Those crazy Libertarians

Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:38 pm

Disclaimer: This article is cut and pasted from the myspace Libertarian Party. The Author is a guy by the name of Midas.

If you have any interest in the libertarian school of thought, I simply ask that you read this.

Thanks

Marc

This was an answer to a question posted about a couple of specific things people were asserting that "Libertarians" believed in. The answer is long and complex, and wound up being far more general ... (and hopefully, useful). I respectfully asked Riley's permission to post it as a bulletin, and he kindle assented to that request. I hope my fellow Libertarians find at least pieces of it useful in their daily battles against those that accuse of of idiotic positions.
__________________________________________________

This is, indeed, neither an easy question, nor an insignificant one. I've also had similar questions asked when I talk to people about libertarianism. Often, the intention of the questioner is to demean or otherwise negate the foundations of libertarianism by claiming that if we really remained "true" to our principles, we'd have to support all manner of idiocy (for instance, child abuse, crack cocaine addiction, etc.).

This is a classic rhetorical tactic ("reductio ad absurdum" ... argue from a basic premise, derive a ridiculous result from that premise - and attempt to imply that the ridiculous result therefore negates the entire premise).

To answer it vigorously though, a few preliminaries are necessary.

[NOTE: I got it into my head a few years ago - after having gotten tired of answering some of the really freaking ridiculous claims being made about libertarianism - to construct an arsenal of libertarian "intellectual weaponry" ... i.e., not just answers to specific issues, but rather, modern articulations of fundamental general principles that could be applied to approach almost any issue. This particular weapon was built to handle "rights" arguments - a favorite target of our opponents. What I'd like to offer you here is my version of a libertarian Abrams Tank ... a particularly useful weapon when confronted by a guy (with the intellectual equivilent of a .22 pistol) trying to claim we're fine with crack houses next to grade schools. This will probably be long, but if you can make it through the whole dull thing, I'll guarantee you that little pieces of it can be used to not only win arguements with people that mis-state libertarian beliefs ... but to actually blast the arguements into sad little wimpering bits ... Wink

... if enough folks actually make it through the whole thing, and think it is valuable, I'll post it as a "Bulletin" under the title "How to agrue libertarian opponents into the ground". ]

First, it is important to understand how intellectually sophisticated our founders were. (For instance - Thoman Jefferson enrolled in William and Mary at the age of 16, after an unbringing with private tutors. He was already well versed in classical languages. At W & M, he studied under a Scotsman that introduced him to the European philosophers - the works of Locke, Bacon, Newton & etc. He studied there for two years and then began to study law. Point is, before he was even 18 - the age when we now start attending college - he could already read the classical ancient philosophers in the original Greek and Latin, and had already studied the principle scientific and political thinkers of Europe).

Point is, our founders were formidable thinkers. The reason this matters is because most of the people you'll need to answer today frame the concept of "rights" at a very simplistic level - compared to the level at which the founders thought about them. And I'm trying to suggest here not only a set of concepts, but a rhetorical tactic capable of dismantling people attempting to use reductio ad absurdum arguments - if someone is trying to undercut libertarianism by deriving absurd results from our foundations, the means of combatting that is by demonstrating that their original statement of our foundations is badly flawed - which, in fact, it generally is. In spades.

If someone's concept of "rights" is at the level of bumper-sticker reductionism ... it is a mistake to simply accept their definition of rights, and try to argue with their conslusions - once you've bought their rules of the game, you've already lost, regardless of what happens on the field. (You might successfully argue against one conclusion, but if their initial definition of our principles is in error, they can continue to come up with countless new ridiculous results).

So then ... the following is (at least as well as I've been able to frame it) - the correct foundation of the libertarian concept of "rights". It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. But our founders were not bumper-sticker thinkers.

First - it is important to understand that at the most basic level, "rights" are not ends in themselves - rather, both the statement and enforcement of rights are a means to an end. The ultimate end is the fundamental Enlightenment ideal that asserts that the adult individual - not the church or the state - is the primary moral entity. In other words, the individual human being is the ultimate end - and any person or organization that attempts to use an individual as a means to their end is not justified in doing so.

It is from this basic principle that the notions of "rights" are derived. This is important - because it is the test of whether any specific concept of a right, or rights, is morally justified. For instance, a man can claim he has the right to seek a job to earn his living (as we all must), and pursue the enrichment and fulfillment of his own life as he sees fit. A company can claim it has the right to hire people to pursue its own ends (i.e., the ends of the people running the company). That person and the people running that company - as free agents - can voluntarily come to an agreement (called employment) by which together they both achieve their ends (in fact, achieve them more fully than they could alone - as Adam Smith so eloquently pointed out when he applied the Enlightenment principles to economics). Both of these "rights" - the right of an individual to seek (or decline) employment at a company, and the right of a company to hire free individuals ... are completely consistant with the original principle.

However - if the people running the company asserted that they had the "right" to force a person, against their will, to work for them (i.e., slavery) - it would not be a morally justifiable "right" - because it would conflict with the foundation of rights ... that says no one can simply be used as a means to an outside agent's end.

Likewise, if that person claimed they had the right to not only freely seek (or decline) employment, but had the "right" to have a job at that company, once again that claim would not be justified - companies are composed of individuals ... management, workers, and shareholders - that cannot be used, against their will, as the means to that individual's ends anymore than they have the right to use slave labor to further their own.

Note here that even prior to a sophisticated examination of rights, a great number of the "reductio ad absurdum" arguments made against libertarianism disappear. For instance - any statement of "rights" that would attempt to assert that we're ok with child abuse or pedophilia (and I've actually heard people try to argue this) simply falls apart. A man raping a 5 year old boy is - quite simply - using another human being as a means to his own end. Anyone that frames a statement about libertairan beliefs concerning "rights" in such a way that can conclude that this is justified - has, in fact, undermined their own argument ... their initial definition of "rights" is, by definition, is simply in error. The entire purpose (and moral and philosophical foundation) of rights is to enforce the principle that every human is an end in him or herself - and that no other human, church, state, or organization is justified in forcibly using that human as a means to their ends.

(NOTE: To really see the absurdity of this, consider this: The purpose of a boat is to float on the ocean. Constructing a hull out of - for instance - sponge, would pretty much appear blindingly stupid ... anyone building a boat out of material that is, itself, in conflict with the entire fundamental purpose of the boat would be considered a total honking idiot. Likewise, anyone constructing a definition of a "right" that conflicts with the fundamental purpose of rights, is, similarly, a total honking idiot. They only reason they do not appear as foolish is because those doing so (and many trying to argue against them) are not exactly at the same intellectual level as the founders - and so can get away with very vauge, blurry impressions of rights.)

At this point, it would probably be helpful to put the generic concept called "rights" under a microscope, and discern its detail at a more granular level. In fact, there are three different components of the larger concept: Abstract (or philosophical) rights, functional rights, and legal rights. A good deal of the way people distort libertarian princples is by confusing these three ... making statements about one to derive conclusions in another. By looking at all three, these distortions become clearly evident. So:

1. Philosophical Rights. This is the level of classical philosophy - pure thought (practical or not) where correctness is entirely a matter of intellectual rigor and consistancy. It is at this level where the fundamental Enlightenment concept of human beings and human existance (the individual as the primary moral agent) gets reified into a few basic implied rights (this is the level of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - as we'd say today, the "30,000 foot level"). In fact, the philsophical level of "rights" is little other than a slight re-statement of the initial principle of "the individual as an end in him or herself". This level, however, is quite primary and abstract ... humans are concepts, not flesh and blood beings. This level only really says that if everyone is an individual moral agent, it is implied that they have the "right" to act as such. It merely defines a few things that an individual can do, and what others cannot do to him or her (at a very general level).

2. Functional Rights. This is where the transition gets made from the abstract to the real. It is here where specfic rights start precipitating out of the philosophical fluid. It is also where some of the paradoxes and conflicts implied at the philosophical level (and they do exist) are addressed and resolved.

Before going into this, it is probably important to mention that - in the minds of the founders - the idea of personal rights was so completely wedded to the concept of personal responsiblility that it was not even necessary to explicitly mention it. As the decades passed the two became seperated - and it is this seperation that is the cause of a lot of the confusion about "rights" these days ... the notion that we have to "give up" rights to function in society only becomes necessary if one talks about "rights" as the individual's freedom to do anything they want. The founder's concept of the "free moral agent" with rights simply assumed that the agent would take responsibility for the exercise of those rights. In other words, it wouldn't have occured to them you'd need a discussion about individual vs. collective rights concerning "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" - because it wouldn't have occured to them that someone would yell fire in a crowded theatre.

The reason they didn't need to talk about "responsibilities" is because they were assumed - remember, they were emerging from the feudal system. The Church and State (basically) had all the rights and no responsibilities, and the individual had only responsibilties, and no rights. So the vigorous attention the founders paid to individual rights based on the assumption that those individuals had already fully internalized the sense of responsiblity. If, however, you disconnect the two, and only discuss "rights" in a vacuum - you then wind up with the (entirely false) "conflicts" - in which, for instance, your "First Amendment right" to yell fire appears to be in conflict with the "rights" of the other theatre goers.

So then ... Functional rights

This area is where the concrete expression of abstract rights is engaged, resulting in the interface between individuals and other individuals (who each have rights), between individuals and organizations (i.e., groups of individuals), and between organizations. Now, while at the abstract level, the founders spoke in philosophical terms about inborn, "unalienable" rights, at the functional level, they always considered they were talking about adults. In other words, at the abstract level, a 2 year old had rights he was was born with, however, to exercise his rights at a functional level, he first needed to mature into an adult capable of understanding the ramifications of the exercise of those rights (and the responsibilities that are inherent in them).

Note that this is different than saying that the person doesn't have rights (at the philosophical level) until they reach adulthood, at which point they are "awarded". Rather, it is similar to an infant being born with an inheritance that is put into a trust ... it is theirs from the start, but they cannot access it until they've reached an age at which they are mature enough not to be destroyed by it.

It was also assumed by the founders that while parents did temporarily have the "right" to override a child's "rights" (at the functional level), with those rights also came responsibilities. Parents are the equivilant of the "trustees" of that inheritance - charged with preparing the child to eventually handle it once they come of age, and of not abusing that inheritance during the process of preparation. In other words (again) parental "rights" are not absolutes, but are rather a means to an end. They can override a child's right to make decisions - but only to the degree required to prepare the child to claim those rights. In other words, holding a 5 year old child's hand on the way to the school bus stop (whether the child wants it or not) is fully justified - as the child may not yet be ready to safely stay out of the street. Abusing a child, however, would most assuredly not be justified. It would be the abuse of the "inheritance" by a trustee.

So now, understanding the difference between philosophical and functional rights provides the answer to the (apparent) contradictions that people claim libertarianism is subject to. Asserting that a child is born with "unalienable" rights does not mean - at the level of the functional expression of those rights - either that parents don't, for instance, have the right to discipline children, or that a child can (for instance) "consent" to have sex with an adult. (There are legitimate arguments about when exactly that "age of consent" should be for different things - but these are merely subsets of the larger principle).

3. Finally, Legal Rights. Just as the philosophical level forms the foundational structure for the functional level, so too does the functional level then get codified into the legal level. And just as the philosophical level must remain consistant with, and express, the fundamental purpose of rights, and the functional level must remain consistant with, and express (in practical terms) the philosophical level, so too must the legal level remain consistant with, and express, the functional level.

If one understands this process of connecting any specific law back up the chain to the first principle (that the best human civilization is constructed around the foundation of the individual human as the primary moral agent, and as ends in themselves) - then virtually all the means opponents use to try to discredit libertarianism ... either by claiming it is full of contractions, or (falsely) try to claim that we believe in absurd conclusions ... disappear in a puff of dust.

We are, in fact, the most completely consistant political philosophy in the western world. Further, differentiating between the different levels of rights is an intellectual tactic required to address reality and argue with opponents - but these levels really describe a continuum that just apparently is composed of distinct stages. Best way to see things is by saying that the fundamental principle is H2O ... the water molecule. Philosophical rights are the way water appears in a gaseous form (as a cloud); functional rights are the same substance as it appears when it precipitates into individual raindrops, and legal rights are the way that same substance appears when it has solidified into ice.

Libertarians are, in fact, the only party that derives its positions - consistantly - from first principles. We do not confuse "clouds" with "ice", nor, however, to we permit impurities into the basic substance. We do not say "We kind of agree, except in those areas in which we'd feel emotionally a bit more comfortable by introducing our particular form of mud into the water.
________________________________________________________

So then ... now that the blueprints for the "libertarian Abrams Tank" have been explained (at probably greater length than the blueprints for the actual Abrams tank ... Wink

... let me take it out for a ride, take a few examples of current arguments opponents are making, and explian how to use it in the field. I'll choose two examples. The point of them will not be to simply address the specific cases, but to show how the general principles can be used to address almost any case.

First one:

Arguement: "Libertarians are potheads that just want to decriminalize all drugs".
Answer: Wrong. "Decriminalization" is merely an aftereffect of our position, which is that the basic premise used to criminalize (some) drugs in the first place was flawed, inconsistant with the rights codified in our Constitution, and completely arbitrary in its selection of "correct" and "incorrect" drugs. If you want to be consistant, you cannot claim that the same principle that makes it fine for you to enjoy a glass of Cabernet in your living room somehow disappears when someone wants to smoke a joint. Note that this does not mean that we're fine with crack houses next to kindergardens ... and would not approve of this. In the same way as we do believe that free people have the right to practice with their Glocks at firing ranges, but would certainly not think it was fine to tape the firing range targets on the fence next to a grade school. It is possible to construct a legitimate, consistant argument against some sorts of drug, in some places ... but this will be based on an entirely different principle than what is currently used to put people in prison for having an once of pot. And we only acknolwedge laws that derive from consistant principles.

Speaking of guns ... Second Example:

Arguement: "Libertarians believe everyone should have guns, and (to quote an actual recent post on this board) have the right to own missiles and even nukes".
Answer: "This is absurd." We do affirm the 2nd Amendment - because we can track the legal right back to the functional right, to the philosophical right, to the first principles. The individual is the primary moral agent. But this principle has no meaning if the state can (at the functional level) claim it has the right to be armed (and hence enforce its whims arbitrarily), while the individual is prevented from owning the means to combat that. Anyone that attempts to claim that such an arguement justifies individuals owning nukes (that few, if any, states - let alone individuals - have the scientific abilities to safely handle) is trying to apply the solid principles underlying one right to the entirely different foundation underlying another.
________________________________________________________

My friend ... I've gone on long enough. I hope this long monologue has fully and completely not only answered your question about how to confront those that you've needed to confront ... but also gives you the intellectual tools to not only confront any other - future - "contradictions" people assert you are subject to, but to actually demonstrate (fairly powerfully) that their assertions are - themselves - based on contradictions that they will have a hard time answering.

I'm a Libertarian because it is the only modern political threory that actually is consistant from the most abstract ideological level to the most pragmatic and practical. This is our primary virtue - and should be the source of our most powerful arguements as well as the foundation of our pride. To really use that, however, we have to vigorously resist those that want to reduce the sophisticated thought of our multi-lingual, hyper-educated founders (who - were they alive today - would be at the Master's Degree level of a half-dozen different Arts and Sciences disciplines) ... and instead, elevate ourselves and those we argue with to their level.

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:22 pm

eegads that's long, will have to come back to this one...

Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:30 pm

acfrogg wrote:

eegads that's long, will have to come back to this one...

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:08 pm

acfrogg wrote:

eegads that's long, will have to come back to this one...

________________

Ditto that. What's it about (just kidding) Confused

Dallas

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:48 pm

Another Disclaimer. This also was posted by Midas and outlines a method of voting. Quite good.

First - let me say that I always vote as though I was the only voter. (This is a pretty important principle). I realize that a lot of people cast votes based on the notion of the "wasted" vote - looking at tactical likelihoods rather than candidates or principles - but I've never been able to buy that idea (which is why I've been able to vote Libertarian all these many years). Whether it is a candidate or an issue, if I cast a ballot, I always cast it based on the fiction that my individual decision will decide the outcome. I believe this is the only way to vote responsibly. My own view of libertarianism always merges the notion of a "right" with that of a "responsibility". In a free society, there may be no single right more important than the right to cast a ballot. But because that right is pre-eminent, so to is the responsibility that it entails.

I fully realize it is a falsehood to believe I'm the single voter that will cast the deciding vote on every issue. Rationally, I'm one of tens of millions that will vote. However, this is simply the internal intellectual tactic I use to make certain I live up to the duty I have to participate as a responsible adult that every election year helps re-create America.

Adopting this perspective also, right off the bat, clears away a lot of intellectual confusion. And several decisions flow from it before you even look at an issue ... the first and foremost being that sloppiness and laziness must be tossed out the window. I will easily admit that when I was quite young, and casting my first votes, there were more times than I'd like to admit in which I walked into a voting booth, had two or three candidates and two or three issues I was deeply into, and a lot of ballot measures that I just had not researched - I read them for the first time in the voting booth. But I still voted yea or nay on everything (often based on simply an emotional feeling about a particular measure).

I do not like admitting this, and the only mitigating excuse I have is that I've since corrected this sort of behavior. I guess I now consider that there are three levels of citizenship exercised within the privacy of a voting booth - from fully responsible, to irresponsible:

1. A fully responsible voter understands everything on the ballot (because they've put the time and effort into doing so), and casts a vote on every issue based on a principle.

2. A partially responsible voter understands some issues, but simply does not know the arguments (yea or nay) behind others, because they have not put the time into them. Nonetheless, s/he votes on those issues they understand, and does not cast a vote on issues they don't.

3. A completely irresponsible voter has one or two candidates and one or two issues they are into, has not bothered to research anything else, but still votes on everything (even if they have no clue what the ramifications of their vote on many issues actually are ... and I fear this may describe an unfortunately large number of voters).

Thing is, assuming that your vote - on everything - will decide the outcome makes you take the act of voting extremely seriously.

So then. Given that every vote you cast will decide the outcome, how do you then live up to such a responsibility? Here is the method I use for issues:

First, Gather information.

This requires a bit of comment. "Gathering information" is (at this point in my life) a very specific, focused activity. Believe it or not, I've actually got an Excel spreadsheet I use. (Yes, I know, economists are whack - but still, compiling data in a systematic fashion can be very helpful).

1. The first thing to understand is that between 90% - 95% of issues on a ballot are put there for the purpose of solving a perceived problem. Politics, in the 21st century, are largely (as the medical people say) "triage". Virtually no one tries to do something new and positive - almost everything is a reaction to something that is asserted to be "wrong". So for every issue, the first thing to determine is what is the (perceived) problem this ballot issue is meant to address?"

2. The second thing to understand is that the more contentious and emotionally charged the perceived "problem" is, the more likely it is that the "solution" will be an overreaction. (This isn't just ballot issues, by the way, this is in legislation itself - we certainly needed some changes after 9/11, but the Patriot Act was a serious overreaction ... we needed some changes after Enron and Worldcom, but Sarbanes-Oxley was a serious overreaction, etc., etc.). So then, the second question on any ballot issue - after determining what problem it is supposed to solve - is to ask whether the legislation is a calm, reasonable approach to the problem, or whether it goes overboard ... which leads to the next point ...

3. Effects, and unintentional side effects. One of the dirty secrets of public policy - on ballot measures (especially at the state and local levels) - is that many of them are actually written by people that simply don't know what the hell they're doing. They do not fully understand either law or politics, and produce badly written, vague legislation with side-effects that not only may have nothing to do with the actual intention, but may also actually make the "problem" they are intended to solve worse. Remember, a law is passed by citizens or legislators ... but it is implemented by unelected bureaucrats. The more poorly written the legislation, the more leeway the bureaucracy will have in interpretation. (In fact, there's been more than one ballot issue I've voted no on not because I didn't agree with the intention, but because of possible ramifications that had nothing to do with the intention).

4. Survey proponents/opponents. Who is pushing the legislation, and who is opposing it? What are the public arguments for and against it? Who wrote it? Ballot measures are often written by industry groups or lobbyists. Some legislation is completely non-controversial, and may not have strong opponents or arguments, but it is good to understand the larger context that produced it. (It is also worth it to mention here that some ballot measures are written to take advantage of the fact at least some voters are uninformed ... they will title legislation, and write the text in such a way as to imply one thing on first reading. As a rule, for instance, anything with the words "Fair" or "Free" in the title is probably going to be neither ... Wink

.

5. Finally, determine the scope of the legislation. Who is it going to effect - both positively and negatively? (Quite often laws priviledge one group of people at the expense of another). How large is the scope (some ballot measures will only affect a very small group of people - positively or negatively - others may effect everyone in the city or state).

That's the information gathering phase. Id be willing to bet that if you gather those 5 basic categories of data on any particular ballot measure, you'll find yourself with a fairly full understanding of exactly what your vote - yea or nay - would mean.

Furthermore, if you gather that data objectively and dispassionately (with no initial bias in one direction or another), you then have the foundation to begin analyzing it based on libertarian principles. (Never vote yea or nay on something because it "feels like" it is libertarian, or "sounds like" its libertarian, vote because you know what the legislation is intended to do, is likely to do, and there is a specific libertarian principle or principles that you've applied in your decision making).

In other words, when you compile all the data itself, you'll have a fairly clear view of how the world will change if the legislation passes. You then apply basic libertarian principles as a sort of "filter" to determine whether those changes to the world will increase or decrease liberty. Specifically (in my view) there's a few basic principles it is helpful to use in this respect:

1. First and foremost, is the legislation needed at all. Aside from any particular issue, I think we have a huge problem right now ... the amount of legislation being passed is simply overwhelming. Almost every special interest group has learned how to use the political process to achieve their specific ends. But I think we are all a bit less free because of the sheer volume. Because of this, I begin my own analysis with a slight tilt towards voting "no". In other words, I assume I'll vote no unless I'm convinced that there is a compelling reason to vote yes.

2. Is the legislation (in either intent or side-effects) grounded in the notion of the government-as-parent mentality? This may be one of the core libertarian principles when it comes to the actual practice of politics. You may fully agree that something is a problem, and still vote no on the "solution". (You may feel, for instance, that people shouldn't smoke cigarettes or pot, or that people in cars should wear seat belts, and motorcyclists should wear helmets ... but that is secondary to the question of whether the government should be involved in the issue).

3. Closely related is the question of "government-as-visionary" ... a great number of both the far left and far right try to use the government as a means of social engineering - they have a "vision" of what a "correct" world looks like, and try to implement it through legislation (often in ways that are not apparent until you've researched the issue).

4. Is it redistributive in nature? In other words, does it help one group at the expense of others? Does it rob Peter to pay Paul? Often - especially in cases where some tax or fee is going to be cut - what is actually going on is redistribution ... one thing will be cut, but others raised. One of the essential aspects of libertarian philosophy is that politics is a process, it should not attempt to determine outcomes. (This relates to Point 2 above).

5. Finally, is the legislation (either in intent or side-effects) likely to create a new government bureaucracy (either large, or a new little office within some division). It is amazing how many times a bland piece of seemingly innocuous legislation passes, and then a year later, a government agency is quietly petitioning the legislature to add extra people - and raise taxes or charge some fee to pay for them - because they need to "manage" the legislation. A tax once raised is rarely cut. A government agency once formed is rarely disbanded.
_________________________________________

So then. To sum all of this up. Intelligent Voting (in my mind) has two basic components: Information gathering, and on the basis of that, applying libertarian principles to the information gathered. (And in my mind, they should be separate - do not try to apply libertarian principles while gathering data - or it will bias what data is gathered - at first, you simply want a full, objective picture from various points of view ... and when you have it, you can then choose yea or nay based on principles).

I know this may sound quite time-consuming and tedious, but in practice it actually isn't. The large number of internet sites, and voter guides, and newspapers and bloggers out there are making it quite easy. In all of an hour, for instance, it is probably fully possible to gather the data (listed in the 5 "information gathering" points above) on any ballot measure.

Yes ... if you've got 10 ballot measures you're looking at, that does imply 10 - 12 hours of work. Sounds like a lot I suppose ... but ... is that really so much effort? Wouldn't the US be a lot better off if every voter walked into the voting booth, and made every selection with the complete knowledge of what they were doing? Isn't such effort - in some way - almost required to be a responsible citizen in a free society?

Anyway ... I'll just end with the summary of the model, including 5 information gathering principles, and the 5 analysis principles:
________________________________________

Remember, right off the bat - assume the attitude that your vote will determine the outcome. Your "yea" means it passes. Your "nay" means it fails.

Information gathering:

1. What is the problem the legislation claims to be solving, or the benefit it is claiming to deliver?

2. does the legislation - as written - actually solve that problem or deliver that benefit in a reasonable way?

3. What are the potential side-effects (intended or unintended) of the legislation?

4. Who are the proponents and opponents? What are the public arguments for and against? What is the source of the legislation (who helped draft it - legislators? Lobbyists? Interest groups?)

5. Who will it affect - positively and/or negatively? (Both in terms of which groups of people will be affected, and how many people will be affected.)

I actually do compile this in a spreadsheet (it makes it easy to see the whole picture). Obviously, in some cases there won't be an answer to every point (your commemorative license plates aren't going to be solving some big problem, or have vigorous arguments for and against) but it is still worth it to try to sum up all five points. With this information, move to

Analysis:

1. Is the legislation needed at all? (Note - this question almost immediately gets rid of half the initiatives on a ballot).

2. Is the legislation (implicitly or explicitly) "government-as-parent" legislation? As apparently positive as it sounds, does it replace personal freedom and responsibility with government regulation "for your own good"?

3. Is the legislation (implicitly or explicitly) "government-as-visionary" legislation? Is it trying to create a "vision" of society by prescribing outcomes? (Remember, we will neither become a Theocracy, nor a Socialist government all at once, it will happen incrementally in hundreds of little bits of legislation).

4. Is it redistributive? Is someone being helped and someone else being hurt based on the justification one group "should" be privileged, and the other shouldn't "mind" being hurt?

5. Finally, does it create new bureaucracies and/or positions (either in the legislation itself, or down the road)? Does it expand the scope and reach of government? How, and in what ways?
___________________________________

As a final note, I'd simply ask you to try this model in practice on just a single ballot issue - take it out for a spin, see how it works. (It actually sounds a bit more complicated in theory than it turns out to be in practice).

Also, I'll mention that I've been using it for awhile, and in general, find myself voting "no" on between 2/3's and 3/4's of initiatives on any given ballot. This, in my mind, is sort of a proof of the validity of the model. I'm a moderate libertarian - not an anarchist - I do believe there are some positive contibutions made to public life by government. A model that resulted in a "no" vote on everything the government wanted to do would not, in my opinion, be a good model. However, a model that requires a very high bar for any additional government involvement in public life is - in my mind - almost a perfect reflection of libertarian philosophy turned into libertarian practice.

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:52 pm

The Libertarian Idea.

http://books.google.com/books?id=N8Cu2hi3sJ8C&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=USjTf7FdSL&sig=6pfbudVp0H4J4I5yfU5Xjp3jp0I&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DThe%2BLibertarian%2BIdea%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP1,M1

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:42 pm

Very interesting, Marco. Kind of a libertarian manual on how to handle sticky situations in a libertarian world. I like the way they organized this site with teasers in most of the chapters.

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:49 pm

The Theory of Limited Government
by Per Bylund

The general trend in government during the 20th century, and presumably before, is the rapid growth in the role that government plays in society and the powers considered necessary to fulfill this role. It would seem to any bystander (if there are such) that most people in modern society agree with the concept of a far-reaching government with responsibility to take care of people, as well as to be a moral guide for both society and individuals or provide support where people lack confidence or ability. Libertarians generally do not accept this view of the state as a "nanny" or government as a parent, and there are many reasons for this.

One reason is one that the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes never realized. He proclaimed that free men in their natural state, i.e. without government or rule, cannot achieve a lasting social order. It is bound to inevitably degenerate into war, terror, and chaos. Man is inherently evil or would at least choose to forcefully take what can be taken from others rather than work for it if he has the chance. Thus the only possible state of free men would be a state of eternal war where the strong will eventually conquer or kill the weak.

From this Hobbes drew the conclusion that men would have (or really had) chosen to come together in societies for protection, security and order. In order to enjoy protection of their rights men would have to first surrender both their rights and their freedoms. This collective act created a government organization with the power to forcefully withdraw society from the state of war, and thereby create the security and order necessary for man to enjoy rights. Thus government is something good created from the chaos and war of the natural state.

It is easy to see how this idea in essence is corrupt. If man is inherently evil or at least frequently degenerates into thievery, fraud, violence and murder, how can people rely on a government created and run by men? The simple answer is they can not. Bad people cannot be trusted if they are alone, and the same must still be true if they create a government through which to rule other people.

As Lord Acton pointed out, "power corrupts" and the corrupt people are the ones most likely to seek power. (Other people don't need to rule others in order to achieve their dreams or lead their lives as they see fit.) Government is therefore never to the good of the ruled, but is always, sooner or later, being turned to protect and maximize the good of the rulers – at the cost of the ruled.

Since government is inherently evil, libertarians strive to either limit its <myspace>size</myspace> and power or abolish it completely. As I will show, the concept of limiting the powers of government is corrupt in one or many ways. There are really only two alternatives compatible with reality: government or no government. (And as we will see the former is as controllable by a few men as the latter.)

The theories of limited government usually revolve around the idea of a constitution or contract between the people and the government, or rather: the ruled and the rulers. The idea of such a contract is sound and has a long history in political philosophy (see e.g. John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau about the "social contract"). But the very nature of contract speaks against its use in political philosophy as legitimization for or limitation of the state.

The essence of contract is the voluntary agreement between two equal parties. This voluntary nature makes the contract the foundation and essential part of the marketplace, where people come together to exchange values. The voluntary nature guarantees (because it rationally leads to) that all parties are better off from every single contract – or they would choose not to be part of it.

The most fundamental part of contract is thus its voluntary nature. Both parties have to be equal in the face of the contract for it to be considered a contract. It is not possible to establish contracts in this sense between unequal parties. (If one party can easily escape the obligations stated in the contract, or simply annul it, through the use of coercion or violence against the other party the contract will be meaningless.) Is it possible to establish a contract between a government and its subjects? Obviously not, since the government claims the right to enforce the contract according to its own interpretations. If there has been a breach of contract is generally (sooner or later) established in state courts.

Even under state law it is not considered a valid contract if one of the parties is coerced against by the other party. "Your signature or your life" is not how contracts are established in the marketplace. "Sign this [social] contract or get out of my sight (but leave your property behind)" is also not a valid contract since it is based on coercion.

But in a Hobbesian sense it is possible to establish a contract between equal and free men to create a government (when there is none). Giving up your rights in return for something else, if done voluntarily, is as valid as any other contract in the marketplace. The problem arises with the next generation of people living in the area, who most likely are subject to the same government's laws but never signed the contract. Either they are forced to subjection by the government (no contract) or they are free to choose whether to subject to its rule, which means you can contractually opt in to (but never opt out of) government rule.

As we can see there is a fundamental flaw to the theory of limited government. Such an agreement between the people and government cannot be contractual unless every individual is born outside the realms of government (i.e., in anarchy) and then freely chooses to "opt in." This is however seldom the case in limited government theories, where the possibility to escape the guns of government at best is a theoretical possibility to "opt out, " which means you are automatically subjected to government rule when born. There can thus be no contractual limitation to government according to the nature of contract.

But let's look at the practical arguments for limited government. Statist libertarians do not always claim there needs to be an explicit [voluntary] contract between the people and government. The purpose of "proper" government is only to protect everybody's natural rights from being violated, to uphold justice, to be the final arbiter in conflicts. According to this argument there is no need for government to establish individual contracts with everybody subjected to its rule, since it only protects their rights. No rights are ever violated by this monopolistic justice services organization (unless you try to supply the same kind of service), which powers are strictly limited to acting as agency of [automatically] delegated self-defense and arbiter in conflicts.

The problem of this approach to social engineering in the practical dimension we are here examining lies in the distinction between contract and government. The limitations of government and its powers (constitution) are not limitations in reality, since there is nothing in reality itself (i.e., without human action) to limit these powers. And we cannot rely on a god to decide what government can and cannot do. Government is the creation of men to protect people from abusive actions of men, and its powers are and necessarily have to be defined, enforced, and limited by men.

This leaves only two alternatives for the supervision and control of government. Either the powers of government are controlled and interpreted by government itself or by some power to which government is subjected. We have already established that government is a structure relying on force, which is why there can be no contractual basis for its limitations. There can be no [voluntary] contracts between unequal parties (in the sense: equal parties of the contract).

If government is to interpret its own limitations and protect its subjects from its own actions (where not within the limits stated) the potential threat or problem is obvious. As the example of the United States shows, such a constitutional structure is likely to be used as a sanction for expanding, not binding, the powers of government.

Given that a government of men created by men can only be limited through the actions of men, the actions of government will always be the actions of the men in government. The reasons for such men not to increase their own (i.e., government's) power are not many and not obvious. Even if the founders of government were to be relied on, it is most likely that corrupt men will aim for and become part of government at some time in the future.

Government will in time tend to serve the people acting as government rather than the people subject to government. Since government is the ultimate power in society (which, in a sense, is the purpose of government to begin with), there will be no one having the power to object to such development. And there will be no one with the power to force the unleashed government back into its limited shape.

Some call for democracy and the "will of the people" to serve as such a power to control the guns of government. This is a version of the second alternative, where someone or something theoretically and practically is to monitor the actions and powers of government so that it will not be allowed to run riot. Such a structure where a monitor of government is to control that the latter's actions correspond to the constitution (the restraints) leads to an immediate problem: who is to monitor the monitors? And then: who is to monitor the monitors of the monitors? And so on ad infinitum.

The solution to this problem, at least in theory, is to create a circle of monitoring where the monitor monitors power, and power in turn monitors the monitor. Such a scheme, where the people are subjected to, but at the same time the monitors of government (usually through the system of democracy), has been tried in multiple societies through history.

The most sophisticated examples of this approach have realized the vast powers of the guns of government and tried to divide government into multiple separate and separated parts to make the people and government closer to equal parties. Such a scheme is of course more likely to succeed in restraining government from growing, but history shows that it is not enough. The United States is again a good example of how a sophisticated attempt to delimit the powers of government through a power-dividing scheme has eventually failed. The "perfect" state of the Roman Empire, as described by Cicero, is another great failure.

No matter what scheme is used to make government less powerful compared to the voting public, the guns of government cannot be stopped from growing and apprehending roles it was not intended for. The most important reason for this is in the very nature of government: it is an organization based upon the use of force and with the sole purpose to use that force. When force is institutionalized and legitimized there is no limiting its reach. What one can do is to stay out of its way or become part of the elite which controls it. Either way liberty is lost. The alternatives for society compatible with reality are only: government or no government.

Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:51 pm

Not yours to give
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20, 000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20, 000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20, 000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20, 000, 000 as $20, 000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13, 000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20, 000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir, " concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20, 000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:39 am

I printed that out for before-bedtime reading - not that it's not interesting - it's so long!

Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:38 pm

I'm so behind...but plan on getting back to this one! ...

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:02 pm

Michael Badnarik - Constitution Class 1 of 7
(I figure that I won't post all 7 classes - they are 1 hour each - if anyone wants to continue to watch, there are links at the top of this page for anyone interested)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622&q=Michael+Badnarik&hl=en

Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:07 pm

Thanks, Marco. I actually watched those a while ago. They were quite informative, and I'd recommend them to anyone wanting to know about the Constitution.