Most of the debate between different political ideologies (as opposed to “our guy is better than your guy” debates) occurs between liberals and libertarians. The ideological debates that pit conservatives versus liberals or libertarians come in a weak second.
Why is it that the fiercest debates occur between liberals and libertarians? It is not out of any leanings towards conservatives that these debates occur. Conservatives allege they share economics with libertarians but a closer examination proves otherwise. Conservatives are quick to steal libertarian rhetoric but fail to follow through on it. The real reason there is so little debate is because there is so little to conservatism. Mercantilism isn’t a school of economics as much as it is a way for people to use the government to line their own pockets and the rest of what is commonly called “conservatism” is a morality platform based loosely on religious concepts. That is why Jerry Pournelle listed conservatism as irrationalist, while he listed both liberalism and libertarianism as rationalist.
Liberalism and libertarianism spring from the same root, classical liberalism. One side emphasizes liberty, and the other equality. Both see the other as essentially missing the point, which is somewhat ironic given that essentially the two are trying to achieve the same thing but by entirely different methods. The programs suggested, the laws sponsored, are opposed to each other to achieve what is ultimately the same goal. Liberals and libertarians both have their root in the enlightenment and try, in different ways, to seek justice. One seeks it through equality, the other through egalitarianism.
That is why there is plenty of room for debate. But that is not a full analysis of why there is such fierce debate between liberalism and libertarianism. Another reason is that many who would be called liberal are instead progressive. Libertarians and liberals pursue opposite policies for identical goals. Liberals and progressives pursue identical policies for opposite goals. Progressivism doesn’t share the Classic Liberal root of both libertarianism and liberalism, but instead uses the tools of liberals for their own ends. Since they advocate the same policies they seem to be the same.
There is no common ground between progressives and libertarians, other than also both being listed as "rationalist" by Jerry Pournelle. One seeks justice through liberty. The other seeks control through dependence on the government. The programs advocated by liberals are precisely the tools progressives can use because the argument can be easily made that the programs are there to help the recipient. And in being helped, they become dependent until the progressive achieves his goal: everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
One argument is a civil war. The other is oil and water. In both cases, unlike the conservative, there actually is substance though. And the progressives do worry every time the phrase "liberaltarian" comes up or liberals and libertarians find common ground, because if the two children of classical liberalism were to ever rejoin the progressives would be through.
Showing posts with label spectrum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spectrum. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Friday, August 29, 2008
Democracy is not a Panacea
Over the course of the 20th Century and leading into the 21st Century there has been a goal in mind over much of the world to expand democracy, to spread democracy, to make the world safe for democracy.
This is done because it is imagined that if more countries were democratic, more countries would be like the Western Democracies.
The point that is being missed is that form is not function. Just because a country is a democracy does not mean that the country is a liberal democracy. Take, for example Iraq. There are three religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, the largest being the Shiites in southern Iraq. The Shiites are a majority.
It has been predicted by some that if actual democracy were instituted in Iraq, the Shiites would vote to violate the rights of the Sunni and the Kurds, because they are a majority. This would be a "sectarian democracy", and not a liberal democracy. This may not necessarily be the case, but it is a possibility founded on the basic demographics of the country in question. It is the reason why some call for a partitioning of Iraq, to guarantee each population group the ability to not be dominated by the others.
People seem to think that "democracy" automatically means "liberal democracy". They forget that "democracy" is the form, and that "liberal" is the function. It is the "liberal" in "liberal democracy" that provides the restrained government instituted to protect the rights of the people.
In terms of respecting the rights of the people, what is the effective difference between a liberal democracy and a liberal monarchy? One could argue that democracy gives people checks on the government should the government decide to move in an illiberal direction, whereas there are no checks if the king should decide so. The problem is what would be the check if the public decided to move the democratic government in an illiberal direction? Proponents of democracy do not have an answer for that.
It should be remembered that it was a democracy that martyred Socrates. The majority did not care for what he taught, and as a result he was tried, convicted, and executed. This was all done according to the proper democratic procedures.
Instead of spreading democracy, what should be spread are the liberal values that are often associated with democracy. This cannot be done at the point of a gun.
This is done because it is imagined that if more countries were democratic, more countries would be like the Western Democracies.
The point that is being missed is that form is not function. Just because a country is a democracy does not mean that the country is a liberal democracy. Take, for example Iraq. There are three religious/ethnic groups in Iraq, the largest being the Shiites in southern Iraq. The Shiites are a majority.
It has been predicted by some that if actual democracy were instituted in Iraq, the Shiites would vote to violate the rights of the Sunni and the Kurds, because they are a majority. This would be a "sectarian democracy", and not a liberal democracy. This may not necessarily be the case, but it is a possibility founded on the basic demographics of the country in question. It is the reason why some call for a partitioning of Iraq, to guarantee each population group the ability to not be dominated by the others.
People seem to think that "democracy" automatically means "liberal democracy". They forget that "democracy" is the form, and that "liberal" is the function. It is the "liberal" in "liberal democracy" that provides the restrained government instituted to protect the rights of the people.
In terms of respecting the rights of the people, what is the effective difference between a liberal democracy and a liberal monarchy? One could argue that democracy gives people checks on the government should the government decide to move in an illiberal direction, whereas there are no checks if the king should decide so. The problem is what would be the check if the public decided to move the democratic government in an illiberal direction? Proponents of democracy do not have an answer for that.
It should be remembered that it was a democracy that martyred Socrates. The majority did not care for what he taught, and as a result he was tried, convicted, and executed. This was all done according to the proper democratic procedures.
Instead of spreading democracy, what should be spread are the liberal values that are often associated with democracy. This cannot be done at the point of a gun.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Positive and Negative Liberty
Isaiah Berlin once did a valuable service to the cause of liberty. He wrote a rather muddled book that discussed the difference between positive liberty and negative liberty. People are familiar with negative liberty - it is the "leave me alone" liberty that forms the cross-axis of the Nolan Chart, stretching from Statist to Libertarian. What is less familiar to most people is positive liberty, which is the liberty of having a voice in government, be it the ability to vote, to create and implement ballot initiatives, or to run for office.
This is an important distinction because occasionally these two come into conflict. When the come into conflict, the libertarian believes that negative liberty must win while the democratic statist believes that positive liberty must win.
A common theme among those who would argue against libertarianism is that the will of the majority must be obeyed. "What if the majority is wrong?" and often ducked question, is occasionally answered with "then work within the system to change the system."
It is a commonly used argument, to obey the majority, often expressed in the fallacious argument that by refusing to obey the majority the one doing so is imposing his will on the majority. This is an accusation that disturbs libertarians because the one thing the libertarian doesn't believe in is forcing others to comply with his will, but instead wished to be left alone and to leave others alone on all matters political.
It is a fallacious argument because it ignores the difference between initiated force and responsive force. When a libertarian says "you cannot pass that law", he is not saying "you must do as I say" but "there is no just reason for me to do as you say." Others can still choose of their own free will to act as if the unpassed law applies to them, by refraining from whatever activity the law was supposed to restrict or engaging in whatever activity the law was supposed to mandate.
The difference between initiated force and responsive force is glossed over in an effort to create a moral equivalent that takes the issue outside of the question of whether force itself is justified. Having dispensed with the integral moral question, the only remaining question is whether the majority or the minority shall have dictatorial power. By that mindset, a libertarian saying "no" is imposing dictatorial power.
The proper response by the libertarian when accused of imposing his will on others is "Yes, I do impose my will on muggers when they ask for my wallet." That places the question firmly back in the realm of whether or not the resisted action is justified, the one place statists do not wish it to go. The counter arguments range far and wide to try to distinguish between different types of initiatory force.
But even those who wish to engage in initiatory force through democratic action seem to have limits to what they would consider a justified action for the government to take. Based on the principle that a government action is good because it is approved by the majority, an inevitable conclusion is that it is perfectly justified for 90% to strip the remaining 10% of all of their rights, including the right to protest such a stripping. This is an issue always avoided by democratic positivists.
If one is to be consistent, there are absolutely no limits on what a democratic positivist would place on the majority’s decision making power.
Often times the question is phrased in terms of the social contract, and that the libertarian saying "no" is somehow violating the social contract. It should be noted that the social contract is a myth, nothing more. It is a useful myth, but it is still a myth. It is useful in that it is an intellectual tool used to analyze the relationship between the individual and the society as expressed through the government.
In this myth, people had the freedom to kill each other but not the right to life, the freedom to steal, but not the right to property, et cetera. Dissatisfied with that state of affairs they banded together and agreed to certain terms, that they would respect each others rights in exchange for a respect for their own rights. In order to safeguard this arrangement government was established to protect and enforce these rights.
The problem is that now those who wish to impose their will on others through the government have co-opted the term "social contract" and use it to mean that since government has decided everyone else is obligated to obey. What they do not realize, or hope nobody else realizes, is that by using the term "social contract" they undermine their own case. The Social Contract is specifically about respecting people's rights, and under social contract theory any government that violates the contract is not a legitimate government and the people have the right to overthrow said government.
Saying "social contract" in the abused sense of it as used by statists is simply another way to say that positive rights trump negative rights.
Positive and negative liberty can be arranged into a four quadrant chart similar in appearance to the Nolan Chart or Pournelle Chart. In the quadrant where both are low the result is despotism. In the quadrant of low positive and high negative the result is a libertarian monarch. In the quadrant of high positive and low negative the result is mob rule and the martyrdom of Socrates. Finally in the quadrant where both are high the result is anarcho-capitalism or other variants on libertarianism.
The important point of all of this is to remember that democracy is simply a form, not a function, of government. Libertarianism is concerned with the function, that government maximizes the rights of the people. When politicians talk about spreading democracy, they express their own ignorance of the difference between function and form. What should be spread isn’t democracy, but liberty.
This is an important distinction because occasionally these two come into conflict. When the come into conflict, the libertarian believes that negative liberty must win while the democratic statist believes that positive liberty must win.
A common theme among those who would argue against libertarianism is that the will of the majority must be obeyed. "What if the majority is wrong?" and often ducked question, is occasionally answered with "then work within the system to change the system."
It is a commonly used argument, to obey the majority, often expressed in the fallacious argument that by refusing to obey the majority the one doing so is imposing his will on the majority. This is an accusation that disturbs libertarians because the one thing the libertarian doesn't believe in is forcing others to comply with his will, but instead wished to be left alone and to leave others alone on all matters political.
It is a fallacious argument because it ignores the difference between initiated force and responsive force. When a libertarian says "you cannot pass that law", he is not saying "you must do as I say" but "there is no just reason for me to do as you say." Others can still choose of their own free will to act as if the unpassed law applies to them, by refraining from whatever activity the law was supposed to restrict or engaging in whatever activity the law was supposed to mandate.
The difference between initiated force and responsive force is glossed over in an effort to create a moral equivalent that takes the issue outside of the question of whether force itself is justified. Having dispensed with the integral moral question, the only remaining question is whether the majority or the minority shall have dictatorial power. By that mindset, a libertarian saying "no" is imposing dictatorial power.
The proper response by the libertarian when accused of imposing his will on others is "Yes, I do impose my will on muggers when they ask for my wallet." That places the question firmly back in the realm of whether or not the resisted action is justified, the one place statists do not wish it to go. The counter arguments range far and wide to try to distinguish between different types of initiatory force.
But even those who wish to engage in initiatory force through democratic action seem to have limits to what they would consider a justified action for the government to take. Based on the principle that a government action is good because it is approved by the majority, an inevitable conclusion is that it is perfectly justified for 90% to strip the remaining 10% of all of their rights, including the right to protest such a stripping. This is an issue always avoided by democratic positivists.
If one is to be consistent, there are absolutely no limits on what a democratic positivist would place on the majority’s decision making power.
Often times the question is phrased in terms of the social contract, and that the libertarian saying "no" is somehow violating the social contract. It should be noted that the social contract is a myth, nothing more. It is a useful myth, but it is still a myth. It is useful in that it is an intellectual tool used to analyze the relationship between the individual and the society as expressed through the government.
In this myth, people had the freedom to kill each other but not the right to life, the freedom to steal, but not the right to property, et cetera. Dissatisfied with that state of affairs they banded together and agreed to certain terms, that they would respect each others rights in exchange for a respect for their own rights. In order to safeguard this arrangement government was established to protect and enforce these rights.
The problem is that now those who wish to impose their will on others through the government have co-opted the term "social contract" and use it to mean that since government has decided everyone else is obligated to obey. What they do not realize, or hope nobody else realizes, is that by using the term "social contract" they undermine their own case. The Social Contract is specifically about respecting people's rights, and under social contract theory any government that violates the contract is not a legitimate government and the people have the right to overthrow said government.
Saying "social contract" in the abused sense of it as used by statists is simply another way to say that positive rights trump negative rights.
Positive and negative liberty can be arranged into a four quadrant chart similar in appearance to the Nolan Chart or Pournelle Chart. In the quadrant where both are low the result is despotism. In the quadrant of low positive and high negative the result is a libertarian monarch. In the quadrant of high positive and low negative the result is mob rule and the martyrdom of Socrates. Finally in the quadrant where both are high the result is anarcho-capitalism or other variants on libertarianism.
The important point of all of this is to remember that democracy is simply a form, not a function, of government. Libertarianism is concerned with the function, that government maximizes the rights of the people. When politicians talk about spreading democracy, they express their own ignorance of the difference between function and form. What should be spread isn’t democracy, but liberty.
Friday, August 01, 2008
The Vosem Chart
In an earlier article, the subject of the Vosem Cube was briefly mentioned as an attempt to deal with an economic axis that failed to sufficiently differentiate between mercantilism and socialism with respect to economic liberty. While both systems are a diminishment of economic liberty they are so in different ways to the point where it is difficult to get a more accurate measure of economic liberty. This is compounded by the deliberate refusal of those with a more socialist mindset to differentiate between mercantilism and capitalism.
Name "Vosem" for the Russian word for "eight" because a cube has eight sides, this chart has one civil liberty axis identical to the civil liberty of the Nolan Chart. It has two economic axes which the author labels as "Fiscal" and "Corporate".
The Fiscal axis is clearly the spectrum that runs from socialist to capitalist, whether or not the government should redistribute wealth or directly control certain industries (the two separate definitions of socialist will be discussed in a later article). It is on the Corporate axis where things get muddled.
This is problematic because on the whole it fails to place those who subscribe to Austrian Economics. On the whole Austrians would be on the pro-corporate side, but certainly do not believe that striking workers should be penalized. This should be analyzed by looking at it through the capitalist versus mercantilist question.
In that perspective, a new result is given.
The drawback is that this still splits the mercantilist axis. The problem is with Class 2b, which doesn’t really belong in this axis but needs to fit in somewhere. The problem is to find a location for it.
On the other hand, perhaps libertarians are 1a, the anti-corporates are 1b, and the mercantilists are 2.
Name "Vosem" for the Russian word for "eight" because a cube has eight sides, this chart has one civil liberty axis identical to the civil liberty of the Nolan Chart. It has two economic axes which the author labels as "Fiscal" and "Corporate".
The Fiscal axis is clearly the spectrum that runs from socialist to capitalist, whether or not the government should redistribute wealth or directly control certain industries (the two separate definitions of socialist will be discussed in a later article). It is on the Corporate axis where things get muddled.
CORPORATE
CLASS 1: People who are in the first camp on this final dichotomy are, all around, pro-corporate. The way they see it, corporations should be treated and protected with the same rights as individuals. They want businesses to have the power to hire and discriminate against whom they want -- if an employer doesn't want an immigrant or a member of an ethnic minority working for him, he shouldn't be required by hire any people in that group, even if they are indisputably qualified. They also want everyone's business to be protected by private property rights -- the owner paid to keep the space and he can insist in anyone he wants leaving the business, including using the police to enforce this wish. Anyone walking on a business' premises against the wishes of the owner is viewed as trespassing. They oppose the right of people to strike or otherwise rebel against a business, and will favor laws that allow a corporate head to have his employees arrested for striking. They can be very strongly anti-union and view management as knowing best. Corporate monopolies are just seen as part of the game. As they see it, pure freedom of the market will take care of any injustices or inequities, and will promise diversity and creativity. If something done by a business is unethical and/or harmful, people will make the right choice by choosing another business, thereby regulating themselves. They trust the patron public will know and decide what is right. Some even support reversing government restrictions on dishonestly mislabeling or misrepresenting your advertised product. They are not quite as concerned with or offended by Enron/WorldCom type corporate dishonesty as their opponents. Strongly pro-copyright, they favor punishing Napster and want to hunt down other music site offenders on the Internet. Characteristic catchwords: it's their business, free enterprise, the magic of the market, property rights, intellectual property violator.
CLASS 2: Someone in the second camp opposes corporate power and rule of the business over the individual. They believe that a corporation is not a person and cannot be a person, and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a person. Businesses are viewed as a form of authority, akin to government authority, that can be oppressive. The major heads behind huge corporations, furthermore, are viewed as greedy rich folks who will do anything to make even more and keep the oil flowing to them. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc. If you see someone engaged in a protest against "corporate goons", taking it to the streets like the Seattle protestors of 1999, they no doubt belong to this camp. They consider discriminatory or otherwise unethical behavior by a business owner or manager completely inexcusable. They consider it unacceptable to have to watch anyone -- even one person -- be legally hurt by a business' practices in order to get people to finally bring the business down with their own boycott. They do not trust the common people alone to be able to drive every and any immoral business into the ground with their purchasing choices. They fail to see any flourishing of diversity or creativity of products due to the market; rather, they view increasingly richer cannibal companies as having homogenized the market and given us too few different companies and too few products. The overwhelming power of a few names over radio stations has likewise ruined the diversity of music. Some even turn to Internet file-sharing. They are opposed to the concept of "intellectual property". Characteristic catchwords: corporate greed, people before profits, Naderism, sell-out, monolithic corporate culture, pigs, Micro$oft.
This is problematic because on the whole it fails to place those who subscribe to Austrian Economics. On the whole Austrians would be on the pro-corporate side, but certainly do not believe that striking workers should be penalized. This should be analyzed by looking at it through the capitalist versus mercantilist question.
In that perspective, a new result is given.
CLASS 1: Someone in the second camp opposes any government protection or favoritism of corporations. They believe in a free market, and if a corporation cannot survive it deserves to fail. The major heads behind huge corporations are viewed as too intimately involved in government. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc on the grounds that a "free trade organization" is a contradiction of terms. They also oppose regulation of businesses beyond dishonesty to be a restriction on the right of people to do business. While Enron is looked down on for their unethical practices, Michael Milken is looked as heroes of free enterprise and examples of unjust government interference in economics. Characteristic catchwords: Free enterprise, corporate welfare, REAL free trade
CLASS 2a: People who are in the first camp on this final dichotomy are, all around, pro-corporate. The way they see it, corporations should be treated and protected with the same rights as individuals. They want everyone's business to be protected by private property rights -- the owner paid to keep the space and he can insist in anyone he wants leaving the business, including using the police to enforce this wish. Anyone walking on a business' premises against the wishes of the owner is viewed as trespassing. They oppose the right of people to strike or otherwise rebel against a business, and will favor laws that allow a corporate head to have his employees arrested for striking. They can be very strongly anti-union and view management as knowing best. Corporate monopolies are just seen as part of the game. They support protective tariffs to keep out foreign competition or import quotas to protect domestic industries. They also support subsidies from the government to businesses on the grounds that it helps domestic corporations, especially against countries where governments support their corporations. Some even support reversing government restrictions on dishonestly mislabeling or misrepresenting your advertised product. They are not quite as concerned with or offended by Enron/WorldCom type corporate dishonesty as their opponents. Strongly pro-copyright, they favor punishing Napster and want to hunt down other music site offenders on the Internet. Characteristic catchwords: dumping, domestic industry, what’s good for GM is good for America, intellectual property violator.
CLASS 2b: Someone in the second camp opposes corporate power and rule of the business over the individual. They believe that a corporation is not a person and cannot be a person, and therefore does not deserve the same rights as a person. Businesses are viewed as a form of authority, akin to government authority, that can be oppressive. The major heads behind huge corporations, furthermore, are viewed as greedy rich folks who will do anything to make even more and keep the oil flowing to them. Many of these people are anti-WTO, anti-IMF, etc. If you see someone engaged in a protest against "corporate goons", taking it to the streets like the Seattle protestors of 1999, they no doubt belong to this camp. They consider discriminatory or otherwise unethical behavior by a business owner or manager completely inexcusable. They consider it unacceptable to have to watch anyone -- even one person -- be legally hurt by a business' practices in order to get people to finally bring the business down with their own boycott. They do not trust the common people alone to be able to drive every and any immoral business into the ground with their purchasing choices. They fail to see any flourishing of diversity or creativity of products due to the market; rather, they view increasingly richer cannibal companies as having homogenized the market and given us too few different companies and too few products. The overwhelming power of a few names over radio stations has likewise ruined the diversity of music. Some even turn to Internet file-sharing. They are opposed to the concept of "intellectual property". Characteristic catchwords: corporate greed, people before profits, Naderism, sell-out, monolithic corporate culture, pigs, Micro$oft.
The drawback is that this still splits the mercantilist axis. The problem is with Class 2b, which doesn’t really belong in this axis but needs to fit in somewhere. The problem is to find a location for it.
On the other hand, perhaps libertarians are 1a, the anti-corporates are 1b, and the mercantilists are 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)