Archive for the ‘ Libertarianism ’ Category

Cheesehead cronyism

In this country, we love to say that politicians with whom we disagree are corrupt, controlled by special interests, inept, etc … Though usually we have little else to go on aside from our own disdain. Here, however, is a pretty stark example of corporate cronyism in the works ….

By now we’ve all heard about the protests in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker’s attempt to strip most public employee unions of their collective bargaining rights. Hell, a handful of the state senators were even hiding out here in Rockford. But removing public employee protections without any consent is only one part of the Walker’s “Budget Repair Bill.”

Equally as troubling is the proviso allowing the governor to sell off state-owned utilities to whomsoever he pleases without needing to even glance at another bid. Not that this should be any surprise; it’s the bog-standard conservative line of the last few decades: privatize. Privatize. PRIVATIZE! What is troubling, however, is the role of Charles and David Koch and their PAC, Americans for Prosperity, in helping elect and advise Walker and a sympathetic Republican-controlled legislature in the first place.

The New York Times, Washington Post, and Politico’s Ben Smith all report that the Kochs do not have any financial interest in the outcome of the bill, and they point to Gov. Walker’s previously stated desire to break up the unions as proof that this is a state matter. But that still leaves the focus on the collective bargaining parts of Walker’s bill, and doesn’t address the tangible interests Koch Industries has in Wisconsin’s energy sector (nod to ginandtacos.com for the link).

Finally, Susie Madrak over at Crooks & Liars found this little gem of a job advertisement:

Energy client is looking for experienced Plant Managers for multiple power plants located in Wisconsin. You need 15+ years of operations & maintenance experience in a power plant environment. You should have at least 5 years of experience managing operations & maintenance teams in an operational power plant. The ideal candidate has experience in a coal fired power plant. Salary is commensurate with experience.

Why would a company describe itself merely as an “energy client” in a job advertisement if it was serious about attracting top talent? A prestigious name alone is usually enough to flood an HR department with applications. Now I do happen to believe in coincidences, and I cannot say for certain that something sinister is going on here, but these events are lining up just a little too perfectly for me not to believe that. The saddest part is, if it turns out that the Koch brothers did engineer a corporate takeover of Wisconsin’s energy sector, it will have been done in public view and perfectly legal.

 

 

Tu ne cede malis … yeah, right

In following up on Matt’s post, I cruised on over to the Ludwig von Mises Institute website to find out a little more about this Austrian import. I was struck by the quote displayed on the home page “Tu Ne Cede Malis” and, my curiosity awoken, had to look it up. It is part of a longer quote from the Aeneid (“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito“) and translates to “do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.” Apparently it was a favorite of institution’s namesake (thanks, Wikipedia!).

Now, I’m somewhat of a sucker for cool Latin quotes; and I quite like this one. Unfortunately, I dislike its (mis)appropriation by a school of thought which claims to reject all models of economic theories as insuffiently explicative of the actual functioning of an economy (they prefer to analyze economics based on human behavior), but then implicitly use the Rational Man model of human behavior in order to advocate for uninhibited free markets economics. Maybe it’s me, but this just doesn’t square-up in my mind.

There are no inherently evil forces plaguing our world. Evil results when humans become convinced that they are unequivocally right, or that their way is the absolute best, and cease all inquiry to the contrary.

Those at the Mises Institute need to turn their lenses on themselves and ask whether or not some of the evil isn’t emanating from them. Only then can they truly claim to face it boldly.

In which a doctrinaire libertarian fails to understand modeling.

Crooked Timber already covered this, but seriously, Mises Institute? This?

Not so independent

Check out this post by John Quiggin over at Crooked Timber on the economic realities of “going Galt.” Some snippets:

The state may not do a great job providing services of all kinds, but those services have to be replaced. Libertopia doesn’t sound like a very appealing place for schoolteachers, nurses, and so on, so most public services would probably have to be supplied by external contractor. The cost of that would wipe out any savings from eliminating government inefficiency …

… As everyone who has spent time on an island (even one close to the mainland), or a small remote community, knows, that means everything costs more (often double) and most things aren’t available at all. Even if all the registered Libertarians in the US (about 250 000) moved en masse they would still be heavily dependent on high-cost imports. Almost certainly, that would more than wipe out the gain from tax freedom …

… Of course, the ideal would be a nearby government jurisdiction that would provide the large-scale industry needed for a ready source of consumer goods, a home for contracted-in service providers, support for losers and so on, but would not be able to tax the Libertopians.

But once you think that you realise that a partial approach to this outcome already exists, and has millions of inhabitants across the US. They’re called suburban Republicans. The suburbs benefit from urban centers, but resist paying for them, mostly successfully. It’s not exactly Libertopia, but it’s obviously close enough to be more appealing than going Galt.

So what’s the point? None of us live in a bubble. There is no “me” without “we.”

The belief that “the government which governs best is that which governs least” ignores reality – that it is the actions of government over the last 200+ years which have allowed for the standard of living most (white) libertarians enjoy today. From a purely commercial perspective, the creation of a national highway system and the prevention of tariffs and other trade barriers are only the tip of the iceberg, but these are the very things that have allowed libertarians (and indeed, most everyone) to interact with whom they wanted on terms that were more-or-less acceptable to all involved.

I’m all for self-actualization and doing what you can to provide for yourself, but I’m always brought back to that Habermasian idea that citizens can only be truly free when they regard themselves as both the authors and addressees of the law at the same time.

In which I talk more about libertarians and privilege.

I was going to start off with a canned apology for going over libertarianism and privilege again, but I’m not actually sorry. There’s this toxic, unexamined privilege at the very core of the libertarian movement, and I think that the more sunlight it gets, the better.

Now, Tim’s been posting about Rand (not, in fact, named after Ayn Rand) Paul recently, and I’m going to have to follow suit. You will have no doubt at least heard about Mr. Paul the Younger’s recent bout of foot-in-mouth disease regarding the Civil Rights Act. The problem with Paul’s position – unexamined racial privilege aside – is that it favors property rights over the rights of citizens. This, for what it’s worth, is the basic problem with libertarianism in the United States. When you develop an ethos that says that the rights to own and control ones property are the primary rights that ought to be protected, you create a situation where the rights of the propertied are privileged above the rights of all other citizens, and that’s destructive to the republic.

And that’s setting aside, for a moment, the racial aspect of Paul’s comments. By saying “we ought to tolerate racist business practices, because of private property,”  Paul is saying that a racially segregated society is an acceptable outcome. He’s committing the classic libertarian sin of “whatever is, is best.” The market (remember, in the classical economic thinking which informs libertarianism) will arrange things so that there are non-segregated options, if there’s a clientele willing to pay for it, so what’s the big deal? Surely segregating one’s business, while racist and therefore beyond the pale, is a rational business decision. There’s no room in the libertarian mindset for justice, apparently, or citizenship. There are no rights other than property rights, and to declare otherwise is foolish.

This is why libertarianism is the domain of the white, male, and rich (or hoping to become so). It defends the rights of property above the rights of citizens, and says that things should be this way. Belief in libertarian ideas requires having lived a life more-or-less free of any intrusions on your own rights, and the inability to understand what those intrusions might be like. It’s the political philosophy of the spoiled.

Capitalism ≠ Society

I really should’ve finished reading the article I referenced in my last post, because I would’ve had a lot more to say. Also from Dr. Rand Paul:

Capitalism is freedom, it means the freedom to voluntarily exchange goods, and retain the fruits of your labor.

Really? I can understand that as an economic system; but as a means for social cohesion, welllll …

This implies that some forms of labor are inherently more valuable (from a monetary sense) than others. You did your personal job, so why should anyone else get to share in the rewards? Working the McDonald’s line provides less of an economic boost than stock trading, so you therefore deserve to make one-tenth of what he’s making. And forget redistribution – you are where you are for a reason, and you’re just going to have to live with it.

Hmmm, anybody remember Calvinism?

These are not new, revolutionary ideas. And they will not solve our problems. Given the regressive nature of the Tea Party ideals currently being lauded, I expect that they will, in the long run, do far more harm than good.

More Errors and Half-Truths? Probably.

Reading about Dr. Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary and his description of himself as a “card carrying member” of the Tea Party, I could not help but to think of John Dewey and his would-be outrage at voter support for Dr. Paul …

Habits of opinion are the toughest of all habits; when they have become second nature, and are supposedly thrown out of the door, they creep in again as stealthily and surely as does first nature. And as they are modified, the alteration first shows itself negatively, in the disintegration of old beliefs, to be replaced by floating, volatile and accidently snatched up opinions. Of course there has been an enormous increase in the amount of knowledge possessed by mankind, but it does not equal, probably, the increase in the amount of errors and half-truths which have got into circulation.

I’m not apologizing for the current party system, nor am I outright condemning the Tea Party movement (though I do have my qualms with it – see Matt’s recent posts on Libertarianism). But Americans need to realize that replacing one dogma with another is not the right way to deal with our country’s smorgasbord of problems.

And, at least for the moment, the Tea Party is just that. This is not a movement that seeks to learn. It is a reaction against the political anemia gripping our nation by giving one-size-fits-all answers to very different issues. It replaces unquestioning obedience to the “party” with unquestioning obedience to the “movement.” Reverse the roles, and I doubt very much if we’d see any difference in approaches to governance.

The point is, while it is encouraging that people are getting flustered enough to do something different, the fact still remains that the Tea Party movement is hardly different from either the Democratic or Republican Parties. None of these seek to foster an environment of creative development, and instead only add to the deluge of “errors and half-truths” which threatens to bury us all.

A few more comments on Root and Libertarianism

First, I’d like to restate my bafflement about the libertarian idea that state and local governments are inherently less corrupt and less tyrannical than the federal one. As I pointed out in the original post, if you want to look at your basic, dehumanizing, mean-spirited everyday tyranny, the states are where its at. From Oklahoma’s reprehensible vaginal ultrasound and legalizing malpractice legislation, to Arizona’s Papers Please Act of 2010 and its companion All History is White History Act, the states are where the tyrannical action is. It just may be that those prejudices match up with the prejudices of states’ rights libertarians or (both more and less charitably) that state politicians are easier to manipulate (see, please, the politics of Alaska, New Jersey, Louisiana, Illinois, etc).

Second, medical marijuana. Root devotes all this time to talking about medical marijuana, and none to legalizing recreation marijuana. Similarly, the Obama administration has announced that it’s backing off prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries, but opposing the decriminalization referendum in California. So what’s the difference?

My two main thoughts are political palatability and race. We have, to this day, a distinction in our cultural minds about God’s Poor and the Devil’s Poor. Some people are struck down by circumstance, and deserve help, and some people are shiftless vagabonds and ought to be grateful we don’t just hang them. My working theory is that for the Libertarian Party, whose electoral success depends on drawing off conservatives, recreational marijuana is a bridge too far, but cancer patients are the God’s Poor, and so medical marijuana is ok. My other thought it that perhaps medical marijuana is coded as something that white people do, where recreational marijuana may still be coded as black. It may also be a class thing (who’s going to be able to visit a doctor for a prescription?). So it’s safer, politically, to be in favor of medical marijuana than recreational marijuana.

As a final note, I’m going to make a rash prediction about the legalization of marijuana. No Democratic president, under the current set up, is going to legalize or decriminalize cannabis for for recreational use. Assuming the moderates win the Republican factional infighting – either by taking back control of the party or by the teabaggers and theocrats forming their own party – a Republican president will use it as an early-term gesture of bipartisanship. That, anyway, is my guess.

Root’s The Conscience of a Libertarian.

The two greatest tools in the Libertarian’s possession are privilege and resentment. Specifically, either privilege in already being well-off or resentment over the fact that you are not. Root’s The Conscience of a Libertarian, explicitly written as a manifesto for the Libertarian Party’s projected 2020 victory, is quite naturally full of both.

Reading the biography that Mr. Root provides, you’d be shocked at the amount of resentment that’s in his book. He was (as he never tires of telling us) a classmate of President Obama’s at Columbia. Comes from a family that was proud of hard work, married to a beauty queen, is able to home-school his kids, who are fantastic by the way. Lives in the great state of Nevada. So what’s he so resentful about?

Them. If I had taken a shot for every time Root wrote they, their or them in italics, I’d be dead on a slab and pre-embalmed. The simmering resentment toward unions, lawyers, bureaucrats, anyone who would interfere in anyway with Mr. Root’s life – it’s incredible. While the word “parasite” never appears, you can practically smell it on the page. It’s the “producers” who should run the country, the small businessmen, the ones who create the wealth. The chapter on affirmative action truly includes paragraphs on how hard it is to be a white man in this country.  The chapter on taxes suggests not merely a flat tax, but a tax that decreases with income. It really is a Randian fantasy. To get a sense of what’s driving Root, take a look at the last paragraph of his pages and pages of acknowledgments – it’s to his critics, who have made him relentless. They create absolutely nothing, but are crucial to Wayne Root, Libertarian warrior, and his success.

But just complaining about the style wouldn’t be fitting. The book was also wrong in matters of substance. Mr. Root is a Nevadan, and suggests we look to his state as a model. I’m not sure why, or how this would advance a libertarian point. Nevada, when you think about it, has more in common with any of the Persian Gulf Emirates than it does with, say, Illinois or New Hampshire. It’s economy is based in large part on tourism and mineral extraction, which allows it to maintain fairly low tax rates. Not to mention the fact that without the Department of the Interior’s Hoover Dam, there’d be no way to support a city the size of Las Vegas. This is not to mention the issues Las Vegas faces with its crime rate and unemployment. So surely taking Nevada’s road to become some sort of libertarian paradise isn’t in the cards.

What about implementing Mr. Root’s tax policies. His “plan B,” the plan he thinks we ought to enact if we can’t bring ourselves to transform overnight into a libertarian utopia, calls for a flat tax of 15% on all income up to $500,000/year, and 10% on all income above that. Not even a flat tax, as regressive and punitive as that is – a tax which actually shrinks as you get wealthier.

Which brings us to the other tool in the Libertarian’s chest. Privilege. Now, doubtless Mr. Root would accuse me of being some sort of effete, corrupted non-small-businessman for even mentioning the idea of privilege, tainted as it is by its association with such parasitical subjects as ethnic or gender studies. And,  in the interests of fairness I must admit that, yes, I am familiar with the concept and find it to be convincing in many cases, especially as relates to libertarian critiques of government. Mr. Root is operating, at every point in this book, from a position of privilege. He can write about how great homeschooling is because he and his wife were financially secure enough to have her stay home, and to hire private tutors. He can talk about the crippling burdens of being a white man in America, because he lives in a color-blind society – his race, after all, is invisible, so why can’t yours be? When he talks about immigration, he talks about letting the right kind of immigrants in – those willing to purchase or open a business that will employ themselves and others, or who are willing to buy a home worth $250,000 or more. No more huddled masses, no thought that someone might come to this country because it offers the chance for a better life, but a strict calculation of “will the Home-Owners Association like them?”

I really do have to repeat a few free-floating criticisms of Libertarianism and Root before I end this. First up is the tactic of calling everything “government” – mashing together federal, state and local government. Second is the States’ Rights (and it’s always capitalized like that in the book) dodge. States’ Rights, as a capital-letter political rallying cry, has never been used to advance individual liberties, only to diminish them. To take just one example, there’s no federal law mandating an invasive and unnecessary medical procedure, or legalizing certain politically palatable kinds of malpractice. Which brings us, again, to privilege. Women and minorities are very nearly invisible in both Root’s book and the broader libertarian movement in general, and workers only show up as either no-good parasites whom the government is trying to bribe with your money or as a burdensome responsibility for the small-business-owner. In other words, there are some serious problems with the polity of the libertarian ideal.

I feel, against my better judgment, that I should say some good words about Mr. Root. He does, for example, favor electoral reforms near and dear to my heart – removing the absurd and distorting cap on the number of Representatives and implementing some form of voting that wasn’t designed for 18th century England, for starters – and he spend a chapter admonishing the Christian Right that the government cannot be its enforcer. All things considered, though, Libertarianism is a movement by and for rich white men. Really, when you have to complain that the word “rich” has become an epithet, and spend time talking about the plight of white males in America, there is something about your movement that fails to capture, shall we say, the full breadth of our republic. Libertarianism is essentially a factional rebellion – devoted, despite all its claims, to the narrow interests of one group – and until and unless it moves beyond that, it will never present a credible alternative in American politics.

Hello world!

Welcome! We’ll be getting this blog up and running as soon as possible. In the mean time, enjoy some slightly-less-structured-than-I-hope-this-blog-will-average thoughts.

I’m embarking on a project to read people who are ideologically opposite me. So, starting with Burke and working my way on to Kirk, Rand, etc. I started with (for no other reason than it was on the shelf as I was leaving) Wayne Allyn Root’s The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts. I’m about 75 pages in, so I’ll save the full review and withhold overall judgment, but there were a few things I wanted to comment on.

  1. If you claim on page xx that you took out a student loan from the government, do not claim on page xxii  that the government never did anything to help you.
  2. Similarly, if Ronald Reagan is a hero of yours, you are either not a libertarian, seriously misunderstand the meaning of libertarianism, or seriously misunderstand the Reagan era.
  3. Using domestic violence as a rhetorical trick is low, tacky, and (most importantly) trivializes domestic violence.

So, more on this, and (God willing) more authors in the coming days and weeks.

(Edit: naturally, the first post had some typos which I have now fixed.)