4 Responses to “An Elegantly Simple Explanation….”

1. 1 jim
   10/27/2005 at 9:19 pm

   Brilliant quote:

   . . . we may learn more about what people value by examining the rules they support than by studying their individual choices.

   We need a Libertarian contributor to the WB. I’m always so fricken curious to hear the triangulating argument to some of our posts.

2. 2 kent
   10/27/2005 at 11:31 pm

   Au contraire (using French only because it pisses off the Red state types) - I think we have several Libertarian contributors, certainly on social issues. And I definitely have Libertarian leanings on some - but admittedly not all - economic issues (international trade, par example). I would surely have much more affinity for the current ruling cabal if they were indeed truly Libertarian, as opposed to being shills for special interests.
   In my as-yet-incomplete and unpublished essay “The Common Sense Manifesto,” much of what I call (probably not originally) the Politics of Pragmatism (the only political philosophy that has consistent popular support in this country) has a strong Libertarian influence.

3. 3 jim
   10/28/2005 at 12:27 pm

   Then please explain how any regulatory process can be contained under the umbrella of libertarianism if we accept that Libertarianism holds:

   that a person’s freedom to dispose of his body and private property as he sees fit should be unlimited as long as that person does not initiate coercion on others.

   (from wikipedia)

   I understand the Republican aversion to any regulatory process that impedes the ability of a Company to make money (regardless of social/environmental/economic impact) since today’s Republican seems to be based largely around the notion of greed. The inherent contradiction in the current administration’s urging constitutional changes, laws or promulgated regulations that are restrictive of personal liberties is simply a manifestation of the current leadership’s incoherent thought process and pandering to fear and religion. I wouldn’t count these urgings as accurately representative of the Republican platform (since Bush is hardly a Republican). I would certainly accept that repealing regulations to protect the environment in order to increase Corporate profit would certainly seem representative of the Republican platform. The question remains then if the “pure” platforms play out as follows:

   Dems: increased regulatory oversight to protect environment, social fabric, health, jobs, etc, with social fabric taking precedence over profit.

   Reps: resistance to regulatory oversight that restricts profit regardless of impact on environment, social fabric, etc.

   Libs: Should, theoretically be against the entire regulatory process regardless of whether said regulations are pro- or anti- business/social/environmental

   no?

4. 4 kent
   10/28/2005 at 7:28 pm

   First of all, I consider Dubbya to be the prototypical Republican; who would you suggest - Tom DeLay?
   As to the “pure platforms,” I’m more or less OK with the capsule on Dems; I have the feeling that it’s incomplete, but will need to think on it more in terms of what’s missing.
   The one on the Reps has to be expanded to include at least a mention of social repression. There’s definitely more to them than greed, although I understand why it’s hard to notice. (And there’s NASCAR, of course)
   As to the Libs, maybe the platform you mention is unrealistically “pure.” They seem to have accommodated to traffic lights, for instance (although they probably have some objection to a 55 mph speed limit). I like to think of them in terms of what Justice Brandeis wrote: “They [the makers of the Constitution] conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Had he written it today, he would no doubt have added “…and women.”
   I guess I would characterize Libertarianism as a belief in the least government possible, consistent with government’s responsibility to provide its citizens with the liberty and security to pursue opportunities for their personal development and that of society. Something like “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” My view would better distinguish them from anarchists.
   A Libertarian’s environmentalism, for example, might be covered by the ‘coercion’ phrase in the Wiki definition. (I’m still wrestling with Wiki’s mention of me disposing of my body).
   My Political Pragmatists on the other hand - two-thirds of American citizens, btw - believe in the least government possible consistent with government’s responsibility to provide its citizens with those services most of its citizens want from their government, and are willing to pay for.