Why the Right Was Blamed

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I admit that, upon hearing the news that a Democratic Congresswoman was shot (and before I heard that it was a much larger spree), my first thought was that it was a far-right nut job.

I suspect even many conservatives suspected the same thing.

The taint of trade

"I've long thought that most of liberalism/progressivism as we know it today is basically aristocratic conservatism in Enlightenment drag, with the landed gentleman's disgust and disdain for the bourgeoisie and the vulgar world of commerce, contemptuous paternalism towards the peasantry, and unthinking presumption of his own superiority." - John Markley

Check out The Superfluous Man: The taint of trade

Is the Constitution Divinely Inspired?

Question: Is the Constitution Divinely Inspired?

Answers:

Progressive: Of course not, silly: there is no god!

Liberal: Of course not, because it was mostly written by slave-owners.

Conservative: No. It was the product of wise but imperfect men.

Anarchist: Are you serious?

Libertarian: Actually respecting the limits the Constitution places on power would be a good thing, but there was no reason to create it and the Articles of Confederation was better.

Neoconservative: Of course not: it doesn't mention anything about support for Israel.

Why Believe the Environmentalists?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

For years we've been warned that the planet is warming because of human action, that this would bring disaster, and that therefore governments must restrict human action to prevent the warming.

A member of my family is a professional meteorologist who teaches at a major university. He is no conservative or libertarian, and he's an environmentalist. But he's a global-warming skeptic, along with apparently thousands of other scientists.

Who are we to believe?

Classical Liberalism

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Philosophically, I am libertarian. But the nuances of libertarian theory are no longer my political concern. What we need is a strong affirmation of classical liberalism. Although called "classical," it is not a throw-back ideology. It is rather, the one ideology that provides the motor for human progress. The American nationalistic ideologies of progressivism and conservatism, not to mention totalitarian and collectivist ideologies from abroad like communism and fascism, are hysterical reactions to classical liberalism. This is understandable, because classical liberalism allows for society to change and evolve naturally. It is by nature a threat to those who benefit from State favors.

More than Left and Right

Check out "More than Left and Right," my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The authors of "The Transpartisan Matrix" explain the blunder of the healthcare reform proposals that contained an individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The mandate not only alienated the entire right, but also the "Freedom-left" or what I prefer to call liberals.

Indeed, the President's progressive agenda also alienates liberals in that it includes a continuation of George Bush's policies of domestic surveillance and a "surge" in the War on Afghanistan.

And let's be clear, such policies, though "anti-liberal," are quintessentially progressive.

Two Worldviews

The Republican Worldview

If a Democrat favors open immigration, he's a multiculturalist hostile to America's institutions. But if a Democrat opposes open immigration, it's because he wants to punish America's small businesses who must rely on immigrants who will do the jobs Americans won't do.

If a Democrat favors intervention to save tyrannized people and overthrow dictators, he's willing to put American troops in harm's way in a cause that has nothing to do with America's security interests. But if he opposes interventions, it's because he's an appeaser who hates the military.

If a Democrat favors free trade, it's because he's a globalist who wants to destroy the United States and usher in a World Government. But if he opposes free trade, it's because he's a protectionist who wrongly thinks American jobs can be saved this way.

If a Democrat favors the War on Drugs, that's because Democrats are maternalistic busy-bodies. But if he opposes the War on Drugs, he wants to destroy the nation's youth and future.

If a Democrat wants national education standards, that just goes to show he thinks Washington should be involved in everything. But if a Democrat opposes national education standards, that shows they're in bed with teacher's unions who don't want to be held accountable.


The Democrat Worldview

If a Republican favors open immigration, he just wants to depress wages and screw the middle class. But if he opposes immigration, he's obviously a racist.

If a Republican favors a war, it's to enrich the Military-Industrial Complex. But if he opposes a war, it's because he's an isolationist who doesn't care about the oppressed people in the world.

If a Republican favors free trade, it's because that favors multi-national corporations. But if he opposes free trade, it's because he favors domestic business interests at the expense of the consumer.

If a Republican favors the War on Drugs, that's because he wants to lock up as many people of color as possible. But if he opposes the War on Drugs, that's because he doesn't care about the devastation drug addiction causes families.

If a Republican favors national education standards, he's neglecting the overall education experience of individual students. But if he opposes national education standards, he's a crazy States Rights advocate who would overturn Brown v. Board of Education.

"Value" Voters and Location

This is an interesting theory, with very strong statistical evidence:

Inland areas have lower land values. This includes metropolises not bounded by water, which means you can build suburbs on all sides of the central city (as opposed to, say, Chicago); the greater supply of land lowers its price. This means housing costs are lower, which makes it easier to own a house and raise a family and have more children at younger ages, which means one is more receptive to (traditional, nuclear) "family values" rhetoric that can irritate the hell out of single adults, single-parents, and those with alternative household arrangements. The #1 determining factor to predict whether a state is Republican or Democrat is the average number of years a woman between 18 and 44 has been married. The theory also suggests that the Bush/Greenspan years, unfriendly to homeowners, will backfire on the Republicans. This theory comes from Steve Sailer at the American Conservative.

If you make six figures in San Fran and can't afford a house, but can raise a family in a house in Dallas-Ft. Worth at 50 grand, that's bound to affect one's political and social views. Aside from the moral/religious/ racial ramifications, I can see how the Republicans are the party of property owners (even if low-income) and the Democrats the party of angry renters (whether high- or low-income), and there is a "class conflict" here by the very reason that owning property affects one's outlook on life. I know there are exceptions: I know some prospering, suburban, in-tact traditional nuclear families who are very liberal. And I'm sure there are differences between those who own their own trailer and modest plot in a godforsaken area, and home "owners" whose finances burst when the housing bubble did. The former may make one-fifth as much money, but may still vote Republican while the latter will blame the Republicans for their problems.

But even in the most liberal state, Massachusetts, 40% of whites are Republican. It's not surprising that states with a higher percentage of whites, particularly more property-owning whites, will be Republican. It is also not surprising why homeowners may call Estate taxes "death taxes" whereas others may wonder what's the big deal.

In any case, whites seem to feel, more so than minorities, that they have to have a house before they can raise a kid. Minorities don't inherit this cultural proclivity, and apparently feel no shame to their status, or sense any harm to their children, if they rent.

I can also see how libertarianism - the original left-wing philosophy - has a hard time gaining adherents from members of the Left. Its focus on "property rights" easily can easily turn off people with no property. Libertarians must emphasize that their philosophy is about individual freedom, not private property. The question of property, particularly, property in land, is much more complicated. Are the property values in Manhattan and San Francisco fair? Does tax policy artificially inflate land values in some locations, and de-value it in others?

I would prefer a regime that didn't tax straight-up exchanges - i.e. good and services for cash, or labor for wages - and taxed instead some percentage of those who profit from rent - from income derived not from improving a piece of property, but merely from owning it.

Of course, figuring out how that would work isn't easy. But it's worth investigating.

Are Liberals Still More Fascist Than Conservatives?

Eight years too late. That was my thought when I first heard that Jonah Goldberg has written a book on Liberal Fascism. I haven't read it, but it receives a devastating review by Austin W. Bramwell at, of all places, The American Conservative.

Eight years ago, I thought I was a conservative, but that's because I thought conservatives stood for federalism, free markets, and a realist foreign policy. Therefore, bitter throughout the Clinton Presidency, I would have enthusiastically cheered a book like Liberal Fascism. Now, my attitude is that the pot is calling the kettle black.

Nevertheless, I do think it's worthwhile to point out the fascist tendencies of what passes for liberalism and conservatism these days. From personal behavior, to policing, to business regulation and subsidies, to war, both "movement conservatives" and liberals have values that initially came to the fore in Mussolini's Italy. Moreover, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman are heroes to both liberals and conservatives, and what these Presidents had in common was a fervent nationalism and desire for global domination - the very things we criticize in fascism.

Fascism is now conflated with Nazism, and the greatest sin of Nazism was racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular. So when one accuses another of being a fascist, it is implied that the accused is a bigot also. But I wonder how Mussolini would be viewed by Establishment historians had he never become allies with Hitler. Under the veneer of democracy, many fascist-style policies have gained mainstream moral legitimacy in the U.S. since 1933: social welfare, corporatism, militarism, governmental concern with health and physical fitness, centralized control of education. On the (even more) sinister side, people these days who were once appalled that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was wiretapping Martin Luther King's phones, now believe the feds should have the power to do that to anybody in the name of the "War on Terror."

Since 2001, those on the right who object the most to fascist-style policies have been expelled from the "movement" because they're "unpatriotic." And most of them would be more inclined to call Bush Conservatives (of which Goldberg is one) as more fascist than anyone on the Left.

This is why Goldberg's book is eight years too late. Many people, particularly paleoconservatives on the right and libertarians both Left and Right, may have once thought the "liberal" Democratic position was actually far more fascist than the Republican position. But that feeling evaporated sometime between the signing of the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq, and today the Democrats are, if anything, viewed as the "lesser of two evils." Goldberg has lost a significant share of his audience right off the bat. A negative review in the paleo American Conservative pretty much proves the point.

And even among "movement" conservatives, Huckabee would ban smoking, and McCain is obsessed with steroids and regulating political speech. Giuliani's record in New York hardly suggests he has an anti-fascist "live and let live" philosophy. How, then, can Goldberg take potshots at the anti-tobacco, anti-fast food liberals without alienating supporters of "conservative" Presidential candidates with similar goals?

Perhaps Goldberg's publisher is counting on his readers to be something less than bright. That may well be true.

The Poison Pill

A week ago John Zmirak wrote at Taki on the difference between opponents and enemies. A Republican for whom pro-life is the #1 cause, pro-choice Democrats are the opponents, but a pro-choice Republican like Rudy Giuiliani is the enemy. To illustrate the point, but with a different issue in a different context, he discussed his experience as a college student in Louisiana in the early 1990's. Democratic Governor Edwin Edwards was a blatant criminal. Louisiana has an open primary, in which all candidates ran in one primary and the two top vote-getters contest in the general election. The incumbent Edwards and ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke were the two top vote-getters. Zmirak, the conservative columnist at his college newspaper, endorsed the criminal Edwards in the general election. Edwards did win it, but Duke did get the majority of white votes in the state. As Zmirak puts it:

It was unsettling. People I’d met at church, who claimed to be solid Catholics, found themselves lining up behind a politician who favored pressuring welfare mothers to undergo surgical implants of the dangerous contraceptive Norplant. They were so desperate to win, so angry at leftist political elites, and so appalled at Edwin Edwards (an unapologetic crook who makes Bill Clinton look like Aleksandr Solzshenitsyn), that they were willing to overlook the “20 percent” of issues on which they disagreed with Duke. Conversely, liberals who loathed Edwards’ corruption bought bumper stickers and slapped them on their Volvos that read: “Vote For the Crook—It’s Important.”

How bad must the incumbent be to even consider voting for the unapologetically racist candidate who demagogued affirmative action, welfare queens, and the like to carry his candidacy? Edwards served his time, but one must give Zmirak credit: In a race between Hitler and John Gotti, he chose Gotti. There are some lines you just have to draw. There some evils that are so much the "lesser" of the other that, as a matter of honor and self-defense, you just have to support. And it doesn't matter that Zmirak may have agreed with Duke "80 percent," on balance the 20% with which he disagreed outweighed all the reasons he opposed Duke.

How bad was Edwards? Considering how a white Lousianan must have known at the time that the rest of America would shun and boycott the state if Duke won, and reviled Duke's racism, and voted for Duke anyway, Edwards must have been pretty freakin' bad. I don't know, I can't judge, I wasn't there, but I admire Zmirak for having the moral clarity to see the bigger picture.

Everyone has their own subjective values. Mine agree with Zmirak's on race, though they don't agree with his on religion or abortion. But after reading Zmirak's piece and some other developments, I have a greater appreciation for seeing things from other persepctives. After all, I realize that I, too, probably agree with David Duke, if not on 80% of the issues, probably at least over 50%. But race is, to me, a poison pill: an obviously racist candidate would never get my vote.

Zmirak's piece clarified some other issues for me as well. Last year, one libertarian came to my attention who viewed one of the websites I have written for as an "enemy." He/she was a professional escort of the "and then she was a he" type who took walks on the wild side. This website I wrote for also featured writings of one who was a pioneer in a religous movement that had speculated on the applicability of Old Testament stonings of homosexuals. Not that such speculations had appeared on the website, but the writer of such speculations not only appeared, but was a regular, writing about other issues. The libertarian escort I came across viewed this anti-gay "libertarian" economist/historian/theolgoican as an enemy.

For most of this past year, I'll admit to thinking this: what does it matter? Don't you and this other person agree on over 80% of the issues? Don't you both want a smaller government? Don't you both want to abolish punitive taxation? Don't you both want a non-interventionist foreign policy? Etc. etc. But you know, it doesn't really matter, because the one would, ideally, stone the other. How can I blame the theoretical victim of the stoning for not wanting to associate with the other, even though they "agree" on most of the issues? From my perspective, they're both headed in the same direction, but from either of their perspectives, they're going in opposite directions. From their perspecitves, they're mortal enemies.

And who can't empathize? If I were black, I'd like to think I'd be libertarian and support maximum freedom, including freedom of association, but I wouldn't support racist candidates under any circumstances. Likewise, were I a member of a sexual minority, I wouldn't support anyone who in their own way supported anyone who would put me to death. But since I am neither, it is harder for me to be "sympathetic" or "understand." From my perspecitve, an overreaching federal government is the enemy to be defeated, and all other enemies can be defeated or will fade away after this one is slain first.

But my perspective isn't the only correct one. I can swallow some views and arguments precisely because I'm not sensitive to the interests of minorities of which I'm not a part. My best hope is that homosexuals, African-Americans, and other minorities may appreciate the larger threat I see from an uncontrolled, imperialist federal government, that they forgive me for, yes, my insensitivity, and that we all find ways to protect minority rights and the freedom of all.

Everyone has their poison pill issue. For one, it might be borderline or openly-racist rhetoric. For another, it might be religious and moral intolerance. For me, it is the pro-war position. Anyone who is "good" on the other 80, 90, 0r 95% of the issues might as well be a KKK member if he supports the war in Iraq and wants war on Iran. Out of bounds.

Anyone who claims to be a libertarian and supports America's current and imminent wars isn't to me just an opponent, but an enemy.

Left-Libertarian

Recent controversies in email lists that I'm reading make me want to clarify what I mean by "left-libertarian," and to explain why I include myself in the "Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left."

When I joined, I explained what I thought "left-libertarianism" to be. Maybe it's time for further clarification.

1. Non-defensive war is the #1 issue whenever our country happens to be engaged in one. It must be opposed strongly and vigorously, with as many allies and partners as we can muster - and they will mostly be on the Left.
2. The right to habeas corpus, along with the right to self-defense, over-rides any economic, welfare, or moral issue. In an age like ours where gun-owners tend to be Red State Fascists, habeas corpus is particularly important, because the gun owners, if they were ever going to collectively resist tyranny, they would have done so by now.
3. Something is not necessarily wrong-headed or evil just because it was a left-liberal's idea, or because most left-liberals tend to embrace it. And pundits and politicians on the Right are no more likeable than Leftists anyway.
4. Defending the rights and freedoms of small business is more important than protecting the (government-created) privileges of Big Business.
5. Left Libertarianism should frame its ideas in ways that resonate with and appeal to the social, economic, and environmental Left. Thus, one would not expect a Bush supporter, for instance, to proclaim himself or herself a leader of the Left Libertarian "movement." Particularly if he or she harshly condemns anything that comes from the Left. Such a person can only undermine the movement. Afterall, which libertarians can succeed in reaching out to the Left, if not left-libertarians?

UPDATE: You may ask "what am I talking about as to #5?" Roderick Long and Freeman explain so I don't have to.

The Pro-War "Libertarian" Mentality

I subscribe to the digests of a few libertarian-oriented email lists. I don't keep up with them very much, but I notice that the rudest, most abusive members of the lists support the war in Iraq. The most annoying part, among two of these in particular, is that they throw their libertarian "credentials" in the face of everyone who disagrees with them: "You think the Iraq War was a mistake? Well I've written these award-winning books, and I've worked on these campaigns. What have you done, jerk? I say we must win in Iraq and you can go to hell!" They insist that their pro-war position is the consistent, pure libertarian position.

Why are people so eager to embrace and defend their labels? I differ from standard libertarian orthodoxy on issues of land, and on how to defend against what I perceive to be creeping global government. So if somebody tells me "that's not a libertarian position" or "you're not a libertarian," then fine. Must I change my honest opinions just to conform to somebody else's doctrines, just to "belong?"

I think this explains the hostility of these pro-war "libertarians." In their hearts, they know they are "apostates," that they are outside the libertarian tradition, but they are in denial. But what is it about 9/11 and Iraq that would turn previous libertarian activists into Bush-supporting warhawks?

Here's my conjecture. A certain personality wants absolutes in their lives. People with this type of personality, who are drawn into the libertarian movement, care less about expanding freedom in the present world, but want "liberty" as an absolute, perfect ideal. Liberty is their universalist morality, more important than life itself. So, the more they want to save humanity, the more contempt for real human beings they actually have.

Combine this with the "tribal" instinct all of us have to some degree. We all play favorites; I love my mother more than I love your mother, even though they are both "equal" in their rights. Such preferences cause us to discriminate, to favor some over others, to include some and exclude others, because we all can't "love" everyone in the world equally, and no malice needs to be intended against those we exclude.

But those who need absolutes have an attachment to their own group to such an extent that they view others with contempt, or as "threats" or enemies. When they replace natural attachments of community for an ideology, they become a certain kind of "purist." They develop a hatred of those who disagree with them, both within the movement and in society at large. For the libertarian of this bent, it often means contempt for the poor and religious. It also views civilians in other countries as attrition sponges. We must liberate them, and if they resist, kill them! Liberty as an ideal is worth fighting (i.e.,killing) for, and is more important than liberty in reality. Thus the seed of tension of the pro-war libertarian; normal libertarians understand that the right to life takes precedent over the right to liberty, because life is required to make liberty possible. But this view requires living in the real world, and it is the real world which those who crave absolutes want to avoid.

9/11 unleashed their latent hostility against those different from them. An attack from religious fundamentalists who are anti-liberty? From poor countries and a backward culture? Perfect! Force them to change, to embrace liberty. Then, they won't attack us. And if they are ungrateful for our liberation, kill them. "Live free, or die" indeed.

And smear the "traitors" at home who think this might all be a bad idea.

Why Elites Still Believe in Government

Vache Folle(here and here) and Steve Scott address the problem of elites ruling a corrupt people. As articulated by Folle:

The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.

For a long time, I had trouble wondering why believers in Big Government did not realize this. If people are stupid, ignorant, irresponsible, evil, and weak, how will they get wise, informed, responsible, virtuous, and strong leaders? Getting a good King is a role of the dice; an aristocracy will just use force to maintain their economic privileges and ensure that social injustices are entrenched. And a "democracy" - particularly a large one in which suffrage is universal but the actual number of representatives is small (such as one for every 700,000), virtually guarantees a Congress full of con artists. If people are evil and stupid, even a constitution with checks and balances won't work for long.

But now I'm beginning to think, Big Government advocates do know this to be true. They just don't think it's relevant, or that it applies to them. They are not interested in utopia, but see instead a long war for the "soul" of the people and will accept incremental progress. "Strong government is necessary, and it is far better that we controlled it instead of somebody else."

For the Christian conservative who believes that people are evil, government service is a means of making the world less bad than it otherwise would be. Government can restrain the bad folks, and prevent them from corrupting our youth. It is better for the righteous to exert at least some influence in an otherwise un-righteous environment, like Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt. Moreover, "anarchy" to them will mean chaos for the very reason that individuals are evil; the heavy hand of the State is necessary to keep order. Better to suffer occasionally excessive force or corruption in the State than be totally unprotected in a war of all against all. Therefore, electing Christians to office is a top priority.

For the leftist, who believes that social conditions have made people weak and ignorant, the State is the means of their improvement and salvation. With the right values taught in the public schools, and with the proper social reforms, over the long haul individuals will be less ignorant and corrupt than they are now. The government and the people will mutually make each other better.

In both cases, increased government power is acceptable if the "right people" are in charge. And here is where they really part ways with libertarians: to them, the benefits of holding power is worth the risk of it falling into the wrong hands. Though they won't admit it, it might even be beneficial for the other party to gain power for a while. After all, the precedent Bill Clinton set in attacking Serbia allowed a right-wing President to invade Iraq, which will in turn give the green light for a left-wing President to invade Sudan and "save Darfur." The nationalization of education standards under the Left - initially criticized by the Right - made way for the Right to exert even more federal control of the schools. Whoever strikes first allows the other to do the same. For example, if a right-wing Administration arrests Howard Stern for obscenity, then a left-wing Administration will feel justified in arresting a right-wing preacher for using his church for political action. Both will say that the First Amendment doesn't apply. Both will honestly believe that their oppressive actions will actually benefit the country.

If you ask either side, "Aren't you afraid that the increased powers of government you endorse will eventually be used against you?" the answer is a shrug. It will just be another issue to energize their base with.

Those who believe they are among the "chosen few" with the right beliefs, ideas, and talents to lead the country won't be interested in logic. They're not in politics because they "have faith in Democracy" or the Constitution or whatever, they're in politics because they believe they have the right to rule. "Sure, the masses are evil and stupid," they tell themselves, "but I'm good and wise, and that's why I deserve to lead."

The Tory Mocks the Whig

George Will's contemptuous article on Ron Paul is the perfect illustration of the division within conservatism.

Will represents the "conservatism" that worships executive power, imperial dominance, and rule by elites. His is a Tory conservatism. Such conservatives in America, if they were intellectually honest with themselves, would have admired King George and consider George Washington a traitor. But most are not honest with themselves. They think they're inheritors of the Founders' legacy.

Paul represents the conservatism that believes preserving a nation's Constitution, the supremacy of the legislative branch representing the people, and an organic government that reflects the culture and traditions of the people (as opposed to dominating foreign peoples). This conservatism reflects both what the founding generation built, and also the philosophy of Edmund Burke, a Whig. (Whig is also the name of an American political party formed in reaction to President Andrew Jackson's dictatorial style that sought to reclaim Congressional supremacy.)

It's incredible how Tory-Imperialists and Whig-Constitutionalists got along so well for so long. If it wasn't for their mutual hatred of "the Left," they wouldn't have held together at all; they really don't have anything in common. But now they are finally splitting up, primarily over Iraq.

The question is, which side will woo the Religious Right and the populists? That's where the votes are - and the future of the Republican Party.

The Unpatriotic Right

Paul Mulshine writes:

To defend Bush these days, you have to be willing to defend throw ing border agents in jail for shooting smugglers, blowing CIA agents' cover for political gain and getting thousands of GIs killed to create an Islamic republic.

The only thing saving Bush, I suspect, is that the party of Wilson is every bit as internationalist as the Grand Old Party. Democrats are therefore unable to mount a coherent critique of Bush's bungling. Good thing for him or he'd be the first president to have a popularity ratings in the single digits.

Equality, Exploitation, and Freedom

Ideological differences are often described as a struggle between liberty and equality. The primary concern about the inequality, however, is exploitation. Political problems boil down to four questions:
1. When does private property itself become monopolistic and coercive - i.e., exploitive?

You can pick the apple from the tree, and it's yours. But can you pick more than your share and sell the rest? Can you pick it clean? Can you claim ownership of the tree and use force to keep others from touching it? Do you have a right to chop the tree down?

Do you have the right to claim ownership of a mountain pass, even if you were there first?

If land and resources are held by the few, they could coerce and exploit the rest. But if there's no private property at all, there is no growth, no improvement, no civilization.

2. When is the individual self-responsible, and when is he manipulated by more powerful forces into making decisions that hurt him and benefit them?

People with greater power and knowledge can take advantage of others in inferior positions. A man who charms a lonely widow and walks away with her cash may be a jerk, but not as bad as if he tricks a mildly retarded man into parting with his money. We don't hold children to be as responsible as adults. In what circumstances should individuals be responsible for their own behavior, and when should they be considered victims duped into giving their consent to something against their own interests? Thus drug dealers are treated harshly by society; they are perceived to prey on the young and the already-addicted. And many people believe that no woman would ever voluntarily go into pornography or prostitution; they are thought to be the victims of those who use them, who should be punished.

3. When must individual and tribal/national interests give way to universal humanitarianism and morality?

We tend to believe that moral law applies to everyone the world, but our loves and loyalties are far more local. Under what circumstances should we sacrifice for the rights of far-away peoples, and when should we mind our own business? When should we be idealists, and when should we be relativists?

4. Who decides questions 1-3?

Often, two or more questions apply to the same issue. Take the hysteria against smoking in restaurants, bars, even apartments. The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are minimal. However, there is a general backlash against Big Tobacco, and restrictions on smoking is a way to "stick it to them."

From where does this hatred of Big Tobacco stem?

1. Dating back to slave days, the tobacco industry has been the beneficiary of stolen land and exploitive practices which today's major companies have inherited.
2. The power of manipulation through advertising has deliberately lured new generations of young people not mature/responsible enough to make rational decisions regarding smoking.
3. The nicotine content has allegedly been spiked, making it harder to quit.
4. For a long time, Big Tobacco denied the dangers of smoking, or at least evaded the questions. Big Tobacco executives are viewed as the moral equivalent of criminals.

Because individual responsiblity is denied (question 2), private property rights (the freedom to set one's own smoking policy) are denied (question 1). Smokers are the victims of evil Big Tobacco. To punish Big Tobacco, we must make it ever-more inconvenient to smoke.

Moreover, those who work in smoke-filled environments are deemed to be exploited by the economic system; if more and better jobs were available, surely they would work somewhere else. They have "no choice" but to work in smoke-filled areas and put themselves at risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke. They must be protected; smoking must be banned in those workplaces.

The War in Iraq relates to question 3. In one sense, we are "humanitarians," in another, we are tribalists. That is, America has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow foreign governments on the grounds of "humanitarian intervention." Why is America uniquely qualified to favor war over peace and meddle in other countries affairs - powers we wouldn't want other countries to exercise over us? The reason boils down to, we're Americans. We're the exception. Our "tribe," our nation, gets to play by special rules because we're superior.

In any case, these concerns about economic exploitation based on private property rigths, moral and economic exploitation by people in positions of authority, and conflict based on cultural differences will persist. Many people who advance un-libertarian solutions do not think of themselves as anti-liberty, they are just concerned by the exploitation that results from inequalities in property, power, and culture. They don't believe that any market can really be "free" or result in just outcomes, since real-world societies of the future will always inherit the real-world inequalities and injustices of the past and present.

I think this is why, no matter how strong an argument we may make against, say, the minimum wage, or our drug laws, a large number of people will shake there head even when they can't mount a rational rebuttal. I believe that, at heart, they believe that individuals are just too weak, and the forces of injustice too strong, for libertarian solutions to work.

I'm not saying that they're right, I'm just saying there's a reason why it's hard to persuade them.