There's two problems as near as I can see:
1) A lot of people who claim to be libertarians aren't. If by 'libertarian' all you mean is 'dislikes bureaucratic social programs', then sure, Reynolds is a libertarian. By any other standard, he's an apologist for the administration. 'Libertarian' should be read as 'Republican who doesn't identify with the religious right.'
2) The Republican party has been very good at keeping the titles of 'conservative' and 'friendly to Libertarians' even though they're neither at this point. Most of their tight governmental control & expansion has been in the areas of [dark chords] security; and most libertarians seem to be okay with the government providing security on their playground. 'But we agree with you on pot!' doesn't have the same resonance.
A lot of people who claim to be libertarians aren't.
This is the key. It's been described here previously as libertarian vs. propertarian. If you're okay with Bush's domestic wiretapping, you aren't libertarian. You just don't like paying taxes.
The canonical definition is "Republicans on drugs".
The various third parties, to the extent that they have any reality at all, end up with the same kinds of problems that the two major parties do -- graft, factions, bossism, etc. The Libertarians had a scandal with Browne, the Reform party is a big mess, and I don't know about the Greens. Basically, good decent people, once they get into politics, act about the same as the other political grafters and crooks.
The libertarians I run into have an enormous range of opinion, from militia nativists to anarchists to survivalists to constitutional nuts to anti-tax / anti environment fanatics individual-freedom devotees. There's overlap, but there are enormous splits.
A big factor in American life is a virulent, unreasoned hatred of liberals and Democrats. If only conservtaives and Republicans felt this hatred, it would be understandable, but a lot of people who agree with Democrats on most issues feel an overpowering need to let everyone know that they are NOT Democrats. It don't understand it; it seems obsessive and blind, and often is based on stories about, e.g., Jimmy Hoffa, who's been dead for a generation and who was not even a Democrat.
I have the feeling that any libertarians who are actual libertarians and not just douchebags who think the label sounds cool probably ditched the Republican Party before the 2004 election. But I also have the feeling there are possibly way more douchebags than actual libertarians.
LB, could you educate an ignorant foreigner on the subtle distinction between a Social Democrat and a Liberal, as the term Liberal is uniquely used in America? They often seem to me to be more or less interchangeable. Can you be an American Liberal and not favour a solid social welfare system? And if you were, what would you favour?
I think the antipathy toward Libertarians from Democrats is based on the perception that, like conservatism, Libertarian positions are usually lame justifications for self-serving behavior. The distinction between real Libertarians and ones who just like the sound of the term is relevant here, too, but the latter appear to outnumber the former by such a vast amount that I think it's not all that important.
I perceive both camps as frequently advocating policies that would benefit themselves while pretending/fooling themselves into thinking that those policies would benefit everyone else, too. That doesn't sit well.
I believe that Oprah recently denied that she's a libertarian.
The real libertarians—the remainder left once the douchebags are accounted for—must be further subdivided into libertines (cf. Reason) and, uh, Libertarians (cf. Cato Institute). That's the way it works in town, anyway, and I have no problem finding common cause with the former.
The latter creep me out sometimes. A Libertarian friend, while driving home to the Midwest from the East Coast, made a point of stopping at every Walmart along the way to shop, take pictures, and enjoy several mini-vacations to Wally World.
I know what Robert Nozick wrote that he believed in the mid-1970's. I believe this makes me an expert on all things liberterian.
My libertarian friends here have given up on the Libertarian Party (and these are guys who did lots of volunteering for the LP just a few years ago) as hopelessly under the sway of flakes and cranks. They also have abandoned the "no difference between the parties" line, as they came to realize that the GOP is now the repository for authoritarian politics in the US.
They really, really don't like the big entitlement programs that Democrats often hold up as their signal achievements, but they're holding their nose and voting for them out of fear that the GOP is instituting a police state.
A big factor in American life is a virulent, unreasoned hatred of liberals and Democrats.
Something similar is the phenomenon of young women who are educated, interested in a career, into politics, etc. vehemently denying that they're feminists. The right has done a great job of making both labels evoke a highly inaccurate stereotype of the wimpy, whiney, loopy liberal or the bitter, unattractive, cockpunching feminist.
Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
I end up assuming I'm going to agree with libertarians on a wide range of issues, and on the rest having no idea where they're going to come down until I find out specifically.
I used to think this too until I dated a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. I was really put off by how socially conservative most Libertarians actually are. For example, do you see any libertarians out there championing "gay rights"? No, in fact, some of them support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as payback to those rogue state justices ignoring states' rights. Do you see any libertarians out there championing a woman's right to choose? No, because they consider the fetus the moral equivalent of a grown man. I have been disappointed, sorely disapointed with Libertarians as of late. One could argue that the major libertarian voices, such as the Cato Institute, are criticizing liberal causes to better curry the favor of the current administration. And, if I pay attention to what issues they protect, it is always the rights of some religious organization "who is getting attacked" by campus liberals.
I used to think of myself as a libertarian until I dated one who did it for a living. That changed everything . . .
5: Liberal is really vague in the US -- all it certainly means is 'not a Republican', and it doesn't even certainly mean that if you run into someone doing the "I'm a classical liberal," schtick. It (IMO) includes my basically European-social-democrat beliefs, but it wouldn't be weird to run into someone who called themself a liberal, voted generally Democratic, but was very, very leery of social programs 'because government messes up everything it gets involved in'.
I think the reason guys are pro-gay rights:
What Friedrich Hayek can teach us about gay marriage.
There are alot of libertarians on the internet, but not so many in real life. Going after the libertarian vote isn't rally how democrats will win elections.
Hey! I'm a bitter, cockpunching feminist! Is there no place for me at the Left's table?
You can sit at the Left's table, as long as I can give you a backrub (while avoiding any bruising of my immaculate cock).
You can give me a backrub as long as I can give instructions. More to the left. Up a little. Harder. Not so hard--don't make me punch your cock!
Some delurking on 5's "American Liberal" question... as I understand, it was during the New Deal that the word "liberal" was redefined. My grandfather (born 1916) once defined liberalism to me as not assuming that change is necessarily bad, as opposed to conservatism. This is, I've realized, specifically the meaning the New Deal gave to it.
So the term is closely identified with the postwar coalition (supreme from Truman to Nixon), and its willingness to use government programs to effect change. This general willingness, I think, is not a full belief in "Social Democracy," since the postwar coalition did generally stop short of that.
I suppose another difference is that American Liberalism more commonly disavows Marxist influence, favoring a "practical" outlook with terms like "saving capitalism from itself." That is political in itself, but whatever.
Herbert Hoover refused to stop calling himself "liberal" until 1945, when he bitterly said its meaning had been twisted beyond recognition.
12 gets it right.
Can you be an American Liberal and not favour a solid social welfare system? Yes. After all, Clinton and welfare reform. American liberals, broadly speaking, are more conservative than social democrats--more like the current Labour party, probably.
19. Merci encore.
Herbert Hoover refused to stop calling himself "liberal" until 1945, when he bitterly said its meaning had been twisted beyond recognition.
How sad. I'd sympathise with the old guy, except I won't.
Not so hard--don't make me punch your cock!
The old "he was asking for it" defense, huh?
One problem with answering this question is that, as discussed above, it's hard to define what we are talking about. Not surprisingly, I have quite a different view of the things that define libertarians, Republicans and Democrats. However, using my definitions (which I am not asking anyone to agree with), I would say the following:
Conceptually, I think that there is a continum of faith in the ability of the individual to order her life and arrange her relationshps with others that runs from the libertarian on one side to the social democrat/socialist on the other. The libertarian values liberty--in all of its manifestations, including property rights--both in itself and as the best way to make everyone better off. And that liberty is limited by the Government only when necessary to protect the liberty of others or when there is a consensus that collective action is really the best course (hence the reluctance to call the fire department). At the other end, is a view that collective action--the welfare state, for example, is the best way to ensure the collective well being, and that that well being is more important that the infringements on individual liberty necessary to acheive it. In the middle are Republicans, who have a much bigger (or at least less well defined) tent. One could call it a traditional Republican position to keep government as small as possible because that is most economically efficient. But there are socially conservative Republicans who support government intrusion into personal conduct--drug laws, for example--or who support government intervention into the economy--farm subsidies, for example.
Anyway, I think many people who consider themselves libertarian who support the Republicans (or who like me, might call themselves a libertarian Republican) over the Democrats because they believe that, despite the existence of big government Republicans, the Republicans are more likely to value individual liberty in all of its forms than Democrats.
As always (1) what do I know, I barely graduated from high school and never studied political science, (2) your milage may vary, (3) there are, of course, individual issues where libretarians might align more closely with Democrats, I was trying to take the high level view, and (4) no one fits the stereotype. I will not make her mad by saying that she is so conservative that she could be a Republican, but there are, for example, areas where LizardBreath is more conservative than I, and there are areas where I agree with (at least some version of) things that Democrats support. It is always that way.
Competely OT: I'm not being evicted (for now). But still have plenty to be nervous about regarding staying here; he used the words "reprieve for now."
Still, better than not; see post for more.
On topic: "And I honestly am not clear on what reasonable libertarians want outside of the civil liberties realm...."
Well, they vary wildly, of course; everyone has their own opinion. Then there's also the question of not their ideal, but how willing they are to colloborate and compromise with real-world politics, which in most cases I find to be the more important questions. Libertarianism tends to attract people to the extremes of their ideals; many are, in fact, quite reasonable, but they tend, las in any group of people, to be far less visible than the annoying wackos. But learning what any given person thinks, and is willing to live with while working to change the possibilities, is an individual matter, in my not-inconsiderable experience with libertarians over 3-plus decades.
re: 24
Excellent. I hope the reprieve continues.
One could call it a traditional Republican position to keep government as small as possible because that is most economically efficient.
I'm barely 30, so for me this subspecies of Republican you speak of is much like a unicorn or the Loch Ness Monster. People swear they exist, but I've never managed to spot one.
Joe's got a place, and Gary is holding on to his. A good day.
26 explains why a lot of #23 is wrong. Ideal came of age during FDR's response to the Depression; of course he thinks Dems are statists. But for many of us, the formative time in our Dem experience is the 90s, when Dems had a Come-To-Jeebus moment with the free market. That's not to say that we don't think govt. has its place, or that we're not more willing to give it a place than libertarians would like, but we're much more cautious about it than we are reputed to be, I think.
came of age during FDR's response to the Depression
Damn, SCMT. That's harsh. I'm old, but I was not raised in the Depression.
Republicans are more likely to value individual liberty in all of its forms than Democrats.
My beef with both parties on this is the selectiveness with which they show this dedication to liberty. Well, in light of the last 5 years I don't have a clue as to what the Republicans actually stand for anymore on this score.
The Democrats disappoint for other reasons. The way the 2nd Amendment gets treated as something to largely be ignored drives me insane, but at least some of them appear genuinely pissed off by Bushco's complete disregard for the Bill of Rights and separation of powers.
Conceptually, I think that there is a continum of faith in the ability of the individual to order her life and arrange her relationshps with others that runs from the libertarian on one side to the social democrat/socialist on the other. The libertarian values liberty--in all of its manifestations, including property rights--both in itself and as the best way to make everyone better off.
I'd point out that this scale implicitly assumes that the only important issues are economic -- assuming that a social democrat is at the far end of the scale from a libertarian dismisses all the civil liberties issues on which they may be aligned. Furthermore, constructing the disagreement as 'liberty... including property rights' seems to say that the problem with social democracy is funding it -- that taxation is an interference with property rights. Once that's the problem, why should social-democratic spending be more offensive than the more Republican 'simply raking borrowed money into large piles and setting it on fire' approach? I don't see a reason for libertarians to favor one party over the other on those grounds if there isn't a real demonstrable difference in the amount of spending the parties engage in. Given that there isn't, this doesn't seem like much of an argument.
"...and Gary is holding on to his."
Well, insofar as the landlord doesn't again whimsically get annoyed before the end of the month, and insofar then it would only be for another month, for now, and insofar as he still told me to look for another place, and made no other committments, yeah. It's not exactly enough to get me un-nervous, to put it mildly, I'm afraid.
Not that I'm not glad; it's just that I'm starting to realize just how insecure and nervous this makes me feel for the indefinite future, drat it. More psychic anxiety! Just what I need!)
But, thanks, of course, to all.
29, 30: yeah, I wasn't thinking Idealist was in his eighties, either, but, y'know, you've gotta forgive these kids; anything pre-Bush-the-Elder is The Dark Times.
But don't worry, Idealist; you can borrow my cane when I'm not using it.
I, myself, associate Republicanism with Calvin Coolidge, whom I grew up under....
Gary, you need a lease! (not that you don't already know that). This business of evicting you for making some relatively legitimate complaints to someone not the landlord is seriously fucking absurd.
It sucks about the housing shortage; you have no bargaining power because there's no fear of losing you, since he could probably find someone else to occupy the place in a heartbeat. So sucky.
Private property creates and empowers the State. Property is theft of everyone else's freedom, as in the freedom to walk across your field. It defines humans by what they have, rather than what they do or what they are. It makes all interpersonal relations property and market relations, and is logically precedent to gender relations. Etc.
Communism is the only libertarianism.
Signed, vulgar Marxist and damned proud of it. (Gotta read that damned turn of the century anarcho-syndicalist shit etc.)
32: Once that's the problem, why should social-democratic spending be more offensive than the more Republican 'simply raking borrowed money into large piles and setting it on fire' approach?
One answer is that the people on the more individualist end of the spectrum will distrust social engineering projects in general, and the social-democratic programs are closer to social engineering than the Republican programs. Or so one might think. And the libertarian here will usually claim that social democratic spending is ineffective (hence individual liberty as "the best way to make everyone better off"). Hayek has a lot to say about this -- he argues that governmental control of the economy leads to control of everything and is inefficient anyway.
That's not to say that we don't think govt. has its place, or that we're not more willing to give it a place than libertarians would like, but we're much more cautious about it than we are reputed to be, I think.
And for me, and I suspect quite a lot of Dems, advocation of certain govt. programs has more to do with pragmatism than a devout belief that govt. is inherently better than the market. Free markets have their benefits, but it's hard to look at say, health care in the U.S. vs. France or Sweden and not think "Fuck, they're getting a lot more bang for the buck than we are."
And for me, and I suspect quite a lot of Dems, advocation of certain govt. programs has more to do with pragmatism than a devout belief that govt. is inherently better than the market.
Yeah. Where markets work, they're great. They just aren't always and everywhere the most efficient way to get anything done.
"Gary, you need a lease! (not that you don't already know that)."
Indeed. Although in Colorado, even a lease gives extremely minimal protection. The laws here simply give tenants very few rights. (And having lived in quite a few apartments and houses and living situations over several decades, I'm pretty familiar with tenant laws in several states; NY and MA are excellent; WA pretty good; although I've not lived in CA, also not bad; plus, of course, there are city laws in many places that are even better; CO: stinks.)
For instance, he could announce that I'm not keeping the apt in "good, clean, and sanitary condition and appearance" and then terminate the lease on that basis; could I get a judge to reverse that? I don't know, but I'd have to go to court to find out.
Or he could announce that I'm in default because I'm noisy (I'm not); again, I'd have to prove otherwise in court.
Oh, and the lease also grants him a lien on all my possessions. Etc., etc. The lease is an amazing document; I was appalled at the idea of signing it, when I read it, but having researched Colorado tenant law, it's all perfectly legal. (I also have to pay all his court costs if I lose; if I move out without proper notice (which without a lease is 30 days after the end of the month; with a lease, it's not without his permission), he gets all sorts of extra charges from me; etc., etc.)
Speaking of a libertarian-inclined state.
So, yeah, a lease would be a small comfort, but only a small comfort. It's just too easy for him to screw me anyway. Hurrah for the rights of landlords to screw tenants! (And, yeah, the libertarian response is that my rent would be much higher and unaffordable if it were otherwise.)
I'd be better off, for a number of reasons, in another state, but I blogged about why that's problematic. (And I have to say that otherwise, if I can stay in a place near a supermarket and bus lines and downtown, Boulder is a quite nice place to live, aside from an excess of drunken students and being somewhat too People's Republic even for me, though that last only makes me laugh.)
"Boulder is a quite nice place to live, aside from...."
Oh, and limited work opportunities, though that's mostly a product of a) my health keeping me from being able to do much work at present; and b) my completely fucked up work-history/resume, and not to mention being a college drop-out.
Sorry: back to libertarianism. 38 is exactly right. 'Cept that it's also not just a matter of efficiency; markets simply aren't purposed to accomplish certain goods (say, helping you have a loving family life; basically, anything that doesn't have monetary profit as a goal or intrinsic part of the equation).
But markets are excellent for a wide variety of endeavors, absolutely. Like most things, they're a good; just not an umitigated good or the only good. Just like freedom is a crucial value, but not, in my book, the only crucial value.
Markets, when functioning properly, are efficient. They are also, as actors, dumb (in the same sense that computers are dumb) and amoral. Which is why we need government.
Markets, when functioning properly, are efficient.
Of course, many markets are perverse and do not operate the way your Econ 101 textbook says. Healthcare seems to be one of these.
But there are socially conservative Republicans who support government intrusion into personal conduct--drug laws, for example--or who support government intervention into the economy--farm subsidies, for example.
Yes, there are a few of those out there.They're know as the leadership of the Republican Party.
. . . they believe that, despite the existence of big government Republicans, the Republicans are more likely to value individual liberty in all of its forms than Democrats.
What color is the sky on the world the people who believe this are living on?
the Republicans are more likely to value individual liberty in all of its forms
This might have been true before they got in bed with the social conservatives, but it couldn't be further from the truth today. The Clinton administration was basically composed of Rockefeller Republicans.
I think that, for a liberatarian to be reasonable, they must either hold or coherently disagree with the position that property rights are not natural at all, but actually only a particular form of social contract, and can vary considerably. Further, that as far as enforcing property rights involves taking away others' freedoms (where, if there were no property rights, the person would be free to do something,) the people whose freedoms are curtailed by the enforcement deserve consideration for their loss.
I credit Richard Chappell for these ideas. See this and this. Also see the discussion at Obsidian Wings.
Thanks for the link to that Chappell article (which I note happily, was written on my birthday) -- I am really digging the idea of banknotes as little colored tickets specifying their holders' rights.
Also, another post by hilzoy (the third in the series), but without the lengthy discussion.
Ezra Klein discovers John Holbo's old David Frum evisceration. Holbo, in his paragraph, re-affirms the point I made above with apparently too much brevity or naughty words. Property rights and market economics are inextricably connected to social conservatism. This is why Libs are instinctively allied with Republicans, they sense the connection. They are usually in denial, pretending the causal connection isn't there. OTOH, it was no accident that Marx and Goldman and the New Left were into sexual & gender liberation.
If you read the hilzoy comments threads, besides my usual self-embarrassments, you will see conservatives and self-described libertarians like Holsclaw IIRC desperately trying to save property as a natural or transcendant right rather than a social construct. This is because all the other social constructs, like religion and mores, fall with the first. All the restrictions on personal liberty like drugs dietary restrictions abortion guns are considered the right and privileges of a society and gov't that was originally formed to enforce the division of exchangable communal assets. The society that says you "own" that land can also say you don't "own" your body. You gave it that right and power.
Only when nobody owns anything can I not own you.
Now certainly full communism doesn't fall into the realm of practical politics. I have no idea of what ir would look like or how it would work. So based om empirical evidence and theory, the likely most liberty enhancing progressive policy involves limiting personal wealth and maximising communal property. In other words raise taxes as high as you can get them, and raise them some more. The people are free to decide how it will be spent. I worry less about the welfare state and safety net. once the money is in a pool, we will likely use Rawls to distribute it.
Watched "Umbrellas of Cherbourg" again the other night. One little thing I found interesting was the soldier came back from Algeria with a lifetime pension, just enough to feed and house himself. He didn't look injured, I think all soldiers got one. If the pool gets used for military spending, that is not necessarily bad.
Read the Holbo paragraph again, or the whole thing, and think about Norquist and DeLay etc. Low taxes (and high debt and ill distribution) are a means not toward economic liberty but towards social conservatism. Most "Libertarians" dream of having a little or big business of their very own where they be all paternal, rewarding the good bees and punishing the bad bees. No libertarian thinks he will be the factory drudge or stuck twelve hours behind the plow. He'll be the owner!
It is about power relations, paternalism, status. Freedom to, rather than freedom from. Freedom to be the slave master.
My father claims to be a libertarian. He also thinks the US should adopt a health care system like the nice one Canada has, and served on our local planning commission for six years or so. He denies that there's any contradiction there.
In the late eighties and early nineties, the New Statesman ran a column by the great British anarchist Colin Ward. He didn't believe in the state any more than libertarians do, although he certainly believed in society. He often found himself defending the particular programs of the welfare state, against his long-term principle, because of the dependence people had on them and what the damage of their removal would be.
38: Yeah. Where markets work, they're great. They just aren't always and everywhere the most efficient way to get anything done.
This points to a subject that is astonishingly little addressed in the national discourse: What sorts of things are markets good at, and what sorts are better handled by government?
Health care has been mentioned, and I think it's an example of a type: markets aren't good where consumers can't make informed choices. When I was young and foolish I tried to shop for health insurance by reading and comparing policies. It was impossible, because the policies are usually unavailable and always incomprehensible. Recently I had the pleasure of participating in selecting a provider of emergency medical care - and being woken at 6am by a partner rolling around on the floor moaning in agony is not conducive to intelligent consumer decisions (she's okay, but there's a bit of a dispute about a bill).
Consumers can't make informed choices where the information is unavailable (e.g. drugs and supplements, where there is no research); where the information is, as a practical matter, incomprehensible (e.g. product safety - given worlds enough and time some people probably could make sense of automotive design, but no one would); where the information is concealed (e.g. whether this meat was packaged under sanitary conditions).
Another area markets don't work is what used to be called natural monopolies. For example, we might all agree that cholera is bad and that everyone should be forced to have a safe septic system. In urban areas this means connecting to the sewer. There's really no point to having five different sewer companies, each with their own sewer down every street. Having a single regulated monopoly is much more efficient.
The second half of the statement "One could call it a traditional Republican position to keep government as small as possible because that is most economically efficient." strikes me as untrue. In some areas - sewers, infectious disease control - the government is likely to be far more efficient.
But instead of a rational approach to deciding which areas to leave to a market, we seem to have factions simply affirming their faith in governments or in markets. I don't understand this. As LB said, I'm all for markets where they work well. It seems equally obviously good to favor government in those areas where markets don't work and government does. So why is it framed as a binary opposition, faith in government vs faith in markets?
The new platform of Libertarian Party (http://www.reason.com/links/links070706.shtml):
"... this new, short platform is certainly not a mealy-mouthed, weak-tea document in hardcore libertarian terms. The current platform still commits the LP to ending all victimless crime and drug laws; any laws against porn or commercial speech; an end to the Federal Communications Commission; an end to all property taxes and all government property ownership not explicitly allowed by the Constitution; an end to all immigration quotas and laws punishing employees for hiring illegal immigrants, and an insistence that the government require only "appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security" standards for allowing people in; that "marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed." Finally the new platform demands an end to antitrust and all corporate welfare.
While technically no planks related to foreign policy remain, the preamble to the section that would have contained them still says, "The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration."
For example, we might all agree that cholera is bad and that everyone should be forced to have a safe septic system.
Good Jesus, yes. I spent a summer reading primary documents from the first cholera outbreak in Europe (1832), and it has had a permament effect on my ideas about government.
faith in the ability of the individual to order her life and arrange her relationshps with others
I would reframe this, not as "faith in the ability" but as "belief in the primacy of rational action." (Michael Schneider's "informed choices"). I think the primary difference between libertarians and liberals on this is the same as that between conservatives and liberals, and this is why libertarians tend to be more welcomed by conservatives: conservatives and libertarians, it seems to me, emphasize the importance of choice and de-emphasize the power of the social context to limit or affect people's choices, while liberals believe in choice but pay a great deal of attention to the ways that factors outside one's control can define or limit choices. This gets translated, I think, into "small government" and "big government" (by conservatives and libertarians) because those things are easier to say and understand. But in fact, I don't think that either liberals or conservatives have a lock on the size of government thing. I think the main difference is that liberals see one of the functions of government as addressing the social factors that affect individual choice (which can be done through both "bigger government" social programs as well as through "smaller government" withdrawal of legal protections and economic subsidies).
57: That's really interesting to me, because my moral philosophy prevents me from seeing either position (and they are primarily moral positions) as being coherent. As such, I don't always really fit in with liberals.
On the other hand, I do tend to sympathize much more with liberals, because I happen to think that, apart from any concern with assigning merit or blame to individuals or society for people's woes, the kind of things that liberals advocate for (universal healthcare, safety nets, workers rights) are the kinds of things that will make society better for everyone, even rich people. Social policy based on a worldview with a heavy emphasis on personal responsibility and whatnot just seems to be self-defeating, to fail even on its own terms.
... liberals see one of the functions of government as addressing the social factors that affect individual choice ...
Mebbe I'm no liberal, but I'd go another step: government should (sometimes) address the economic factors that affect individual choice.
The platform described by AA in 55 says that libertarians would put "an end to antitrust." Monopolies, and antitrust, are an economic area affecting choice which cries for government intervention.
Imagine we require everyone to be hooked to a safe sewer system (to prevent cholera) but then allow a single unregulated monopoly sewer operator to set rates and conditions of service. I can see that working out really well for the sewer company owners, but not so much for everyone else.
Maybe it's something about 'belief in the primacy of rational individual action.' That is, as a liberal I tend to focus on the ways that cooperative action by a group, working through a governmental structure, can be most efficient. Both conservatives and libertarians (I'm speculating) focus more on the ways that unfettered individual action can be most efficient.
It seems to me that both are right - sometimes government action is best, sometimes individual. The trick is figuring out which case is which. But to say that our respect for individuals' free choice requires us to live with a single private unregulated monopoly sewer system - somehow I don't get the logic.
To go further: While I have a hard time sympathizing with people who make poor decisions and don't manage to pull themselves out of poverty, I have an ever harder time blaming them. I don't blame them, and I don't feel sorry for them. I don't feel they deserve to be helped out, and I don't feel that helping them out would be a bad thing. Instead, I approach the question from a different angle entirely: how does the policy affect society as a whole? Now, there are different criteria you can use to judge social policies, obviously. A lot of them have to do with various methods of aggregating interpersonal utility. I don't know which one to prefer, but I do know that that's the approach we should take. I guess that makes me a reasonable libertarian.
I'd go another step: government should (sometimes) address the economic factors that affect individual choice.
Oh, I didn't mean to exclude economic factors when I said "social factors." I basically meant, "those things that exceed the power of the individual, being social constructs." Surely many such things fall into the realm of economics.
I count on the government to protect me from corporations. Eliminating antitrust and deregulating industry is one of the biggest reasons I don't trust libertarianism or Republicanism.
I wish there is a word for someone who believes that:
1. the community should establish a super-strong social safety net (via big government a la Sweden)
2. government should watch that rich people don't rip us off too much (tough anti-trust action, tax the rich mightily)
3. everyone should get a fair shot at getting rich (spend the same amount of money per school kid, make it easy to start a business or declare bankruptcy)
4. it should be difficult to start a war (you can only start one if you get a two-thirds majority in a national referendum)
I like to think of myself as a classic liberal, but I don't know if these 4 points are covered by it.
I'd like to add:
5. Corporations should be owned by their employees, not shareholders
Democratic socialist?
I likes.
OneFatEnglishman, bless your Celtic heart.
48: I haven't read the Dead Right series for a couple of months (though I have read it twice), but wasn't the point that Frum's belief system is an incoherent mess? Given that, and that its Frum who Holbo is saying thinks, "Property rights and market economics are inextricably connected to social conservatism," why would you take that paragraph as supporting thw truth of that point, as opposed to supporting the truth that a somewhat nutty guy (David Frum) believes that point.
65: Can employees sell those shares to non-employees, or are they a non-alienable right to some percentage of the companies profits? If non-alienable, can loans be collateralized with the projected revenue stream from the shares? Are people who currently invest their money in equity going to be limited to buying debt, and are companies similarly going to be limited to financing themselves by selling debt rather than equity? I can imagine it being good idea, pending some economic argument for why it would be a bad idea, to create tax incentives towards, say an initial distribution of any newly created shares so that 50.1% go to employees, and they're distributed among employees in some fairly equitable way, is that what you're asking for, or a more robust requirement?
"Democratic Socialist" is what my father, following his hero, Michael Harrington, called himself. Harrington died in the early nineties. I remember he was prominent enough to attract some press coverage to his views during the '88 Democratic Convention.
67: shouldn't that be OFE's Anglo-Saxon heart? (and whatever happened to those Jutes, anyway?)
I think that OneFatEnglishman should change his ame to OneBroadEnglishman, and then we could call him OBE for short.
Washerdryer, 68:
"Can employees sell those shares to non-employees?"
No.
"Are they a non-alienable right to some percentage of the companies profits?"
Absolutely.
"If non-alienable, can loans be collateralized with the projected revenue stream from the shares?"
Why not.
"... 50.1% go to employees, and they're distributed among employees in some fairly equitable way -- is that what you're asking for, or a more robust requirement?"
That's all I'm asking for (unless you have some interesting more robust idea, which I'd love to hear).
You can still raise money on the stock market, but the majority share-holding should remain in employee hands, in a tiered manner (a) after 5 years work, you get a bigger share-holding, and (b) when you get to some kind of "partner" big-responsibility level, you get an extra whack of shares.
I believe that if you live in a democracy, you should also be able to live in a democratic corporation, where there's a vote every four years for who should be CEO, so the CEO's prime responsibility is to the employees - if he fucks up in the employees' eyes, they vote for someone else with a better plan.
In my democratic business world, a business that employs under 100 people can be a dictatorship -- so the people who had the balls to start the business, get enough of a chance to make all the money they can from it.
But as soon as the company employs more than a 100 people, it must become a democracy. Of course, that would encourage many under-a-100 dictatorships, but no matter. I think it's OK for a dictator to be able to fuck over a maximum of a 100 people, but not more than a 100 people.
OAF is nice, but I think I'll pass. I've no ambition for an OBE. My favourite uncle had one, and it never did him any good that I could see (he was also a Kentucky Colonel for some unfathomable reason - I gather it's the same sort of thing).
Adam, I'd hate to have the job of specifying the system that allocated employee shares on that basis.
70:
Celts, Picts, Jutes, Black Irish, and then there are the Welsh -- who are they? and why do they have such a weird language? with words longer than the cock of a sperm whale?
The Welsh are Celts - Brythonic Celts, descended from the Ancient Britons, like the Cornish and the Bretons. The Irish, and their Scottish and Manx offshoots are Goidelic Celts. The two branches speak related but distinct languages.
I think politics would be more fun if we re-introduced the concept of weregeld.
71: OBese Englishman would work better.
I spent my weregeld drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's. My hair was perfect.
68:Pulled it out of my ass
"The point [capitalism] is to induce a society-wide conformist crouch. Period. A solid foundaton is hereby laid for a desirable social order. " ...Holbo, not Frum, is saying this, though the "desirable" is likely ironic
81: He's attributing those views to Frum, though. The whole thing is a reductio.
I appreciate the answers, and there's certainly something to them. But you dropped my part about tax incentives (I'd also be willing to do it via a direct subsidy, if one day the U.S. had a much simpler tax system and this was adding needless complexity) as compared to direct prohibition plus punishment. So, I'm going to put together a really long overly complex hypothetical to draw out (some of)the implications of putting your policy into effect.
On day zero, Jim starts his own business selling widgets. He, of course, owns 100% of the shares in Widgets"?"Us. This company is amazingly successful, and grows at a rate of one employee per day, each of whom receives a salary and benefit package at the high range for their line of work. On day 100 (or 101, does Jim go towards the count?), Widgets"?"Us has 101 employees. Jim continues to hold 100% of the stock. Can the employees now sue him to have him divest himself of 50.1% of the shares? Do they have to provide any (new) compensation for this (they may have been previously compensating him by working for him without owning any of the company)? If they, despite being aware of their right to 50.1% of the company, choose not to sue, what happens? Does the Federal Trade Commission, or a similar agency, sanction the company? So the company is still growing at the same constant rate, and on day 200 Jim, who hasn't been sued by the (now 200 + Jim) employees and may have paid some sanction, decides that he's done with Widgets"?"Us. So he, without asking anyone else, purports to have an initial public offering of 100% of the ownership, divided into 100,000 shares, for sale at $20 a share. I'm sure the SEC refuses to register these shares, but that would only mean that he can't sell to individuals, certain institutional investors could still buy the shares. Can the firms that normally underwrite IPO's legally underwrite this sale? If different institutional investors purport to buy the shares by exchanging money for them, what happens? One thing I could imagine is that this illegal sale isn't enforceable, if Jim receives the money first he can refuse to distribute the shares, and if the investors receive their shares first they can refuse to pay. Or it could be that the SEC will just not approve the sales. Anyway, this is, as I said, a needlessly complicated way of asking what kind of legal framework you want around the ownership of medium-to-large businesses.
70: I gather that Black Irish is just that colouring that gives really dark hair with pale skin. It's not really considered unusual enough here in Ireland for us to have a name for it, lots of people are pale.
Oddly enough in the Irish language a black man is referred to as fear gorm, lit. a blue man.
"On day 100, Widgets"?"Us has 101 employees. Jim continues to hold 100% of the stock. Can the employees now sue him to have him divest himself of 50.1% of the shares?"
The employees don't have to sue Jim. He is legally obliged to issue a 100 shares, one each to each employee, amount to 51% of shares in the company.
He is also legally obliged to give away a further 5% of his 49% holding every year until he has 9% left, which he can keep till he dies if he wants to.
"So the company is still growing at the same constant rate, and on day 200 Jim, who hasn't been sued by the (now 200 + Jim) employees and may have paid some sanction, decides that he's done with Widgets"?"Us. So he, without asking anyone else, purports to have an initial public offering of 100% of the ownership, divided into 100,000 shares, for sale at $20 a share."
He can only offer an IPO of his 49% holding or part thereof, whenever he feels like it.
"Can the firms that normally underwrite IPO's legally underwrite this sale?"
Sure.
"If different institutional investors purport to buy the shares by exchanging money for them, what happens?"
The money goes to Jim. The IPO comes out of his share of the company. No matter how many shares he sells, and how much money he makes, he can never sell more than 49% of the company, and less if he waits a few years, because every year he has to give away another 5% to the employees. After 8 years, he has 9% and they could have 91%, if he didn't have an IPO before that.
The owner can cash in, but the employees can't -- they keep their 51% so they're always in control, and able to vote for a new CEO every four years. Maybe there should be a two-term limit for CEOs as well as Presidents.