It's tolerance, NOT "cultural libertarianism"

I posted this comment at Garry Reed's Examiner story "'Cultural Libertarianism' isn't new, it's just gone international."

Ms Southern's major error is suggesting that non-State forms of suppression can be just as bad as State censorship. Yes, the shaming, slanders, boycotts, protests, disinvites, and bans (from private organizations and/or property) can be very unfair. They can even temporarily ruin lives. But they're not nearly as terrible as a policeman's jackboot stomping on your face. Or prison.

Regarding the Breitbart piece: it muddies the waters terribly to call someone a "cultural libertarian" just because he or she's proudly "politically incorrect.". Several of these people support State policies that are anti-immigrant and/or anti-Muslim. There's nothing "libertarian" about that, and particularly nothing "culturally" libertarian.

Cheers to them, and anyone else, who is tolerant of other people's speech and expression. Who protest speech codes, reveal arbitrary and biased censorship on Internet platforms, expose hypocrisy, etc.. But I think the word "tolerance" will do quite nicely. I won't label anyone as any kind of libertarian when they're not.

Principles and Parties

Check out my latest: Principles and Parties. Excerpt:

Party politics is not my favored method to spread the ideas of liberty, and it's not the only method. But it is the favored method in America today, and I understand why many people get involved with it.

I would prefer that the only means be bring about liberty is pure, non-political persuasion.

Maybe that's possible, but I haven't seen it yet.

Oswald and Synchronicity

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

An old proverb says, "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."

"The Prankster and the Conspiracy," Adam Gorightly's biography of Kerry Thornley, prompts a similar thought: "Be careful what you joke about: the joke may be on you."

Guest Response to "Why I Don't Shun Or Boycott"

Kitty Antonik Wakfer has responded to my post "Why I Don't Shun or Boycott.". This is posted with her consent:

I see this as an example more of how the author appears not to care with whom he associates in a business sense, though most likely James is selective re. who and to what degree he associates in non-business ($ exchanging) situations. However, the word "morality" is a very loaded word and unless specifically defined can be used to convey a wide variance of ideas.

If an individual determines - and this properly needs to be more than reading/hearing some rumor - that a business owner has acted in some way that is in opposition to the individual's fundamental values, then the individual is not consistent with those values if s/he continues to voluntarily interact at all with that business owner. If s/he has been on speaking terms w/ that business owner, then personal questioning is in order and logical persuasion to change if there is truly found to be opposing values. However, if the business owner continues in whatever practices are fundamentally objectionable to (some) others, then those who object are fundamentally consistent to shun him/her (hir). For those who object but continue association, they are hypocritical - and short-range thinkers, pragmatic.

In regard to this poorly constructed example, being open about one's ideas and practices are more of a protection then they are an impediment. With the Internet it allows an individual to make this known to a vast audience (and over time) enabling others to become and stay informed about hir. I wrote about this in some detail in "Anonymity - Hazard, Not Protection; Limitation, not Enhancement", over 6 years ago.

"Would you want to be shunned or boycotted because of how people perceived your personal life, your beliefs, or your business practices?"

There is no way that someone can arrange that "[l]ies are spread about [my] personal life and views, destroying [my] reputation." True, someone could publish something that is false, and some few people might actually believe it. And those who do (even after questioning me publicly), I have no value for them since they obviously are so easily persuaded to conclude something false or we are diametrically opposed on fundamental values, though this last would be apparent already. But "destroy my reputation"?? No way. And the same is true for anyone if s/he has been open about hir ideas and actions (to the degree that government enforcers will not make use of the information to do physical harm).

As for specific fairly recent events where I (and husband Paul Wakfer) have shunned businesses, the WikiLeaks situation resulted in 4. We canceled accounts with PayPal and Amazon and we put our VISA and MasterCard credit cards on emergency usage only. These are explained/discussed in "Libertarians Need less Strategy -- and more Principle!" and "Are Principles Unaffordable?"

We also ceased shopping at WalMart after formal announcement of it partnering with Dept of Homeland Security in the government program, "If You See Something, Say Something" - "checkout video screens...urging people to take an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation and our communities." http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10493.aspx

Our actions alone will not make a noticeable ripple in the decisions of these companies. But if hundreds of thousands of USers (?some millions?) who disagree with the practices of these companies also withdrew their association (ceased doing business) and made it publicly clear why they were doing so, the effects on those companies would not be ones easily ignored by management.

For the vast majority of businesses with which I deal, I know very little of the owners and even when some few do espouse religious beliefs (I and Paul are atheists), as long as they do not proselytize they are not interfering with my time. As long as they continue to provide good service/products at prices that we think are a good trade of our $value, and do not act as the companies above have done, we will continue as customers. And I and Paul will choose new businesses for services/products in the same manner - which we did on an application offer by Discover Card, recently started to be used regularly.

Intellectual Property, Contract, and Conscience

I recall chemical detergents and other products having on their back label something like: "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in ways that do not follow these directions."

Now imagine we live in a free-market society, where there are no laws against victimless behavior, and therefore, there are no laws against misusing products (unless they're used as a weapon or poison against others).

Would the producer of a product have the right to dictate the terms of use of the product on the purchaser? For instance, instead of of "It is a violation of federal law . . ." warning on the label, what if there's is, instead, something like this . . .

"It is a violation of the terms of sale of this product to use it in any way other than as directed. If you are unwilling to abide by the these directions, return this product, unopened and unused, for a full refund. Failure to abide by these terms absolves the manufacturer and seller of this product of any liability. It also gives the manufacturer or seller sufficient grounds to refuse any future sales to you. If your failure to use the product as directed reflects poorly on the manufacture or seller, they may demand that you return the the product, or the remaining contents thereof, without compensation."

Would this be enforceable? Probably not. But it would protect the manufacturer from liability. For instance, if the directions said to "Keep out of reach of children, and deny them access" but a child injures himself or others with the product, the parents couldn't sue the manufacturer. Or, if the directions say to spray the cleaning liquid two feet away from the surface, and you spray from six inches away and the the liquid splashes back into your eye, you can't claim the product was dangerous.

You may violate the directions all you want in your personal use of it, and maybe nobody will get hurt or find out. But if it means causing injury to yourself or others, then neither you nor others you injure have anyone but you to blame.

It seems to me that contractual law should allow the seller of the product to dictate any terms to the purchaser. After all, the purchaser isn't compelled to buy. If the terms of use and/or directions are plainly and prominently listed (such as, on the unopened package of the product on the store shelf, or in a terms of use agreement posted BEFORE sale on an e-product) then the seller should be free to dictate any terms she wants.

Perhaps in many cases the terms are not enforceable, in that it would be too easy for the buyer to violate the terms of sale and get away with it. But it is useful to lay out the terms anyway. The terms of sale may be:

• Do not use this product except as directed
• Do not reverse-engineer and replicate this new product/invention for resale
• Do not copy and redistribute this book/recording/movie

And maybe they're not enforceable much of the time. But at least the manufacturer/creator can derive some psychical/spiritual value from dictating the terms of sale. They can enjoy the fact that honorable people use the product honorably.

And, buyers who misuse the product or otherwise violate the terms of sale will know they are acting dishonorably. Their very excuses for violating the terms of sale, attempting to discredit the sellers, actually prove their own dishonor.

They will say something like, "The terms of sale are unreasonable," and justify themselves by saying things like:

• After I buy it, it should be entirely up to me how I use the product
  
• The seller must be greedy for wanting to protect his "intellectual property," especially since "intellectual property" doesn't exist
• The seller must be a moralistic busy-body for telling me what I can or can't do with the product
• The seller must understand that these terms and conditions are virtually unenforceable, so I might as well ignore them

To summarize all these excuses: It's okay to violate a contract if I think I can get away with it.

We've seen that excuse since the beginning of time. People make a vow of fidelity with wedding vows, then break the vow when they think they can get away with it, then rationalize their behavior by saying it's unreasonable to expect a person to have sex with just one other person for the rest of life, and that besides, the spouse is a terrible person.

Perhaps it is unreasonable to have sex with just one person, and maybe the spouse is a terrible person, but you should have thought those things through before taking the wedding vows.

The mere violation of a contract, vow, or any other kind of promise, won't always lead to a legal judgment of financial compensation on behalf of the person who was "wronged" by the broken promise. Often, there aren't any tangible damages, only mere violations of trust and hurt feelings. And even when compensation might be expected, they are almost impossible to know: how do you calculate "lost earnings?"

In the case of "Intellectual Property" (IP) such as patents and copyrights, some libertarians say they don't exist, and others say they're essential. Sheldon Richman makes a strong case for the former side, and Stephan Kinsella and others have done a lot of work on behalf of that position, whereas J. Neil Schulman makes a moving case for the IP side - which is particularly strong since he eschews State-enforcement.

To me, "intellectual property" isn't really the issue at all. It is, rather, about contracts. Creators, inventors, manufacturers, and retail sellers all have the right to set their own terms of sale, including bans on replication or redistribution, and the buyers are then obliged to obey the terms of the contract. If they dislike the terms, they shouldn't buy.

The problem is that it seems almost impossible to police or prevent such contract violations, and no one would want to live in a society where they CAN be effectively policed, because that would mean giving up a lot of privacy and freedom.

I don't think there's a good answer in libertarian theory. I think the answer lies in being who you want to be:

1. Do you want to be the kind of person who keeps your promises, including obeying the terms of sale of the things you purchase -- or would you rather break your promises when you can get away with it, and pray that others don't do the same to you?

2. Do you want to be the kind of person who encourages the creators and inventors of society by respecting their wishes as to how their work is distributed, or would you rather take them for granted, have them go unrewarded, and pray that Atlas doesn't Shrug?

The issue of "Intellectual Property" is less a matter of libertarian theoretical concepts of "property" and "ownership," and more a matter of plain decency and conscience.

Why I Don't Shun or Boycott

Imagine Adam and Bob both sell widgets, in a society where widgets are a must-have product. Adam sells $5 widgets; Bob sells $10 widgets. Lies are spread about Bob's personal life and views, destroying his reputation. Everyone who prefers Bob's high-end, better widgets decide they'd rather purchase Adam's cheap widgets than continue to do business with Bob. Bob is ruined. Then the public finds out that the information about Bob was lies. They weren't even spread by Adam, but by Carl, who is broke and gets his entertainment through perverse delights such as defaming people like Bob. As a result of the slanders against Bob . . .

• Adam doubles his business and more than doubles his profits


• Carl gets his laughs

Meanwhile . . .

• Bob loses everything


• Bob's former customers do not enjoy his superior widgets

Now, who is to blame for Bob losing everything?

Adam isn't at fault, even though he has all the profits that would have gone to Bob.

Adam shouldn't be forced to compensate Bob, because he did nothing wrong. And Carl, who is broke, can't compensate Bob.

So who are the people who ruined Bob?

The people, his former customers, who judged him for things that had nothing to do with the widgets.

If you're in jail, I wouldn't be able to do business with you anyway. If you're not in jail, why should I let things that have nothing to do with making a deal, keep me from making a deal?

I have heard it said that shunning and boycotts is a superior way to enforce ethical standards in a libertarian or anarchist society. For instance, perhaps the business-owner is strongly suspected to have sexist and racist policies, or exploits foreign labor. The proper method is shunning or boycott. (The difference I make between the two is, for instance, last year if you were upset about the Gulf oil spill: if you avoided the BP gas station and there was another gas station on the next block, you shun BP; if you avoid the BP station and the next gas station is 30 miles away, you're BOYCOTTING BP; boycotts involve an actual sacrifice of some sort.)

To be sure, shuns and boycotts are better than the Regulatory-Police State.

But here's something else to think about: Maybe things about the personal life of the widget-maker, or even the businesses practices of the the widget-maker, might even seem to be true on the surface. And yet if they're not being obvious about it, such as putting up signs saying "Blacks need not apply," how do you know they're in the wrong? Sure, if such a sign existed, I would shun the establishment. But you can be sure that no one's going to be that obvious about it. And, by definition, when things aren't obvious, there is room for doubt.

The economist Friedrich Hayek is famous for pointing out that governmental central banks will always lack enough information about the economy to determine the suppy of money or allocate it correctly.

Equally so, you don't really know what's going on with your neighbor's widget business. You may think you know a lot about it, but rarely do you know for certain. Maybe he is actually improving the lives of people that YOU, with incomplete information, think he is exploiting. Maybe his hiring and firing decisions, once you know the fuller context, make more sense than you realize.

Would you want to be shunned or boycotted because of how people perceived your personal life, your beliefs, or your business practices?

I certainly wouldn't. The shun/boycott route for enforcing morality seems to smack of too much division and condemnation from people who have insufficient information to judge.

A better route might be to foster virtues such as humility, grace, honor, and good manners. Otherwise known as, Mind Your Own Business. Try to be the person you want to be, rather than look for the flaws in others.

When You Give the State an Inch, it Takes a Mile

The charges have been leveled at heirs of the libertarian, classical liberal, and Old Right traditions for generations:

1. We would throw widows and orphans to the street.
2. Our "isolationism" would "appease" foreign aggressors and genocidal tyrants
3. We would wreck the environment due to our blind ideological commitment to free markets and property rights
   

A reasonable, well-intentioned person with a conventional upbringing and education may agree with these statements.

And yet:

• These smears are just that: attacks by people who don't understand what freedom is, or lies by authoritarians who do
• This freedomist/patriot ideology hasn't held power at any time, especially not in the past 100 years
  

What's happened instead, is that . . .

• America isn't being bankrupted by helping the truly needy, but by pouring Social Security and Medicare disbursements to wealthy and middle-class people
• We are pouring almost a trillion dollars per year not to defeat Hitler or the USSR, but to defend South Korea from North Korea (despite South Korea's overwhelmingly superior wealth and manpower), and to make war on nations like Afghanistan and Iraq that had no power to invade their impoverished neighbors, let alone conquer their regions or world.
• The war on property and markets isn't used to curb just pollution, but to take land for the benefit of other private developers under the principle of eminent domain, to take property from its rightful owners without due process under the principle of civil asset forfeiture, and to outlaw behavior on private property such as smoking, making "sexist" remarks, and making contractual relationships between consensual adults
  

In other words, it is all the other ideologies that are driving America into poverty, endless war, and tyranny.

We should reverse the arguments. We should ask people with pro-government ideologies:

* Why are we shelving out money to rich people just because they're old?
* Why do we need to pay for the defense of wealthy competitors like Japan and Germany?
* Why do you want to tax and regulate small-time entrepreneurs out of existence?

The anti-tax, smaller government crowd haven't done any harm to America. That's probably why we're attacked so vociferously. It's time to turn the tables.

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.

Liberty and Social Justice

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer.

The libertarian society empowers each person to find their own way and develop their own solutions to problems. It also empowers them to come together voluntarily to solve common problems and to help those in need. It allows new businesses to start without license fees or red tape. It will open the prison doors of those whose only "crimes" were engaging in consensual behavior.

Is Courage Overrated?

When injustice and long trains of abuses mount, many people at least ponder whether or not it's high time to just shoot the bastards. It is not surprising that the oppressors - who are far worse in almost every way than was King George and probably know it- might suspect that the most principled and vocal of the oppressed might fight back. Hence last month's MIAC debacle.

And there indeed are such murmurs here and there. I get a few in my inbox, and assume that most of them are FBI undercover agents trying to sting a radical. But while I know it's possible to improve the world by sacrificing one's life for a good cause or by writing inspirational stuff from prison, my instincts are to favor life and liberty, thank you. Courage and "self-sacrifice" should be avoided except when absolutely necessary.

Stand up and fight when some jerk slaps a girl; don't stand up and risk a broken jaw just because he calls you a nasty name. Pick your battles. Throw yourself in front of a bus to save the life of a child; don't throw yourself in front of a bus to make a political statement. If I leave the earth in premature, violent fashion, I'd much rather do so while defending someone's life rather than fighting for an abstract principle.

Indeed, the logic of libertarianism seems inclined against drastic measures such as law-breaking and revolution. If you can evade taxes, or make profits in a prohibited but non-violent activity and get away with it, good for you, but I, along with most people, am probably not savvy enough to succeed. At that point, the dilemma for me is, do I do it merely out of protest? Just to make a point? Even if I might go to jail?

Sorry. Jail's not an option.

What libertarians want is a world free from aggression and coercion - a world where individuals aren't forced into one course instead of another because of the prospect of death or jail. Our position should be that freedom is free. That is, freedom is our natural condition and has no cost.

It is also our natural (animal) instinct to cling to life and to avoid losses. While we may admire those who've sacrificed their lives on behalf of others, the world would be a happier place if people were never placed in that position. We shouldn't have to fight for or sacrifice for freedom. The world we want is one where the dilemma of taking or avoiding the courageous path is not imposed on people.

So I'm not one to romanticize or fantasize about violent struggle. I don't want to be remembered as a hero or a martyr. I would rather buy time, live another day, and make a positive imprint while living.

When my number is up, my number is up. I'm not butting in to the front of the line.

Left-libertarianism revisited

Update 12-29-08: I clarify some points in the comments section. Please read them before responding yourself.

Update 12-31-08: I understand there has been some additional comments about this post here and elsewhere. Unfortunately, urgent matters of a personal nature have come up and I won't have time to address them.

Over three years ago, when I joined the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, I explained my reasons here and here.

I still agree with what I wrote.

But, while I was once linked to at LeftLibertairan.org, at some point I must have committed enough heresies to be kicked off that reservation. Which goes to show that "left-libertarian" can mean different things to different people. A couple of years ago, I recall posting at Ilana Mercer's blog, defending the position that the U.S. should give no aid to Israel (although I can't recover the specific link, I remember it). She agreed, but also wondered why "left-libertarians" weren't as critical of Palestinians as they were of Israel. In other words, we were, at least mildly, anti-Semitic. In contrast, and more recently, Richard Spencer conflates left-libertarianism with the views of Reason magazine.

So "left-libertarianism" is whatever those who find affinity with the Right don't like about some libertarians with whom they disagree. Of course, the same goes the other way. Left-libertarians can sneer as "conservative" anyone whose radicalism manifests itself in different ways. If I'm not "really" a left-libertarianism, it's because my own priorities may be different, even if my same basic commitment to equal rights is the same.

(By the way, Wikipedia holds that different definitions of left-libertarianism are contradictory.)

The problem with both "right-libertarians" and "left-libertairans" is that they place a higher priority on their cultural affinities (or prejudices, if you will) than on their anti-Statism, when the whole record of human existence establishes that it is the State, its laws, and its wars, that have created greater evil than personal prejudices and dislikes.

As Left-libertarians, we should remember that equality of rights is the only equality that is possible, and that that the expansion of State privileges masked as "rights" is the inverse of both actual rights and real equality.

• The discrimination against single people by State sanctions promoting marriage is bad. The expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex, polygamous, or inter-species marriage does not promote "equality" or "fairness," it just increases the real and hidden taxes on single people who must pay for state-funded and and legally-mandated privately-funded benefits and privileges to "spouses." The State marriage laws are a redistribution racket and have no other reason for existence. Left-libertarians ought to be calling for their abolition, not for their expansion.
  
• Let's agree with the left-libertarian argument that there should be open borders, and that this is indeed good for the economy. Is it not, then, even more so the case that: a) every native-born citizen should have an absolute and equal right to work as any imported unskilled laborer? And at any price, even if she is 15, 10, or 5 years old? (Oh, is that "going too far? Than you're not a left-libertarian, or any kind of libertarian; you're a mere conservative utilititarian.) b) no one should be entitled to welfare benefits of any kind, and it is easiest to cut immigrants (and especially undocumented immigrants) off from the trough first? c) When there are so many prohibitions on residents in the United States, why make a fetish on the "freedom of movement" right of foreigners to migrate here? Does it make more sense for left-libertarians to focus on smearing the anti-immigration forces as "racist," or to promote greater freedom for people already here (and thereby making a more welcoming place for immigrants seeking opportunity while discouraging those seeking handouts?)
  
• Let's agree that free trade is good. But which is worse, a completely free domestic market with a 100% tariff on imported goods, or a highly-taxed and -regulated market with "free trade" of imported goods? (This idea I've borrowed from a commenter at Taki; the original context is lost.) If we lived in Singapore, perhaps we'd prefer free trade. But we live in the fourth-largest country on earth with the third-largest population. Doesn't it make much more sense to open the internal market (such as, by legalizing industrial hemp production), than by surrendering U.S. sovereignty to supra-national trade "agreements?"
  

As libertarians first and left-libertarians second, we should be aware that it isn't just the policy in itself, but rather the agenda behind the policy that counts. "Same-sex marraige" won't advance equality if it only broadens the Welfare State. "Open borders" won't help the cause of freedom if it just helps create a North American Union. And "free trade" won't help the cause of freedom if it creates a World Government based on uniform trade laws, from which uniform social policies follow.

I think the left-libertarian agenda may be too closely perceived as a war against "traditional conservatism" and the "Christian Right" and whatever it may stand for. I myself loathe what has passed for the Christian Right and what it stands for. But the enemy is not any real or imagined mystic or bigot. The enemy is The State.

If we forget that, Left-libertarianism loses all credibility.

Running Forward

Thomas Knapp has interesting thoughts on the direction of the libertarian movement. Regarding "paleo"-libertarianism:

History, however, does not run backward. "Paleo" invocation of the 1930s "Old Right" is about as useful versus the ideology that displaced it as "Free Silver" or "54-40 or Fight." The Old Right was soundly whipped in the thirties, and every post-war attempt at its revival, from Taft to Paul, has proven a spectacular failure.

Very true. History does not run backward. But how does it run forward?

Some could say that history is a war on individual freedom:

• "state of nature" to tribalism, nationalism, imperialism, bureaucratic statism, and finally global government, with the individual losing more freedom every step of the way
  
• state-enforced egalitarianism at the expense of private property rights and the freedoms of speech and association
• creative reinterpretations or outright hostility to written Constitutions and legal traditions that safeguard liberty
• a new understanding of "liberty" that is basically limited to being allowed to sleep with whoever you want, with all of our other choices subject to regulation or prohibition

All of this appears to be true, and no wonder the Old Right is appealing. Everywhere and in every way, the rights of the individual are under assault. Older understandings of government, of law, and of international relations seem to protect individual rights better. The conservative may have stood athwart history yelling "stop!" because the State bureaucrats were destroying families, churches, and communities. Libertarians have been and still are inclined to join them because of the State's similar assault on individual rights.

But as Knapp says, we can't go backward in time. So perhaps a new libertarianism will have to look at the march of history in a more optimistic sense:

• better health and longer life for all
• breaking down of legally-entrenched social barriers
• technological progress
• widening array of consumer choices and more leisure time, allowing more people to "live their own lives as they see fit."
• development of voluntary communities and tight social bonds based on lifestyle rather than location

Seen in this regard, we may look history as a march toward greater individualism. It might not be quite that; in many ways we are less free in the legal sense than we were ten or thirty years ago. But these are signs of progress, and are the reasons we don't want to go back to some older social order.

And so the task is to build on these positive developments. Perhaps a new libertarian populism will have to explain that, by and large, the State is the primary obstacle to greater health, prosperity, and happiness, that most of the progress that has been made could have been achieved sooner, or at less expense, without State interference.

It's a tall order, but any incremental gain we make will make future generations that much better off.

Progress and Sovereignty

Paul Gottfried writes about sovereignty at Taki:

The “individuals,” whom the state has supposedly oppressing throughout recorded history, did not exist until recently, at least not in the atomistic form in which self-described individuals are now depicting their true selves. Until the modern period individual members of any established community took on their identities by belonging to classes, genders, prevalent confessions, and ethnic groups. . . . It was the state, which came into existence in the late middle ages and early modern period, that created the political precondition for the spread of individual identity. It did this by enacting legal systems that embraced all citizens or royal subjects and by imposing uniform taxation that applied to all classes equally.

Gottfried suggests that nation-states aren't so bad, and that individual liberty as we understand it may not have evolved without it. But he writes that the 20th-century transformation of the State threatens Western Civilization:

• the tyranny of public administration intruding into every area of our lives;
• democracy is no longer defined not as self-government but as Political Correctness;
• supra-national governmental authority imposing "universal values" at the expense of both local custom and individual preference. (Read the whole article for yourself.)
  

I agree with Gottfried that these are indeed distinct threats to the nation-state, which in this day and age I would support only to defend ourselves from an even more distant, centralizing, international tyranny. They are also threats to individual liberty.

But if "Progress," which I would call human moral evolution, exists, then perhaps both the rise of the nation-state and the current internationalization of public administration (from food programs to trade regulations to "collective security") are stages in the sense of "two steps forward, one step back." Perhaps the end result of a World Government will be a global consciousness, which wouldn't be so terrible.

Keep in mind that I don't know if Progress exists, and I do not favor the demise of national sovereignty in favor of world government. And there is definite charm in the local and the particular. At the same time, the national consciousness that did develop in America gave birth to some values favorable to individual liberty. For instance, Americans are less sectarian than they used to be, there's less ethnic clannishness, substantially less racism, and greater tolerance regarding sex. An evolving global consciousness may lead to a greater sense of our common humanity, where wars and national competition will gradually disappear. All of this, too, would be good for liberty.

But we don't need the "help" of nation-states and international governmental agencies to achieve this - at least, not anymore. I believe America would have achieved a more open society much sooner if government didn't get in the way by "imposing" tolerance through laws, court decisions, and federal cops, and thereby provoking resistance. And we can achieve a free, peaceful, global civilization without the "help" of the UN, WTO, or IMF - all they can really do is similarly provoke resistance.

The Internet can help. The free exchange of ideas across national borders is easier than ever before. Virtual communities can develop solutions to poverty, design environmentally-responsible homes, or provide services for each other through barter exchanges. Networking, not political force, is the way to a better future.

Perhaps in some way we must "thank" nation-states for clumsily fostering individual liberty, and maybe even thank international organizations for clumsily fostering trade and peace. That doesn't mean either must command our loyalty forever. If the march of history sees local sovereignty give way to the national, and the national to the global, perhaps it may also force the global to give way also. But there is no where else for sovereignty to go, but back to the individual.

John Edwards Proves Jonathan Edwards Right

A day or two ago, I put up the quote from Jonathan Edwards (the singer, not the 18th century Puritan "sinners in the hands of an angry God" preacher) under the blog name: "He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine!" Today, deliciously, John Edwards, the man who wanted to be President, proves the point. A woman apparently seduced him and hustled his campaign for some serious dough.

Reports say this all happened in 2006, at the beginning of the Edwards campaign. I don't know if it's karma or subconscious guilt that made his campaign ineffective, but his status as a "major" candidate evaporated in the early primaries. And it raises the question: How could he not have known that this affair would be made public, especially if he won the Democratic nomination?

During the Lewinsky Scandal, much was made of separating Bill Clinton's private life from his public life. This is a rule I would support for politicians - if they, too, understood the difference between the private and the public, such as the difference between a vice and a crime.

But instead, politicians claim they know better than you how you should manage your private affairs, and how to run your life and raise your family. For example, they claim they know better than you:

* where your kids can go to school;
* how you should protect them from intruders;
* when your children are mature enough to drink alcohol;
* what movies they can see, and what video games they can play;
* proper health care for them;
* when and if they should get government-subsidized birth control services;
* if they should be screened for mental health disorders.

But then politicians go and commit adultery. This often tears families apart, and children of prominent adulterers are particularly susceptible to embarrassment and ridicule from peers. But according to the politicians' logic, the behavior of other adults who make decisions regarding their own lives and families is subject to fines and imprisonment, but their own behavior, which is often far worse, should remain "private," protected from the "voyeuristic" media.

My rule of thumb is, the more libertarian positions a candidate takes, the more the "public/private" distinction should be respected. The more totalitarian the politician - the more the politician wants to control your decisions regarding health, finances, and pleasure, the more they should be scrutinized and called out for hypocrisy. If their own personal lives are a mess, why should they get to order the rest of us around?

I didn't follow the Edwards campaign closely, but never got the impression that he was a staunch privacy advocate, civil libertarian, or defender of gun owners, home schoolers, or indeed of any cause supporting personal freedom. Because of this, he deserves what he gets in terms of public shame. Don't fine and jail others for specks in their eyes when you have a log in your own.

Buckley: the Gateway Drug

What someone like William F. Buckley can do is open one's eyes to the superiority of free markets, or inspire one to question the War on Drugs. That is what ultimately inspired me to go beyond Buckley's conservative ideology into libertarianism. In that way, he was like a gateway drug: getting a taste of the freedom philosophy, one starts to look for something deeper and more powerful. And then one goes back and sees that Buckley's Warfare State is just as unworkable as the Welfare State and anti-drug Police State. Maybe I would have come around to libertarianism some other way, but it was through Buckley.

My experience with National Review thought in the 1990's is actually what makes me hopeful about Ron Paul. If Paul could get legions of young people to actually think about militarism, the Fed, and free markets for the first time, a good number of them will go further than Paul.

In the battle of ideas, Buckley was right a lot of the time, disastrously wrong other times. Paul is right more often than Buckley was, and wrong much less often. Perhaps libertarianism today is as conservatism was in 1955, when National Review was launched. Who knows? With the proper organization and charismatic leadership, libertarianism may hit the mainstream in ten years and become dominant in 25.

"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.

Irrelevant Differences

Update: I should clarify that my position still is that a) the "cosmopolitan" libertarian position of promoting individual rights and freedoms, and b) the "paleo" position of decentralizing power, are mutually re-enforcing agendas. I am more comfortable in "cosmopolitan" surroundings, provided "cosmopolitan" means "anything that's peaceful," (as opposed to granting voting rights to militant foreign nationalists and foreign religious fundamentalists). But I can't help but agree with the paleo interpretation of the Constitution, and believe adherence to the plain text of the Constitution is still the best practical path to liberty. In other words, in this dispute my tastes lean cosmpolitan, my head still leans paleo.

Two segments of our society agree that the federal government is the cause of many of our problems, and the main hindrance to finding solutions to many other problems. In short, they believe the Federal Government is the Enemy. One of these segments is individualist with a moral and political commitment to individual rights and freedoms. The other is communitarian with a commitment to a strong culture and social bonds. The first is angry with the federal government's attacks on individual rights. The second is angry with the federal government for undermining state and local government. They are known respectively by the names libertarian and paleoconservative.

They are divided by a common platform, in that principle is more important to them than power. Progressives and various identity groups cobble together a platform in the Democratic Party. Neoconservatives and the Religious Right manage to do the same in the Republican Party. The libertarian/paleo goals, in comparison, are pretty clear-cut and consistent:

- end the occupation in Iraq and dismantle the de facto Empire;
- dismantle the unconstitutional federal Police State, and end violations of the Bill of Rights from the War on Terror and War on Drugs
- restore honest money, dismantle the Federal Reserve
- cut federal taxes and federal spending
- federal deregulation
- protect gun rights
- abolish Dept. of Education, protect freedom of homeschoolers
- protect private property and freedom of association from federal interference

Some paleoconservative endorse these goals, but then rip libertarians for being libertine and naive worshippers of the almighty Market. And some libertarians allege that paleoconservatives hold their positions only because they are motivated by superstition (i.e., religion) and bigotry. They don't like paleoconservatives because they think paleoconservatives agree with these points for all the wrong reasons. They suspect paleoconservatives oppose federal tyranny only so that they can impose tyranny on their own terms at the state level, targeting minorities, gays, women, and non-Christians. In short, they've caricatured paleoconservatives as closet Ku Kluxers.

There are also disagreements among libertarians: on anarchy vs. limited government, on abortion, on immigration. Some will use these disagreements as excuses to ignore the many points of agreement above and abandon an alliance with paleoconservatives. Moreover, there is a "cosmopolitan libertarian" vs. "paleolibertarian" split; the former embracing not just toleration, but also acceptance, of lifestyles different from one's own, while the latter believe that maximum individual freedom will actually create stronger social bonds among people of similar beliefs and cultures, so that individualism creates stronger communities. They agree with cosmopolitans on matters of law, and with paleoconservatives on culture.

Anyway, these differences among libertarians, and between libertarians and paleoconservatives, have led to nasty statements back and forth on the web, as they try to discredit each other. And this has been going on long before the Ron Paul newsletter "scandal." For some, getting one's way all down the line is more important than actually making progress in downsizing the federal government; not only must we have common goals, but we must have common goals for the same reasons.

Well, I have news for both sides (or all three sides): most of us don't care. Most of us in the movement will find useful information and enlightening opinions at LewRockwell.com AND Reason AND The American Conservative. We find both the Mises Institute AND the Cato Institute very useful resources.

It seems to me that when Democrats smell success, they forget their differences and take advantage. Republicans do the same. But when the small-government wave starts to build momentum, something always comes up to serve as an excuse to divide and weaken it. And they're frequently petty personal issues or irrelevant ideological differences among leaders of the movement that the rank-and-file care nothing about.

Ron Paul and the Libertarian "Movement"

It's a funny thing about libertarianism. Most people who have a good idea of what libertarianism is, and am familiar with me, would agree that I am a libertarian, and the majority would probably call me "hard core."

Among the members of the hard core, however, I probably wouldn't be considered hard core, and some wouldn't consider me libertarian at all if I don't adhere to their particular doctrines and conceptions of libertarianism.

Which is fine by me. I don't consider libertarianism a religion or a philosophy of life, and maybe it isn't even a "movement," and if it is a movement, maybe I'm not even in it. What prompts this thought is the various debates among the neo(con)-libertarians, anti-political anarchists, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists, and, for lack of a better word, regular libertarians on whether Ron Paul's candidacy is good for the "movement."

Well, which movement is that? There are libertarians who want to abolish the state through non-political means, libertarians who want to abolish the state through political means, and libertarians who may like the idea of abolishing the State, but don't believe the State can be or will ever be abolished in this age; to them, anarchy may be an ideal, but it's not a goal. Their goal is, instead, to do as much as they can to restrain the State and undo the damage it has done.

The movement to abolish the state and the movement to restrain the state are two different and separate movements. Since libertarians are unaware of this, we get confused, and we get into fights amongst ourselves.

The anarchists disagree with each other on political involvement, and that is why they have the Ron Paul debate. Perhaps the non-anarchist libertarians should stop thinking the same way, and stop contemplating what society would be like with libertarian majorities. That's a fantasy not far removed from the fantasy of abolishing the state altogether. Like other fantasies we may have, it is best to just leave it as a fantasy, because trying to make it a reality is just a waste of time.

Instead, these libertarians, of which I include myself, should break the libertarian "program" down into specific items, and for each item, work with activists and office-holders who agree with us to advance that particular cause. Instead of a "libertarian movement," there should be:
- an antiwar movement;
- a civil libertarian movement, fighting against the Patriot Act, Real ID, warrantless spying, etc.
- an "honest money" movement;
- a "small government," (cut taxes, cut spending) movement,
- etc.

The four specific items I named are the ones most important to me, in the order I list them. Dennis Kucinich seems to support the first two, Paul supports all four. I don't believe any other candidate endorses any of these, aside from maybe a couple of Republicans who may same some nice things about taxes. If Paul had a fatal character flaw that made him a poor spokesman and counter-productive leader, I may have supported Kucinich as the candidate who could do the most good and/or the least harm on the issues I care most about. (As it is, Kucinich's support is miniscule, and it's a moot question.)

Even considering the newsletter scandal, I don't believe Paul has been discredited; indeed, the deeds of all the other candidates have been far more harmful than the words Paul may have written. In any case, Paul isn't leading a "libertarian" movement, so I don't see why libertarians should get all that worked up about it.

Does Paul's anti-immigration stand contradict market-anarchism principles? Part of it undoubtedly does.

Does Paul's strict Constitutionalism and concern for national sovereignty always cohere with pure libertarianism? No.

Is Paul's federalist view of the abortion question and personal pro-life stance (and his federalist stance on church-state questions) fatal to the libertarian cause? Personally, I don't think so, but maybe it is.

Is Paul a "heretic" on some issues important to libertarians? You could say so.

Will Paul's old newsletters that catered to populist and paleo-conservative prejudices discredit the "movement" to abolish the state? Will it discredit the "movement" to get libertarian majorities? Perhaps; at worst Paul may have marginally reduced the chances of accomplishing the impossible.

But for me, the key questions are: Is Paul correct on the war? Is Paul correct on civil liberties? Is Paul correct on money? Does Paul support tax and spending cuts? The answers are Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Does any other candidate bat higher than .500 on these issues? NO, and most bat .000.

Let's not say that Ron Paul is the leader of the libertarian movement. Let's not even call him a libertarian at all; even he emphasized through most of his campaign that he is a conservative and a traditional Republican, so we should take him at his word. Let's just call him a conservative Presidential candidate whom many libertarians support because they agree with him on issues important to them.

We should just leave it at that, and not pretend that Ron Paul is either the savior of libertarianism, or the worst thing that ever happened to libertarianism. He's just a politician with his own agenda; if some libertarians agree with it enough to support him, fine, and if other libertarians don't agree with it, that's fine too.

Paleo Allies

Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty wonders why Murray Rothbard ever called for an alliance with paleo-conservatives:

Now here’s my question: In order for Rothbard’s strategy to work, there seems to be rather a missing step or two:

Phase 1. Associate libertarianism with the most radical far-right fringes of cultural conservatism.
Phase 2. ????
Phase 3. Libertopia!

My guess is that Rothbard's motivation was
a) The paleos were/are right about foreign interventionism, and opposition to non-defensive war is the #1 libertarian issue.
b) The paleos were/are right about safeguarding national sovereignty - not because national sovereignty is so great, but because it's a safeguard against fraudulent "free trade" agreements and social engineering from the UN and other international organizations.
c) The paleos were/are right about "states rights" as opposed to federal court meddling, because an out-of-control judiciary does not really safeguard liberty, but only opens the door for the rest of the federal government to be out-of-control. Moreover, secession fits in well with libertarian principles.
d)The paleos were/are the most reliable allies in the struggle for lower taxes and a smaller federal government.

In terms of policy, then, paleo-conservatives were more than 50% in agreement. I further speculate Rothbard believed that, through men like Ron Paul, paleoconservatives could then be brought along, albeit gradually, to a more libertarian philosophy.

Of course, this strategy won't make sense to self-described libertarians who would destroy other countries to "liberate" them, who believe the federal courts should be involved in every question from abortion to prayer in school, and/or whose conception of "free markets" means pro-Wall Street policies and a competent Fed chief. To such folks, the paleo-conservatives are the enemy. In their view, aligning with people who are uncomfortable with, say, gay marriage, is unpardonable, whereas slaughtering civilians of nations that do not attack us is entirely appropriate, or at least a "reasonable" position within libertarianism.

And this is why such self-described libertarians despise Ron Paul so much. He's actually united large numbers of libertarian and paleoconservatives, and in their eyes this will set the libertarian movement back.

There may be a valid criticism of this alliance and of Ron Paul. It has been made by anti-voting anarchists and Libertarian Party die-hards. But it doesn't carry much weight when made by "pro-war libertarians," because they are not part of the libertarian movement. If the libertarian movement is not, at its core, an anti-war movement, then it doesn't really exist.

Knowing What's Best For You

I'll give Michael Kinsley some credit in his piece on libertarianism. One can't be fair to libertarian arguments and proceed to refute them in one newspaper column, but at least Kinsley doesn't resort to the finger-wagging about morality from the Right and the "corporate greed! corporate greed!" mantra of the Left. (When will the Left realize that the modern Corporation is an invention of government?)

A case for libertarianism can be derived from David R. Henderson's article "The Fatal Conceit in Foreign Policy." Henderson takes the Mises-Hayek Knowledge Problem - government managers lack the enough information to allocate resources wisely or efficiently - and applies it to foreign policy. That is, our government doesn't have enough knowledge of the conditions of another country, such as Pakistan, to control its affairs wisely.

Indeed, once one grasps the Knowledge Problem, it is easily to apply it not only to economics and foreign affairs, but to domestic social policy as well. When the government steps in with general laws that prohibit certain substances, it fails to recognize that they can be beneficial to some people. Indeed, government is incapable of knowing each individual body chemistry and personality to know exactly what is "good" for each person. The government-approved drug could fail where a banned drug may work. Government can't possibly know what is "good" for each individual; it doesn't have enough information.

And this goes back to Kinsley:

No one should want to drink unpasteurized milk, and almost no one does. [Ron] Paul himself doesn't. But it bothers him that the government tells people they cannot do something they shouldn't do. Libertarians would say that if most people want pasteurized milk, the market will supply it. Firms will emerge to certify that milk has been pasteurized. These firms will compete, keeping them honest.

So yes, a Rube Goldberg contraption of capitalism could replace a straightforward government regulation. But what if you aren't interested in turning your grocery shopping into an ideological adventure? All that is lost by letting the government take care of it is the right of a few idiots to be idiots. That right deserves respect. But not much.

Except, some people do want unpasteurized milk and some farms do make a living supplying it. How is it a crime for someone to sell a product that has been bought and sold for centuries? Why should that matter to you or me, or to the government?

The point is that a "Rube Goldberg contraption of capitalism" won't violate the rights of innocent people as a government regulation does. And frankly, the odds are better that the people will be better protected from danger, at lower cost. Sellers of insurance are in the business of making sure nothing bad happens, so they will suit their requirements to the property and products they are insuring, whereas the universal nature of government codes force businesses to conform to requirements that may have no relevance to their particular business or property.

It is unlikely that government regulation makes things more efficient, or more convenient, for the majority. But even if government "worked" in that regard, this doesn't justify the loss of the freedom of minorities who want to live differently. And if minorities aren't free, then nobody's free.