The Shotgun Blog
« Kids Driving Cars and the Nanny State | Main | Stunt Master in Chief »
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Deals With the Devil
Liberalism and Libertarianism:
He says such an alliance would create a new political force he calls "liberaltarianism” or “progressive fusionism."
On the surface that sounds pretty strange, but in some ways his vision makes sense.
Certainly, for instance, on some social issues and foreign policy matters, liberals and libertarians do share common philosophic ground.
[...]
But can pro-big government liberals and anti-government libertarians really get along?
Yes, says Wilkinson.
But both sides would need to compromise.
Libertarians, he says, would have to accept the value of and need for the welfare state while liberals would need to concede that only unfettered free markets can produce the wealth necessary to fund things like the welfare state.
So the way for libertarians to ally themselves with modern liberalism is to become modern liberals, except for that whole bad talking capitalism bit. In other words, become centrists. Thing is we already have this, it's called Harperism. It's been running the country for last three and half years. Talk about the wonders of capitalism while doing very little to expand economic freedom, a few symbolic tax cuts aside. Talk about freedom while planning on throwing drug addicts into jail in record numbers.
But isn't Liberalism in favour of drug liberalization? Yes, no and maybe. Ever since Wilfred Laurier died (1919) the Liberal Party has essentially blown with the wind. Nothing wrong with keeping your ear to the political ground, there is something very wrong about becoming the wind sock of the English speaking world. The de facto motto of the Liberal Party, to borrow from the founder of modern Canadian Liberalism, is freedom if necessary, but not necessarily freedom.
Even the American Democrats, who are far less pragmatic than their Canadian cousins, tend to talk a tough game on "law and order" when electoral needs must. Law and order here being an elastic term covering everything from legitimate state actions in defense of individuals rights to petty authoritarianism. Free speechers, addicts and the odd immigrant can be thrown under the bus when convenient.
Partly this is the reality of modern politics. The electorate views government as Santa Claus and largely uninterested in philosophical quibbles that might interrupt the flow of taxpayer financed largesss. The essential principle motivating modern liberalism is a belief in state control over the material well being of the individual. From health care to day care to buying mutual funds, nanny knows best. It is fanciful to imagine that such a movement would have anything in common with those who argue the exact opposite.
Those who believe in the right of self ownership (to use the libertarian term) simply can have no truck with such an approach. There is no room to compromise with the welfare state, it is the welfare state we are trying to destroy. Why? Because it is coercive. It takes earned wealth by force and gives to those who have not earned. It is beside the point why some have been able to create wealth or not, the essential point is that the transfer of wealth is by force.
Because it is by force, it turns the financiers into serfs and the beneficiaries into dependents. Bitter resentment on one side and smug entitlement on the other. It is a morally corrosive process that weakens both parties. The welfare statists seek to obscure the dark reality of the project. Their most effective weapon is pity. How can you not help? This is not the issue. Help is a voluntary act, there is no help or compassion at the bottom of a tax filing, or ultimately the point of a gun.
The bitterness on the part of the financier is expressed in a harsh and unreasoned reaction toward the genuinely helpless. The term "on welfare" has the stigma of being shiftless and lazy, rather than unfortunate. The beneficiaries, having been educated in state schools, believe they have a right to such largesse. This normalizes their situation. Since the state cannot discriminate on individual cases, it must apply broad rules of distribution and an impersonal bureaucracy to manage the system. Both sides are victims of the process. There is no "value and need" for such a system. There is a need, in the words of a long ago election campaign, of "a choice, not an echo." This is something Canada sorely lacks today.
Posted by Richard Anderson on August 6, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
"Libertarians, he says, would have to accept the value of and need for the welfare state while liberals would need to concede that only unfettered free markets can produce the wealth necessary to fund things like the welfare state."
Is this guy serious? The only way to have a welfare state with low taxes is to run deficits. Since gov'ts always monetize their debt to keep interest rates low, rampant inflation and asset bubbles, and financial calamity would be inevitable. We need sound money and a decentralized financial system. The very opposite of what is required to have a welfare state.
To make matters worse, liberals have no problem using government force to attain their social and economic goals.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-06 9:16:06 AM
The fundamental flaw is the big-government/small-government conflict. For one to accept the other would be to refute one's own ideology.
That's the reason why libertarians and conservatives are more likely to become linked.
Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2009-08-06 9:24:04 AM
Stephen Harper Is PM. Preston is a voice in the wilderness (not that he was a libertarian).
The former compromised. The latter did not. The apparatus of the state is VERY resistant to change and only minor tweeks are possible at any one time.
Someone is going to be the leader. Who do you prefer? From the early 90s the split right ensured a left/Liberal PMO (remember how Perot split the right for Clinton and two Democratic terms?) Politics is compromise by definition. The McNichols (sp) Harper schism is the best example that comes to mind...two former brothers in arms, one is a national elected leader the other a voice in the wilderness. I suspect their end-games are similar, their tactics for realizing their strategic vision are significantly different.
I would respectfully submit that one method will yield fruit, the other frustration. Nobody is getting a whole loaf, but half a loaf is far better than going hungry
Posted by: peter | 2009-08-06 9:42:58 AM
I actually whole-heartily agree with Wilkinson on this point. And I'll make my point by asking a simple question: does anyone here actually think that complete elimination of the welfare state is feasible in your lifetime?
If the answer to that question is "no", then you're left with two options:
1) Be stuck outside the mainstream yelling in from the sidelines, hoping that one day your views foment; or
2) Accept your starting point, and try and take incremental steps towards improving the situation within the limits of the political zeitgeist.
I believe that if welfare is here to stay for the foreseeable future--and it is--then we should as libertarians attempt to propose policies that strike a better balance between liberty and the social goals of welfare programs.
The foremost candidate for this, in my opinion, is a minimum income / negative income tax regime, that would be used to replace unemployment insurance, minimum wages, and current welfare programs.
My goal, really, is to say: if social welfare is what democratic liberals and social democrats want, and the public has no tolerance for the outright removal, then lets propose solutions that actually improve the quality of life for everyone involved.
A negative income tax regime would maintain an even incentive curve in the market, unlike the current regime, which places negative incentives on wealth creation, especially on the lower classes who depend on the programs.
I think PUBLIUS, that this kind of scornful attitude towards libertarians who are willing to look at these types of option are misguided. We propose smaller government than we have today, more efficient government, and solutions that would strike a better balance between the liberty intrusions that government makes.
Wilkinson is not rolling over for socialism, and either am I. We're simply acknowledging the political zeitgeist, and we're trying to create a political platform that nominally moves in a libertarian direction.
Wilkinson is not new in this type of thinking, of course. Both Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman were of the same mind that I just presented. In fact, the negative income tax regiment is Milton Friedman's idea.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 10:26:24 AM
And I'll just add: the typical conservative anti-welfare approach has done wonders for the size of government, by the way. Oh wait...
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 10:30:56 AM
There is difference Mike between practical politics and ideological activism. In the realm of practical politics the various right wing parties are far more receptive to pro-freedom ideas than those on the Left. Can anyone imagine Randy Hillier running as a Liberal? The only sizable cuts in the size of the state over the last half century were undertaken by conservative parties.
The last remotely small government figure to run for the national Grits was Robert Winters in 1968. In realm of ideological activism, i.e. promoting a political and philosophical framework, any accomodation with welfare statists would be disasterous. It would appear to the general public that libertarians / classical liberals are in fact willing to accept the welfare state.
Politics is the art of the possible, but intellectual activism is the art of the ideal. On either point scorn is the appropriate response to an alliance with Liberalism.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-06 11:02:20 AM
Two better changes would be: 1) a political party and its politicians who are and remain honest instead of keeping their finger in the wind, and 2) a party representing the values of classical liberalism.
For any party to earn and keep the confidence of the people, it must speak the truth and practise what it preaches. Non of the "big" parties do this, and non of them have the respect and confidence of the people.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-06 11:07:10 AM
Actually another question, come to think of it, is would the liberals actually want libertarians/classic liberals in their midst. From what I understand, they consider us to be right-wing extremists.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-06 11:10:13 AM
The only sizable cuts in the size of the state over the last half century were undertaken by conservative parties.
This is actually patently untrue. The Jean Chretien Liberal government of the 90's engaged in massive federal government reductions, including laying off 20% of federal civil servants.
The standard conservative line is that "he was just downloading onto the provinces". However, the point of the matter is, he DID reduce the size of the federal government.
When conservatives at the provincial level claimed they were left with no choice but to increase the size of provincial governments because of the federal downsizing, they were just tacitly admitting that they accepted big-government policies.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 11:41:58 AM
"Libertarians.... would have to accept the...need for the welfare state while liberals would need to concede that only unfettered free markets can produce the wealth necessary to fund things like the welfare state."
Notice the contradiction in the writer's statement? A free market that underpins a welfare state can in no sense of the word be considered "unfettered". The writer is trying desperately to have his cake and eat it too.
There is no magical, quick-fix formula for getting libertarian ideas instituted politically. There is no "correct" mix of current political constituencies that will result in a libertarian society.
Political outcomes reflect the sum of a society's deeper, philosophical values, such as a person's views on the proper way for individuals to interact with each other.
To put it bluntly, too many people in this world believe that they are entitled to something for nothing, and would not hesitate to use force to extort loot from other individuals. The only qualification they may put on this activity is that it be done "collectively", i.e. by some voting process, which, in their eyes, legitimizes the thievery.
When those attitudes change, political change will follow. Writers like Wilkinson are trying to put the cart before the horse.
Posted by: Dennis | 2009-08-06 11:42:54 AM
Yes Mike, Jean Chretien reduced the size of government - out of desperate fiscal necessity - in the early part of his years in office, and then promptly resumed the growth of government in the latter half of his term. A trend expanded upon by Paul Martin. Practically any government circa 1994 would have done the same thing. Bob Rae started to cut back in 1994 too. The Reform Party was also applying massive pressure on the Grits to ensure they balanced the budget.
I was thinking more along the lines of Reagan and Thatcher and Mike Harris. There is no liberal party anywhere with similar records.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-06 11:58:39 AM
Are libertarians trying to leverage their influence way beyond their numbers? Whichever major party they try to infiltrate, when the light of day shines on the policy issues, the party seeking power looks at polls. Libertarians polled under the Marxists Leninists AGAIN last election. Greens carry a hundred times the voting power of libertarians.
I personally despise the Liberals and sheepishly admit to voting for the Conservatives in the past but if Mike can get the Liberals to adopt Friedman's negative income tax , more power to him. He might find that along the way that the psychological cost of associating with statists and their pathologies exceeds any benefits from getting close to the periphery of political power. Look what its done to David Frum!
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-08-06 2:03:57 PM
"He might find that along the way that the psychological cost of associating with statists and their pathologies exceeds any benefits from getting close to the periphery of political power. Look what its done to David Frum!"
Quite right. Not that statists would want to deal with libertarians / classical liberals anyway.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-06 2:19:55 PM
Practically any government circa 1994 would have done the same thing. Bob Rae started to cut back in 1994 too.
But Reagan and Harris were also products of a response to government excess.
Point me to a time in the last fifty years where the economy was in good shape, the government was growing, and conservatives came in to save the day. Never happens.
When times are good... conservatives like to spend beyond their means just like anyone else. We've seen this time and time again.
Reagan and Thatcher were responses to massive government excess in bad economic times, just like Harris.
Conservatives in this country have deluded themselves into believing that conservatives, when they get into government, are more principled than anyone else. And there's really no evidence for that.
In fact, I won't be surprised if history repeats itself again in the near future, and a Reagan-like figure comes in to cleanup the mess of the past 10 years in the US. But like you said, it won't be because of any conservative values... it will be to fend off impending doom.
Which brings me back to your original points against Will Wilkinson and libertarians like myself.
You fail to demonstrate how accepting a certain degree of welfare state in order to win the political zeitgeist over is a crappier strategy than what you're asking for. In fact, I think the endless cycle we're in: massive government growth, followed by rapid contraction is a product of the fact that neither extreme is being accepted with any long-term durability.
Libertarians like myself, seek to nip-in-the-butt the pubic demand for welfare by implementing an efficient model that allows us to contract the size of government to a more ethical level, improve the efficiency of the market, and maximize liberty.
This isn't a deal with the devil. That's a false dichotomy.
I don't really understand why conservatives are against welfare anyways. It's not like they're against taxes. They need those taxes to "fight the war on drugs", build prisons, expand militaries, advocate for teen abstinence, and every other conservative pet project.
It's okay to take everyone's money for all of the above things, but it's suddenly not okay if you're using it to better the public welfare. If you're doing that, suddenly you're a Marxist, egalitarian, socialist lefty. Which is, of course, bullshit.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 3:17:24 PM
Not to mention that welfare is a decidedly un-socialist concept. Wealth redistribution is not socialist on it's own.
Socialism is about the means of production being collectively owned. Wealth redistribution alone does not speak to any collective ownership of production, rather, it represents a social contract within a free market society.
That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate arguments against welfare--there are--but conservatives need to stop referring to welfare programs as socialist. They're certainly statist, but not socialist.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 3:34:25 PM
... which is really my problem with conservatives: they're not anti-statist. Rather, they are huge statists. They worship police authority and military might. They usually favour executing criminals (state sanctioned murders), etc.
Conservatives certainly don't have the right to use statism in the pejorative.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 3:38:38 PM
If anyone in the Libertarian party seriously considers this I will burn my membership.
Better dead than red.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-06 4:01:51 PM
Better dead than red.
Well, considering Wilkinson's welfare state would be substantially less intrusive than the current welfare state, wouldn't it stand to reason that we're already beyond your tolerance point, and immediate suicide is in order? :)
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 4:34:56 PM
Alain, two good suggestions for change. However, that will happen only when humans become perfect, or all forms of control they can excercise, and all temptation they are exposed to, are removed from them.
Posted by: TM | 2009-08-06 4:41:16 PM
and immediate suicide is in order? :)
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 4:34:56 PM
Who said I meant me? ;-)
And yes the present welfare state is intolerable.
And I question very much Wilkinson's sincerity as anything other than a political opportunist.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-06 5:04:55 PM
And I question very much Wilkinson's sincerity as anything other than a political opportunist.
You should read him more often, then. He's actually a very genuine guy.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 5:17:34 PM
You should read him more often, then. He's actually a very genuine guy.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-06 5:17:34 PM
Genuine guy? Ok I'll allow that.
Libertarian? Sure doesn't seem like it...
I for one would not follow him into any alliance with the "liberals".
Now if you'll excuse me I have some real Libertarians visiting from Ontario tonight and we have much to discuss. :)
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-06 5:43:05 PM
I agree TM concerning the expectation for honest politicians. Even in ancient China, people like Confucius recognised that honesty prevented them from being a politician. However, it was still recognised that only a government that had the confidence and trust of the people could last. So I still expect to be able to hope for my second point - granted in another live time perhaps. At present we have what I call political whores with too many voters acting like punters - what's in it for me?
Posted by: Alain | 2009-08-06 7:56:26 PM
Mike,
"Conservatives in this country have deluded themselves into believing that conservatives, when they get into government, are more principled than anyone else. "
It isn't that conservatives are more principled, it's that they have different principles. The gun registry and wheat board, to take two examples, are issues which no Liberal would even consider shutting down, yet even the lackluster Harper government has made serious attempts to reduce or abolish these agencies. Government isn't just about spending, its about regulating too. That's where the difference in philosophies often shows the most, for good and bad. Remember Dion's Green Shift? The Tories have successfully stalled on any serious environmental proposal for years. A left-leaning Liberal government with NDP support probably would not have.
The point isn't that the Conservatives do a good job, it's that the Liberals would do a far worse one. Why? Because their entire philosophy is in favour of big government. They simply will not take the libertarian / classical liberal position seriously. It's like preaching sober living to a bunch of dedicated alcoholics.
"Libertarians like myself, seek to nip-in-the-butt the pubic demand for welfare by implementing an efficient model that allows us to contract the size of government to a more ethical level, improve the efficiency of the market, and maximize liberty."
Nip-in-the-butt? Given that over 40% of the economy is in government hands we are rather past the tentative stage. The idea of implementing a more efficient model of social welfare sounds appealing, as a way station to smaller governmetn, but any of the small time pro-freedom parties can't implement such a policy. That means working with one of the major parties. The question is which?
Let's take the negative income tax, which certainly has its merits, why would a liberal / Liberal want to implement such a policy? A few well meaning people aside, the essential tenent of modern liberalism is that most people can't run their own lives, therefore government must do it for them. Remember the beer and popcorn crack during the 2006 election? You'd have to convince people like that to adopt a negative income tax. It's not going to happen. The only government in the English speaking world to have seriously considered the proposal was a Republican one in the early 1970s.
Against welfare? I'm not a conservative, so you'll have to ask them, but I object to it because it creates a culture of dependency, something which proper charity generally doesn't.
As I mentioned in the post, it embitters the payers and weakens the receivers. It is mutually destruction in a way that say the military or fire service isn't. Even with public education, the taxpayer can say that he is getting something for his money, not much but something. What does he get from welfare?
Growing slums and the wrecked lives of its alledged beneficiaries. Yes some people are genuinely helped by the welfare system, many more become trapped by it. The system is also very useful as a PR tool. You want to cut taxes? That would mean hurting the most vulnerable. The flow of money to the poor is used as an excuse to keep union workers in the upper middle class.
The welfare state as is, is very valuable to the broad Left at retaining power. It's dependents vote for it, it's unionized operatives vote for it, and those who in turn live off both groups vote for it. What self interested Leftists is going to want to shut it down? Same reason Conservatives and Republicans have made no serious attempt to reduce farm subsidies, those are reliable right-wing voting blocs. But farm subsidies are far less destructive than the welfare state.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-07 7:58:23 AM
The gun registry and wheat board, to take two examples, are issues which no Liberal would even consider shutting down, yet even the lackluster Harper government has made serious attempts to reduce or abolish these agencies.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-07 7:58:23 AM
Ummm Publius?
Harper voted "for" gun control.
So much for conservative priciples.
They're all the same....
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-07 8:35:11 AM
JC,
When in power the Conservatives have tried to dismantle the long gun registry. What the Chretien government introduced. Gun registration in one form or another dates back decades.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-07 9:16:36 AM
@Publius"Against welfare? I'm not a conservative, so you'll have to ask them, but I object to it because it creates a culture of dependency, something which proper charity generally doesn't.
As I mentioned in the post, it embitters the payers and weakens the receivers. It is mutually destruction in a way that say the military or fire service isn't. Even with public education, the taxpayer can say that he is getting something for his money, not much but something. What does he get from welfare?"
I have worked and now I'm on welfare. Try having four strokes and being told by a doctor that you will never be able to work again. I tell you it is a blow to the ego.
In fact, I was denied workers compensation. I was working at an abbattoir on a kill floor when I had a stroke and since I "did not injure myself when I collapsed", I was denied Workers Compensation.
So if you do pay taxes, I do thank you, and I don't believe in soak the rich tax policies. But, Publius, before you paint all wellfare recipients with the same brush, you should actually meet more.
I'm really difficult to offend, but I really find this offensive. I'd wonder how many yucks you would have after having four strokes.
Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-08-07 9:20:35 AM
Yes Doug, I have meet quite a few people on welfare and I understand that some are genuinely deserving of charity. But what about the many more who get trapped in the system for generation after generation? Take a trip to Toronto's Regent Park or Jane & Finch.
That was the distinction between charity and welfare I was referring to. I'm not painting you with a broadbrush. A lot of people do because of the nature of the welfare system, because it lumps in people like you with everyone else.
The Left uses people in your circumstances to justify a system that is on the whole harmful. I'm not opposed to charity, I said as much above, but I am very much against the welfare state.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-07 9:38:02 AM
Publius,
Your knowledge of Canadian history and the Liberty Party's commitment to liberty is inaccurate. Their role as Canada's party of liberty continued well after Laurier.
Also, I don't think it's fair of you to give Wilkinson too hard a time. You're all too happy to placate conservative vices -- e.g. anti-Muslim sentiment that results in far more force than welfare requires. That is, you regularly make deals with the devil yourself.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-08-07 9:50:03 AM
When in power the Conservatives have tried to dismantle the long gun registry. What the Chretien government introduced. Gun registration in one form or another dates back decades.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-07 9:16:36 AM
When in power the conservatives have helped make it a political football. They have no intention of actually dismantling the registry. It works best for them as an item to dangle at election times.
As for the most recent legislatory attempts at "dismantling" the gun registry, they don't actually want to dismantle it. They want to go to a "paperless system" that still requires registration, but they're not telling you that part.
And yes various forms of gun registration do go back decades. Not only in Canada but all over the world. The most infamous gun registries were in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia and they were a precursor to confiscation...then extermination.
The Conservatives and the Liberals have no intention of letting go of gun registration. That would be a threat to Leviathan that they don't like that.
I maintain that Red or Blue, we get screwed.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-07 10:18:01 AM
JC
The long gun registry is a sacred cow, not of the Conservatives but of the vast majority of urban voters who have never smelled gun cotton and who couldn't tell the difference between a muzzle and the breach. Harper enjoys power because he leverages a core minority (Canada is structurally majority leftist) into a large enough minority to become a liberal-lite caretaker government. As Jack Nicholson (re his OCD) asked in that movie, "what if this is as good as it gets?". In Canada, this is as good as it gets! Depressing, but I believe, true.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-08-07 11:07:52 AM
In Canada, this is as good as it gets! Depressing, but I believe, true.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-08-07 11:07:52 AM
Yep. And its pathetic.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-07 11:33:19 AM
"In Canada, this is as good as it gets! Depressing, but I believe, true."
As I've said before, it's cultural. It doesn't matter which party libertarians associate themselves with, they will always be looking in from outside the glass. I, myself, prefer to work on changing as many of my friends' minds as I can.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-07 11:39:37 AM
Publius,
For some reason, the link you included in your post doesn't work for me.
I'm not sure your post is charitable to liberals, at least the ones I've known (like Wilkinson, I'm in academia, so I know a fair number.) Liberals, for the most part, don't want to create a class of perpetually impoverished dependents. They really don't.
If I had to pare down liberal beliefs in terms of importance, at the top would be something like this:
It's unjust for children to starve, suffer, and have their opportunities stunted because of the incompetence or sheer bad luck of their parents.
That's not a particularly troubling moral principle, to put it mildly. Of course, the way liberals have put that principle into practice is often tainted by ignorance (especially of economics), but there is nothing wrong with the principle in itself.
(The priority of that principle -- how it stands in relation to other principles, about property and the like -- is a different question.)
And ignorance, unlike malevolence, can be fixed. Part of Wilkinson's project is educating left-leaning liberals about the best way of putting principles like this one into practice -- and that a gigantic, bureaucratic welfare state probably isn't it.
Replacing the welfare state with a negative income tax would almost certainly improve the life prospects of the worst off. And, since it would be cheaper, compared to the status quo, it would be better for the rest of us.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-08-07 4:01:34 PM
Terence,
"Liberals, for the most part, don't want to create a class of perpetually impoverished dependents. They really don't."
Yet their actions lead to that exact consquence. When something like a negative income tax is proposed, a step away from the welfare state, it is often rejected by liberals. As I mentioned above in the comments, the liberal regards the poor or even the average person as being incapable of managing their own affairs.
As such they prefer a welfare state model that allows them greater control. Scott Reid's quip about "beer and popcorn" is something I've heard many, many times.
The approach made by Wilkinson assumes that liberals are simply ignorant. The difference, however, is basic and philosophical. Asking advocates of minimal government to support the welfare state - NOT the negative income tax - is a deal with the devil.
I do not accept ignorance as an excuse here, nor do I necessarily assume malevolence in all cases. The negative income tax was proposed more than forty years ago. Do you assume that liberal public policy analysts are ignorant of it? That the vast majority of educated and intelligent liberals have never heard of the proposal? The Nixon administration experimented with the idea widely in the 1970s. This is old policy hat.
I suspect most discount it as impratical because their basic dogma regards target victim groups as helpless or incompetent or both. Paternalism is a consistent theme of modern liberalism (also of modern conservatism but much less so).
"It's unjust for children to starve, suffer, and have their opportunities stunted because of the incompetence or sheer bad luck of their parents."
This is a vague platitude that practically no one objects to. What distinguishes liberalism from other political - philosophical movements is how they seek to implement it.
Posted by: Publius | 2009-08-07 4:56:51 PM
Well said Publius.
No matter the "intended" consequences of the (liberal) nanny state, the outcome is always detrimental to society. Well, "free" society anyway.
And if you want to prove this as well as drive the average liberal nuts, all you need do is use facts and logic.
In fact if you want to drive a liberal really nuts
get into a gun control argument with them. I gaurantee they'll resort to labeling and name calling within 5 minutes. Its all they've got.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-08 9:02:59 AM
Publius,
I don't think you've really addressed the problem of a libertarian alliance with conservatism, either.
You're falling into a trap, I think, of treating economics and principally taxation as more statist than say, drug prohibition.
The point that Will, Terrence, myself are saying, is we don't see it that way.
Of course, I would like to see less government involvement in the economy of the state, and less trade barriers, etc. But I also care about other aspects of liberty that go beyond what the deductions on my pay slip are.
When libertarians ally themselves with conservatives, we end up falling into "law and order" crackdowns on drug users, massive expenditures in military, etc. And if we're lucky, we get a token tax reduction.
I just don't see how a libertarian alliance with conservatives, is any less a "deal with the devil" than an alliance with Liberals.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-08 2:18:12 PM
I just don't see how a libertarian alliance with conservatives, is any less a "deal with the devil" than an alliance with Liberals.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-08 2:18:12 PM
Agreed Mike. (Holy cow is there a blue moon?) lol
An alliance with the red left ... or the blue left is not an alliance...its a surrender.
Once the fascist system we have fully self destructs I'd like to think we'll be a natural choice for anyone with an IQ above a house plant.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-08 2:28:08 PM
JC,
I think the word "alliance" is being overstated here. We're talking about trying to convince the mainstream left to abandon their stupid, uninformed, economic policies.
I think what we're saying, is we could make the mainstream left more "economically competent", and get them to understand that high taxation and high regulation actually reduces quality of life, and instead focus on economic relief where it's needed, we would have a far more libertarian society than we have now.
If you're taking me to say that I'm going to vote Liberal next election, then you've got me all wrong. I wouldn't give the current Liberal Party my vote if there was a gun to my head. :)
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-08 2:45:50 PM
The Liberal Party is dedicated to liberty all right, provided one is white, rich, AND Toronto-born, bred and residing. No others need apply. If one fits in their limits, then the sky is the limit - anything goes: murder, drug dealing, terrorism, Holocaust denial, insider trading, etc. They're a sad bunch.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-08-08 2:52:43 PM
I think the word "alliance" is being overstated here.
Ok.
We're talking about trying to convince the mainstream left to abandon their stupid, uninformed, economic policies.
I think they like their policies just the way they are. It makes them "important", and without these bizarre, but sellable policies they would be nobodies.
And old western saying is" If something don't look worth doin, it probably isn't"
;-)
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-08 6:21:36 PM
When libertarians ally themselves with conservatives,.......massive expenditures in military, etc.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-08 2:18:12 PM
Which is indeed rather strange as the natural ally of libertarians are the communists, as both want to destroy the traditions and culture of Western European culture in Canada. Why do libertarians what to get rid of Canada's military and have unrestricted immigration, so that masses of non Westerners, particularly muslims can flood this country? The answer is simple. Libertarians hate the West, hate its traditions, hate its culture. No sane Canadian would either become or vote libertarian. They don't deserve our respect but rather our pity.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-08 6:38:54 PM
Stig as always you have no clue what Libertarian Doctrine is. I'd try and explain it to you but you're a statist through and through and will always worship the government, so there's no point.
If you had a mind to grasp it...its the system we have that has lost its historical values...unless of course you're referring to feudal serfdom.
Then you'd be right, those are the values our government is trying to return us to.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-08 8:47:04 PM
Stig as always you have no clue what Libertarian Doctrine is.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-08 8:47:04 PM
Au contraire. I'll post a few items of the Libertarian Party of Canada's "doctrine"
-We question the need for an anti-terrorism law and security certificates.
-Canada should become more independent militarily and remove itself from the
NATO bureaucracy.
- Only a simple declaration of identity should be required for entry into Canada
under normal circumstances.
- Immigrants and refugees should be admitted freely to Canada
Libertarians like to talk "freedom" but a closer analysis of their "doctrine" is one of soft of terror and terrorists, eliminating Canada's military and the ability to defend the country, and flooding the country with immigrants and refugees. These positions are also identical to that of the Marxists, and like the Marxists the chance of libertarians ever holding power nationally in this country is zero.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-08 9:26:45 PM
I think there should be a drinking game, where every time a conservative uses the phrase "soft on terror", you take a shot. The game should preferably played in election seasons.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-09 7:51:45 PM
Libertarians like to talk "freedom" but a closer analysis of their "doctrine" is one of soft of terror and terrorists,...
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-08-08 9:26:45 PM
Do your homework. There were no terrorists until western foreign policy created and supported dictatorships in the Middle East and elsehwre as part of their foreign policy. If the Russians had built a dictatorship in Kanada and funded the removal of all of my rights...I guess I'd be a little choked with the Russians...get it?
None of this terrorist crap was ever necessary to anything but getting us to believe that it was for our own good to have our own people be killed in a foreign war for...nothing.
Permanent war is a tool of control, always has been.
So I don't buy the whole security thing. That's all about taking away the rights of westerners anyway.
As for immigration. Yep wide open, but sink or swim, no welfare.
NATO...back to the permanent war bullshit.
And its nothing like Marxism...that's just idiotic.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-10 5:04:45 AM
And its nothing like Marxism...that's just idiotic.
In the world of conservative thinking, everything that's not conservative is Marxist. There's only two persuasions.
This is how Stig and others reason. But they fail to see how they're actually more Marxist than us libertarians ever would be, given that their ideology is rooted in collectivism (nationalism), and laws against non-violent activity based on "collective values" (also clearly collectivist).
In fact, the Stig and especially Shane Matthews will often criticizes libertarians for only caring about themselves--a tacit admission that libertarians are not collectivists--yet, they still proscribe a collectivist ideology to us. Hence, their entire basis for criticizing libertarians is twisted into a giant logical pretzel.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-10 9:19:18 AM
"the Stig and especially Shane Matthews will often criticizes libertarians for only caring about themselves"
Actually, it seems to be some kind of pathology with them. If you're for the legalization of drugs, you're a drug user. If you're for the legalization of protitution, you're a john or a prostitute. If you want to deregulate the economy, you're unethical and probably a criminal.
They seem to be unwilling or incapable of comprending that some people actually believe that more liberty will make everyone better off. Not understanding either morality of economics, they resort to insults and personal attacks.
Posted by: Charles | 2009-08-10 9:39:02 AM
... and only guilty people plead the fifth, etc.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-08-10 10:12:46 AM
Thanks, Mike and Charles. Much appreciated.
Your right, there are those who are simply incapable of learning to think differently.
To think "for themselves" in a world that demands cooperation between individuals.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-08-10 1:02:58 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.