Comments on: Libertarian Ideal Theory as Silent Complicity

By: » Chris Preble and “The Power Problem” | FR33 Agents

» Chris Preble and “The Power Problem” | FR33 Agents — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:34:49 +0000

[...] As is nearly always the case with libertarian-themed policy proposals, after laying down plenty of fantastic arguments defending the book’s central thesis, the question remains: how do we get there from here? That question is generally the major shortcoming of libertarian analysis, as we are often guilty of ignoring political reality in favor of ideal theory (as Wilkinson points out, this tendency sometimes has real-life negative implications). [...]

By: Elunix

Elunix — Mon, 11 May 2009 19:35:27 +0000

If I am comprehending this correctly, the author is asserting certain Libertarian minded individuals, who see the state interventionism in the marriage business a direct contradiction to their social and political belief but do not engage in the battle against this affront, possess such reasoning because they disagree with the issue while it's being openly and wrongfully implemented by the government?

X troubles me,
I don't believe in X,
Since X is being implemented by a source which I disagree with its very existence,
Therefore, I do not see fit to meddle!!

That's such a run-around, convoluted argument. What is the point of this post anyway? Is this somehow an attempt to take a jab at obscurity? Honestly, what is the point of this entry? It doesn't make much sense at all.

By: Elunix

Elunix — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:35:27 +0000

By: If only libertarians had cards, so they could be taken away « Entitled to an Opinion

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:40:02 +0000

[...] April 21, 2009 If only libertarians had cards, so they could be taken away Posted by teageegeepea under Uncategorized No Comments Justin Raimondo puts it better than I could. It might be the case that the bigots are facing entirely private ostracism & punishment (fully consistent with freedom of association), but Kip Esquire’s logic is simply ridiculous. Do we lose rights through hypocrisy? No free speech for Nazis & commies (or even fairness-doctrine liberals, anti-obscenity conservatives and campaign finance restricting Broderists) then! Considering how rampant hypocrisy is, Esquire’s ideal would result would probably result in less freedom than currently found in any first-world liberal state. Why does he even bother calling himself a libertarian (at least a lot of pot-smoking pro-war Republicans only call themselves libertarian-leaning) when he supports flagrant violations of negative rights on the basis that “we aren’t debating the creation of Libertopia”? In an earlier Will Wilkinson post I explained why it is perfectly sensible for a libertarian to oppose equality under the law (when the law itself is unlibertarian and is going to be extended). Libertarianism is about liberty, not signalling a socially acceptable form of classist racism, less … [...]

By: SRdV

SRdV — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:32:43 +0000

Murali, every American group I know of supports equality before the law and respect for individual rights.

The differences come when asking what it means to be equal before the law and what counts as an individual right.

Also, of course you care about being taxed. It impacts you directly. Now, if you're a Canadian and working in Canada you might say that you don't care what the particular social security tax rate is in the US.

By: Libertarian

Libertarian — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:37:10 +0000

Will,
I don't understand your argument here at all! Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I'm an atheist (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). That does NOT mean that I have no opinion when a religious fanatic avenges god by murdering someone in the name of his religion. Similarly, as a libertarian, just because I don't believe in the State (or that I believe in a microscopic one) doesn't mean that I have no opinion when an existing state uses force against my fellow citizens, whether it's to keep different races from marrying or to keep peacful people from lighting up a joint.

By: Van

Van — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 05:16:18 +0000

Just how stupid do you think we (libertarians) are? 99% of the arguments I hear against it are complete straw men, and this is no exception.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:05:28 +0000

Watch out, Will. That's some powerful acid you're working with there.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:27:07 +0000

Wait, Will, you have a post about how libertarians can't use the fact that they're against the whole status quo marriage system on grounds of justice to dodge or ignore questions about minor changes in the current system to address claimed unfairness, but then you immediately defend dodging and ignoring questions about claimed unfairness in the current social insurance system by pointing out that you've argued against the entire status quo system?

Of course I knew that you'd argued against the system. That was my point. Someone arguing against the entire system is a justification for you to avoid addressing particular injustices and complaints that you don't want to think about in one case, but a unacceptable dodge for others to do in another case.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:19:50 +0000

Yes, I do know that. But given that that's not going to happen, and that the status quo is such, why be so vehement against the pro-natalist policies? Especially when they are arguably correcting "an obvious injustice within the actual imperfect system?"

I don't see what's so different about your argument that since you've argued "against the status quo social insurance system and defended personal retirement accounts at length," you feel free to analyze pro-natalist payments only in comparison to your "ideological image of perfect justice," and ignore or excuse the actual injustice under the current system against those who have kids subsidizing those who do not, and the position you criticize in the post. How is that different from someone who would claim that since he's "argued against the status quo marriage system and defended private marriage at length," he should therefore be free in resisting the extension of government marriage to additional types of relationships, arguing that it's part of a government attempt to regulate what should be free human relationships? "At the heart of any [state sanction of marriage] lies an attempt to encourage a particular group of [people] to orient their [relationships] in a traditional way," no? After all, there exist pro-gay critiques of gay marriage for exactly this reason.

My criticism is that you have a tendency to make sweeping statements on your blog that seem to me to be either contradictory of earlier sweeping claims, or simply obtuse and unpersuasive. In the latter category is your reply to Jonah Goldberg on the drug war-- without some evidence of a policy belief that you hold that you would not hold were in not for disparate impact on account of race, I must agree with Jonah's position that while "as an argument... the disproportionate affect on blacks works just fine," but that "it seems a bit off" coming from a libertarian. It seems a bit off for the same reason that similar invocations in the case of, e.g., school vouchers, coming from libertarians or conservatives do. You get the feeling that people are simply using the argument at hand for a policy that they would agree with regardless.

Without a case where disparate impact is either necessary or sufficient in one's policy preferences, invoking it does not seem credible, and it seems independent of one's philosophy. It's not enough, either, to claim that, magically, while immediate interventions either of redistribution or affirmative action or anything might make things better off for blacks in the short-run, libertarian policies are always better off in the long-run so there's no contradiction. It still ends up sounding like one comes to a certain conclusion completely independently of disparate impact, and then mentions disparate impact where useful and ignores it where not, never letting it actually affect one's position.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:50:38 +0000

I really don't understand your motivation on this issue, John. What's the deal? You do know that I've argued against the status quo social insurance system and defended personal retirement accounts at length on grounds of justice, don't you?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3940

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 05:44:04 +0000

"One cannot use an ideological image of perfect justice to excuse or ignore an obvious injustice within the actual imperfect system."

Indeed. Which is why the obvious injustice of people who give birth to additional kids subsidizing those who do not have kids (via social insurance schemes) makes me not be exercised by natalist proposals to compensate the parents. Given that we have an imperfect social insurance scheme that imposes such costs and causes humans to alter the choices that they would make absent such a scheme, (and surely, if one thinks that a pro-natalist scheme would be effective on the margins, then one must also think that the disincentives towards having children offered by a social insurance scheme would be effective on the margins) surely the policies are not all that unreasonable.

Granted, in a perfect world where social insurance schemes did not penalize parents and cause them to subsidize the childless, I would oppose pro-natalist schemes. But given that we do have the obviously imperfect system that does create an injustice, I don't think that you and Kerry are justified in excusing it such.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:10:42 +0000

Will,

1) Most of the libertarians that, e.g., accept the reality of government regulation of business and then argue within that framework for a preferred regulation, by and large argue for the least amount of government intervention. In the case of marriage, I think that the case of libertarians arguing for neutrality is fairly clear-cut. Much harder cases, to me, appear with cases of things like hate crimes or federal research funding.

If a libertarian someone disagrees with hate crimes in general for various principled reasons, once accepting the framework, must they fight to have sexual orientation also among the aggravating factors considered, or is it permissible to fight to limit the types of aggravating factors in all ways? If a libertarian accepts the principle of generous federal funding of research, must she (a la Ron Bailey) insist that federal funding be directed to all projects as judged by some independent bureaucracy of the best and brightest, regardless of any objections by large percentages of people taxed?

2) I'm having a hard time distinguishing these claims and similar ones imploring people to vote for the lesser of two evils that might win (instead of abstaining or voting for a no-hoper), while of course clearly stating one's objections and expected disappointments from the flawed candidate one ultimately votes for.

By: Paul G. Brown

Paul G. Brown — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:30:22 +0000

Murali –

It's an oldie, but a goodie. Can I recommend Voltaire's Candide to you? The specter of Dr. Pangloss looms over this discussion.

By: Murali

Murali — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:21:08 +0000

Paul, I'm aiming at something closer to your latter statement. For example, it is not obvious that most of us are illegitimately coerced when we are taxed. Though not so strongly stated. Obviously, governments, democratically elected or otherwise can do wrong, even egregious wrongs. The question is when do we know this is happening? The way I see it, rights are like the invisible hand of the market. i.e. they arise from the individual dealings that occur between rational actors in the state of nature. What makes it the case that people have rights to some things and not to others? What determines the contents of rights? My view is that there some sort of common consent is implicated. The question is what type? Ive actually got a paper due on the 20th of April discussing this particular question.