to ensure wide-ranging individual rights, even the right to be personally irresponsible, while protecting the individual from the irresponsibility or malice of others.

Individuals have proven more than capable of protect themselves from the irresponsibility of others without the help of an all-powerful government.

Sure Dave, but outside of pure social Darwinism (for a good example of social Darwinism at work unfettered by pesky governmental interference, see Somolia), people tend to form governments to achieve that protection.

In civilized society, people agree on norms and mores, which get codified into laws because there’s always some self-important social Darwinian who wants to test the limits of those same norms and mores, almost always to the detriment of their fellow man.

The only way to be against all law is to be against the very norms and mores they are based on. Are you against norms and mores Dave? Would you have it that personal ethics and self-retraint be the only guarantors of the individual saftey of society’s weaker links?

Perhaps you are incredibly self-restrained and ethically upright (which, I really question that in light of your comments to the effect that altruism is a sin and selfishness a virtue), but plenty of people are not, and the only restraint they know, if they do indeed know any, is the law.

Save your bromides about individualism being the end-all, be-all of human existence, and put down the Ayn Rand novel (or whatever book you got such a warped view from), it’s obviously corrupting your mind. I don’t doubt that you’d be the first one to appeal to the protection of the law if someone stole your wallet. Or if someone assulted you. Or if someone dumped trash on your lawn every week.

It’s not a matter of all-powerful government vs individualism. It’s whether or not you have remedy outside of individual will to power, and protection from having to resort to that in the first case.

’In civilized society, people agree on norms and mores, which get codified into laws because there’s always some self-important social Darwinian who wants to test the limits of those same norms and mores, almost always to the detriment of their fellow man.’

Really????????????? I don’t know any Libertarians that oppose laws protecting individual rights, personal security or private property but almost all Libs oppose laws that limit ones individual rights at the behest of others, confiscate personal property including income so gov’t can enforce their beliefs against an individuals. do you actually think that libertarians oppose criminal law enforcement?

I’m not saying you did. But I’m trying to clarify standard Libertarian philosophy -

‘people agree on norms and mores, which get codified into laws’

What norms or mores have people agreed to that allows for the confiscation of personal property for redistribution by the gov’t and doesn’t any confiscation for whatever reason violate individual freedom? Try not paying your taxes and see if you’re presumed innocent before your income or property is confiscated. Explain how making a deposit of $10,000 dollars in your bank account entitles the gov’t to require you to disclose where the money came from? Explain how the gov’t can prevent me from any use of my private dwelling that I see fit that doesn’t directly affect the individual liberty of another or entering a legal or implied contract with whomever I see fit. Explain how the gov’t can deny me the right to protect my person and family against violent criminals. Explain how the gov’t can require me to disclose any information about my family’s background. What right does the gov’t have to regulate whether I own 5 dogs instead of 4 or allow one of my kids to have a beer at my house? Are these social norms I’ve agreed to? I’m not saying you advocate these things but does the gov’t not do these things today.

IMHO you’re confusing or at least lumping together Libertarianism with anarchy. I can’t quite peg what you are referring to as social Darwinism. I am inferring that you are equating social dysfunction ie Somalia with small gov’t Libertarianism.

...unless one believes that all government is illegitimite.

Like anarchists do. I’ve long appreciated the honesty inherent in ideas such as true anarchy and the world of Hobbes’ Leviathan. I wouldn’t want to live there but at least you know what you are getting. Speaking from a strictly philosophical point of view, I don’t know why it is legitimate in the libertarian’s world for the State to provide law enforcement and contract adjudication services. I understand in the real world that they’re necessary but why am I required to sign away my rights in these areas and, if indeed I am, where is the line drawn at which point I am not required to sign away my rights and who draws that line?

Just asking.

CallM, I was responding to Dave’s comment:

Individuals have proven more than capable of protect themselves from the irresponsibility of others without the help of an all-powerful government.

I wouldn’t argue against the proposition that individuals can look out for themselves better, I believe they can do. I’m arguing that the proper role of government is to ensure individual liberty and security against the ill actions of others. Show me where I said that government should sieze property, limit individual rights, or enforce any particular belief system. I’m fairly sure I didn’t say any of that stuff; I certainly didn’t intend to.

I honestly don’t know how you can read what I posted and somehow get a call for big government out of it, unless one believes that all government is illegitimite.

ICallMasICM,

Nice blather, but--as so often with ‘libertarians’--picking extreme, even egregious, examples of where the governemt has overstepped its bounds doesn’t move the dialogue along.

So, what is the role of the govenment, my friend?  Should the goverment:

Ensure we have a safe food supply?
Provide for those who legitimately cannot (not will not) provide for themselves?
Mandate compulsory schooling to a pre-determined age?
Codify and enforce child labor laws?
Regulate real (not imagined) interstate commerce?

I could go on, but you get my drift.  In your view, what is the proper role of the government?  Once we know that we’ll know whether or not you’re an anarchist.

Regards…

’I don’t know why it is legitimate in the libertarian’s world for the State to provide law enforcement and contract adjudication services.’

Because it is necessary to protect individual liberty. Again Libertarianism is not anarchy.

‘picking extreme, even egregious, examples of where the governemt has overstepped its bounds’

Are you implying that preventing me from protecting my family is an extreme example of where the government has overstepped its bounds. Isn’t that a basic violation of the 2nd amendment? Do you think that enforcing laws and regulations that regulate the housing market and confiscating my income to pay for housing and support of others is an extreme example of where the government has overstepped its bounds? Or is this a norm or more that I’ve agreed to?

‘So, what is the role of the govenment, my friend?’

To protect individual liberty.

‘Should the goverment:

Ensure we have a safe food supply?’

No

‘Provide for those who legitimately cannot (not will not) provide for themselves?’

No

‘Mandate compulsory schooling to a pre-determined age?’

No

‘Codify and enforce child labor laws?’

To the extent that it protects the childrens individual liberty

‘Regulate real (not imagined) interstate commerce?’

To the extent that it protects individual liberty and the rights implied in contracts.

LTM -

sorry - I can’t resist

Because it is necessary to protect individual liberty. Again Libertarianism is not anarchy.

Do I get a say in which rights I assign to the Libertarian State in order to protect individual liberty? Which rights are snatched from me without my consent in the Libertarian State in order to protect individual liberty and who decides which rights those are?

’I believe that societies have a right to form social contracts (enforced thru the goverment they establish) to promote whatever the society defines as the ‘common good.’ You don’t belive that, and that’s fine.’

I think we agree in concept but differ in what defines the common good. Certainly Libertarians believe that protecting and promoting individual liberty is the greatest good. Now if we can only convince those 120,000,000 people who voted D or R then the Salem police wouldn’t crack down on 9 year olds lemonade stands.

ICallMasICM,

No need to resist at all, my friend.  Don’t misunderstand me.  I believe that societies have a right to form social contracts (enforced thru the goverment they establish) to promote whatever the society defines as the ‘common good.’ You don’t belive that, and that’s fine.

For me the dichotomy is always between what the people ‘let’ the goverment do and what the goverment ‘elects’ to do without the people’s direct consent.  I am far too old and far too experienced to expect inidividuals to always (or even usually) act out of anything other than pure self-interest.

It appears that you are saying individual liberty trumps everything else; as long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s individual liberty (which can only be ill-defined at best).  That may not be anarchy in its purest form, but it’s certainly anarchy’s first cousin.

Regardless, I enjoy the exchange of thoughts.

Regards…

again you’re confusing Libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians are not opposed to consensual gov’t but believe that the goal of gov’t is to insure and protect individual liberty.

I understand the difference and I understand why the State is necessary in the real world. What I am trying to understand is the philosophical justification for surrendering any personal rights to the Libertarian State. If it’s a solution based on practicality or expedience then it seems possible to argue that personal liberty is not the chief good to be protected. If I can be expected to give up some personal liberty then why couldn’t I be expected to give up all of my personal liberty?

’Which rights are snatched from me without my consent in the Libertarian State in order to protect individual liberty and who decides which rights those are? ‘

again you’re confusing Libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarians are not opposed to consensual gov’t but believe that the goal of gov’t is to insure and protect individual liberty. Libertarians don’t believe that anyone has a right to deny anyone individual liberty unless their actions affect the rights and liberties of others.

MikeAdamson said, What I am trying to understand is the philosophical justification for surrendering any personal rights to the Libertarian State.

ICallMasICM has already told you a couple of times. You surrender that which violates another’s personal freedom.

If it’s a solution based on practicality or expedience then it seems possible to argue that personal liberty is not the chief good to be protected.

No. Personal liberty is the chief good to be protected in a libertarian state so long as that personal liberty doesn’t infringe on another’s. It is quite simple and I don’t know why you are confused.

It is quite simple and I don’t know why you are confused..

I’m not confused. I am challenging the assumption that personal liberty is the primary good to be defended and that the Libertarian State is the appropriate vehicle to assure personal liberty.

The Libertarian State requires that I surrender some personal rights to the State but if my personal rights are the chief good then why should I surrender any?

It’s the definition of how/when one is infringing on another that creates the issue.

Well I agree with you there. The definition and confines of “personal liberty” is the chief discussion among libertarians. I was simply responding to MikeAdamson’s notion that it is “based on practicality or expedience”.

Personal liberty is the chief good to be protected in a libertarian state so long as that personal liberty doesn’t infringe on another’s.

And therein lies the rub.  It’s the definition of how/when one is infringing on another that creates the issue.  You and I may draw the line in different places...and that’s where the society’s ‘social contract’ (and the government the society created) steps in.  The words “personal liberty so long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s” have no finite and incontrovertable meaning.

Regards…

Would you have it that personal ethics and self-retraint be the only guarantors of the individual saftey of society’s weaker links?

No, although, if they were, I don’t think society would be as bad as you believe it would. We’ve lived longer without laws than with them, and the destruction of the human species will most certainly occur in a society WITH laws.

Perhaps you are incredibly self-restrained and ethically upright (which, I really question that in light of your comments to the effect that altruism is a sin and selfishness a virtue), but plenty of people are not, and the only restraint they know, if they do indeed know any, is the law.

Agreed.

Wait for it.

Why does a government have to write these laws, and why do government officials have to enforce them?

This is the delicate balance that a free society must try to strike between liberty and security: the more you have of one, the less you have of the other.

This phrase is key.  Who dictates the balance?  A bunch of corrupt weenies who codify special interests at the expense of the individual.

Libertarianism is to MINIMIZE the damage the government can do as it intervenes in good faith.  For example, the Department of Education.  Can you say FAILURE?  It is a bloated and ineffective department that cannot be audited without being lynched for making kids stupid.  I can list examples for days, as each of us can.

I think that a Libertarian party would be a potential corrective force if our government were mutated into a three party system.  I’d prefer a platform that has more stability to it, but if it were used to side with the dems where they are correct and to side with the reps when they are correct, it would be a good application.

Any given political party unfettered would be a nightmare.  There is solace in the balance that is created between the extremes.  But our balance could be improved, and one could do much much worse than to look for the libertarian party as a device for equilibrium.

Any given political party unfettered would be a nightmare. There is solace in the balance that is created between the extremes. But our balance could be improved, and one could do much much worse than to look for the libertarian party as a device for equilibrium.

Ah, t’would be nice… if only the political chart looked like a food pyramid.  But since it doesn’t… A smaller portion of Dems would move toward the Libertarian party than Republicans.  There would need to be 4 major parties in order to come close to adequate political representation, and even that would fail.  As much as I like the libertarian philosophy, I could not have voted Libertarian due to:
1) the possibility that John Kerry would have won.
2) the Libertarian candidate was a moron.

No, we of the conservative mind need to commandeer the Republican party and enforce the views and policies that we espouse.

Asked and answered already, Dave. But since it’s Friday Babe day at Say Anything Blog, I’m in just an expansive enough mood to answer that again:

Society enacts laws to codify and enforce generally agreed social values (values such as: don’t kill your neighbor, don’t steal, don’t cheat). Government, at the whim of the governed, is trusted to fairly and equitably enforce those codified values.

Sometimes (well, actually often) the governed and the government individually, or both, forget that the government rules at the whim of the governed. This is when government over-reaches and begins enacting laws beyond what should rightfully be their writ (to enforce those generally agreed social values--not killing, stealing, or cheating).

People trust the government to do these things precisely because not everyone is ethically upright and responsible. Let me just head the obvious retort off at the pass: “But! Government officials aren’t always ethical or responsible!"--true, that. That’d be a breech of trust, and hopefully the people would drum said official out of office if the offence is great enough.

By the way, social Darwinism is one of those terms that means many things to many people, sort of like “religious right”, “liberal”, or “wango-tango”. So I’ll state the context I intend: the radical and strict application of the concept of the “survival of the fittest” to a social context.

Sorry, seems I have diahorrea of the cursor today; Dave said another thing that I feel compelled to answer to.

We’ve lived longer without laws than with them, and the destruction of the human species will most certainly occur in a society WITH laws.

This is a fallacious statement--although I’m too lazy to look up the proper name of the fallacy--in that, while we have indeed lived a long time without laws, such an existence was not always conducive to individual liberty, and societies were more clan based than anything else. The moment cities began to form, people made laws. What’s more, that the destruction of the human species will most certainly come from a society with laws (in your view), is an empty point. Societies without laws have, historically, not had the technological wherewithal to destroy the species.

There never has been a group of hunter-gatherers with nukes, but I guess I won’t discount the future possibility and your ultimate vindication, Dave.

By the way, in my opinion, the destruction of the species is much more likely from a failed state than it is from a state where there is respect for the law.

Seth: right, but that is to perhaps put too slippery a definition on it. I didn’t mean to imply that there were no rules before cities, but was remarking (in a rather offhand manner, to be honest) that what we would all recognize and agree to as laws have existed at least as long as cities have. I’d need to actually refer back to my history books to be any more exact...and I don’t have them at the office!

You said something above I really liked and agree with:

[W]e of the conservative mind need to commandeer the Republican party and enforce the views and policies that we espouse.

Hell yes.

In response to:
Should the government ensure we have a safe food supply?

Yes, depending on what you mean by a safe food supply (I understand safe to mean fit for human consumption). Without adequate rules you have no legal recourse if someone intentionally sells you corrupt meat, or adds toxic fillers to your toffutti-fruity deseret surprise. When a person buys food they are trusting that the vendor isn’t selling a product that isn’t knowingly selling a bad product; if a vendor were to knowingly sell a bad product, this would be a breech of an essential trust that is core to the modern division of labor system we all enjoy.

Should the government provide for those who legitimately cannot (not will not) provide for themselves?

Yes, the weaker members of society (through no fault of their own outside of simple fate) can’t always depend on the charity of others. To argue otherwise is to have an overinflated trust in the altruistic nature of man; one cannot always depend on someone helping because of their personal feelings of charity, but there is a greater chance of getting help if it’s someone’s job.

When thinking about weaker members of society who may need assistance to survive, the handicapped spring to mind. Not all human capital is physical, especially in modern societies. One needs look no further than Stephen Hawking to know the truth of this.

Should the government mandate compulsory schooling to a pre-determined age?

Yes, education is key to success in a modern society. Children cannot intelligently make the choice to evaluate the personal cost of not going to school. Unfortunately, some parents of cannot intelligently evaluate that either. While I would argue adamantly that a parent has very broad rights in regards to their children, I would not count the right to severly disadvantage them as one of those rights.

I know that my support for mandatory education is probably a positive-rights slippery slope, but it’s a compromise I’m willing to make. However, I believe (for reasons that I admittedly can’t quite articulate, not yet anyway) that in a modern society individual liberty is best guaranteed by educated citizens--so possibly my support for mandatory education isn’t so at odds with negative rights in a final analysis.

For the record: no, I’m not equating libertarianism in general with failed states (ie Somolia). My point of mentioning Somolia was that there are test cases of society where the individual and clan are prime, and the government has no writ--all to argue that individuals with no government don’t, necessarily, do it better.

Seth,
Though I normally don’t take issue with anything you write…

while we have indeed lived a long time without laws, such an existence was not always conducive to individual liberty, and societies were more clan based than anything else. The moment cities began to form, people made laws.

This just isn’t true.  Man has had laws since verbal communication.  Pagan worship provided many laws.  Most applied only to the clan, but… they were ‘laws’ (though, perhaps ‘rules’ is a better term) that governed acceptable actions.

Comandeering the Republican party...I think it starts with education: on the nature of values and the role of government. I think one needs to first educate one’s self, and that is what I’ve been trying to do. After that I think you can turn it into a coherant belief system that you can teach to others, who can then be energized to action.

Some of my “thinky” posts are the result of this search for knowledge...sharing the conclusions and understandings I have come up with and sounding them against the other big brains that frequent this site.

Thanks for the compliment, I’m never very sure that I express myself well. I don’t ever really feel good about my writing, as I actually hate to write (I’m very critical of my own works).

Oh… I forgot to say it earlier… great post!  It sparked a really interesting debate!

that what we would all recognize and agree to as laws have existed at least as long as cities have.

Okay, that’s fine… as long as no one thinks that anarchy ruled for the first x thousand years before the first city…

As for the commandeering of the Republican party… I’m not entirely sure where to start.  It seems that the electorate has become so dependent upon the Government that we can’t do without them.  Without usurping the fed and returning control to the states, I’m not sure how to limit the power that the Fed has already garnered…

A smaller portion of Dems would move toward the Libertarian party than Republicans.

I don’t know about this.  There are members of each party that are there because they feel they have no other choice.  Before Perot nutted up, he had 25% of the vote - and ended up with 10% when it was all over in 1992.  And don’t forget this segment of the population:

As much as I like the libertarian philosophy, I could not have voted Libertarian due to:
1) the possibility that John Kerry would have won.
2) the Libertarian candidate was a moron.

So you, being a Republican, are confessing to be intrigued by the platform.  So if a charismatic and intelligent leader was nominated, even YOU might be swayed.  I am with you - the thought that Kerry could have won is daunting. 

What would be the final determination?  Reports of what might happen were the election held tomorrow - from the MSM?  Yes, let’s wait until they tell us that our vote is wasted or not.

Natty: I agree, there probably is a huge segment in the middle, but I think that’s because the Democrats have been doing a fine job marginalizing themselves. I don’t think there is much good to be had in splitting the Republican party at this point in time, I think it would be more fruitful to speak to the centrist values that resonate with that huge central swath of voters.

I’m not afraid of a third party, nor am I afraid of the Republicans becoming (at least temporarily) monolithic. What does give me political nightmares is having an opposition party that is unserious and obstructionist just for the sake of being obstructionist, like the Democrats have been becoming.

[Gee, I hope that came out the way it sounded in my head.]

two words:

NEAL BOORTZ!

’My point of mentioning Somolia was that there are test cases of society where the individual and clan are prime, and the government has no writ–all to argue that individuals with no government don’t, necessarily, do it better.’

Let’s go back to square one - you’re confusing Libertarianism with anarchy. Somalia is the farthest thing from a test case for Libertarianism because it’s a state ruled by dictatorial warlords with zero respect for individual liberty and private property.

Throughout all your examples of what you think gov’t should be you cede individual rights and responsibilities to the state. As these rights are ceded society becomes more dependent on the state to fulfill it’s basic needs and responsibilities and this is a role that gov’t cannot and will not fulfill. Since you then assign these responsibilities to the state then you give the state the warrant to seize individual property and infringe on the freedoms of all people.

‘Society enacts laws to codify and enforce generally agreed social values (values such as: don’t kill your neighbor, don’t steal, don’t cheat). Government, at the whim of the governed, is trusted to fairly and equitably enforce those codified values.’

Society doesn’t enact laws, gov’t does. Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t cheat may be generally agreed upon but I don’t believe create a massive, manipulative, redistribution bureaucracy is and I don’t believe regulation of nearly every aspect of commerce is.

‘As much as I like the libertarian philosophy’ - I think you’re confusing a personal view that has little to do with Libertarianism with what Libertarianism actually is. I keep hearing people refer to an inverse relationship between liberty and security as if they are opposable terms but they go hand in hand and without one you don’t have the other.

‘People trust the government ‘ - whatever.

I understand and was going to make the same distinction that I’m referring to ‘L’ibertarianism and not the American Libertarian Party and not this kind of cafeteria ‘l’ibertarianism that is sort of like Rockefeller Rupublicanism where you have lower taxes but the gov’t still regulates every aspect of commerce and social engineering. My point being that has little or nothing to do with Libertarianism.

So you, being a Republican, are confessing to be intrigued by the platform. So if a charismatic and intelligent leader was nominated, even YOU might be swayed. I am with you - the thought that Kerry could have won is daunting.

heh heh, you make the assumption that I am a Republican.  Five years ago, I was a registered Republican.  I changed my party registration to Independent with the intention of joining the Libertarian party based upon (as Libby Tarian mentions) the preachings of Neil Boortz.

I’m considering re-registering as a Republican, but only because the Libertarian party is a joke at worst, completely marginal at best.

Not that you could have known my party affiliation and I certainly lean toward the Republican party (at least as it was), so I can see how you’d think that I’d be listed Republican…

I hold a number of views that are associated with the Democrat party (at least as it was).  Decriminalization of many drugs, is one of those views.

ICallMasICM:

‘As much as I like the libertarian philosophy’ - I think you’re confusing a personal view that has little to do with Libertarianism with what Libertarianism actually is. I keep hearing people refer to an inverse relationship between liberty and security as if they are opposable terms but they go hand in hand and without one you don’t have the other.

Please note that I used lower and upper case ‘L’s in the places that I intended.  I was careful to keep them separated, but should have made that more noticeable.

This is rushed, so go easy on rhetorical gaps, eh?

No offense CallM, but are you reading what I write with your eyes closed? I ask because you consistantly misinterperet and misrepresent what I have stated several times now.

My point about Somolia, AGAIN, is not that it’s a test case of libertarianism (hence me posting ”I’m not equating libertarianism in general with failed states (ie Somolia).”. I’m quite, quite aware of the difference between libertarianism and anarchy (although, some supposed libertarians are really closeted anarchists).

My point with the statement you quoted, I say again, is that it gives lie to the statement that individuals ”have proven more than capable of protect themselves from the irresponsibility of others without the help of an all-powerful government” (quoth Dave). Somolia shows that a society where all individuals act out of sheer self-interest in the absence of a strong governing authority do not always prove capable protecting themselves. Again: I know it’s not libertarianism specifically; I’m addressing a point of human nature, in direct response to a specific statement by Dave.

You state:

Throughout all your examples of what you think gov’t should be you cede individual rights and responsibilities to the state.

Yes, that’s right. Hence my comments about the balance between liberty and security--think of it like cash and insurance: you spend one to purchase the other. I don’t disagree with the notion that as a society buys more of this ‘insurance’ they become more dependant, and I don’t disagree that dependancy is a very bad thing. However, I still maintain that it is necessary, even desireable, to give up some liberty.

OK, granted...government enacts laws. Who creates the governement? Society does. So I guess the statement I wanted to say was: “Government enacts laws on the behalf of society.”

You further state:

...I don’t believe create a massive, manipulative, redistribution bureaucracy is and I don’t believe regulation of nearly every aspect of commerce…

You keep say this as though I have made a call for this, but I haven’t really. I take umberage at your consistant misrepresentation.

I didn’t say libertarianism is a terrible thing; I said libertarianism has weaknesses.

Great post! (found by Google)