I'm not sure who will be judged worse. Both use the power of the state to erode our liberty.

another libertarian! *high fives*

Regan coalition between Conservatives and economic liberals (liberals in the classical sense) is dead. Its nearly 30 years old. I see the democrats getting more "social conservative and the libertarian party or republican party taking the liberal economic/liberal social side.

hard to say, but right now I would have to say Obama is a little more dangerous just because the true balance of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches is out of wack (all socialistic). When Bush was in office at least there was more of a balance between the 3 branches. Bush was at least stopped by the legislative branch from making a bigger mess, Obama has too much control right now. States definately need to consider asserting their soveriegn rights under the constitution as the Federal government turns more Socialist/Facist.

"Regan coalition between Conservatives and economic liberals (liberals in the classical sense) is dead."

God and Mammon are aligned because they have similar systemic understandings of society. A market, for example, creates spontaneous order like an ecosystem. Moral traditions are same thing -- they contain the latent experience proven and accumulated over generations.

Socialists, in contrast, see all social causation as deliberate-- they think the only legitimate social institutions are the ones we collectively decide upon. Since no one voted to have the corporations that exist today, or for social institutions like marriage, socialists believe they can and should wipe it all away.

Libertarianism, pushed to its logical limit, has to become socialist. They're already most of the way there-- crime and punishment, fetal homicide, marriage, immigration, drugs, counter-terrorism, pacifism. There is a reason why liberalism historically morphed into socialism-- contract theory ends up relativizing any notion of rights.

Posted By ENFPGuy on 12 Jul 2009 04:47 PM
I'm not sure who will be judged worse. Both use the power of the state to erode our liberty.

Liberty is only important as a means to an end, the end being welfare. There are many things that you shouldn't be free to do, such as rape people, or market junk food to children.

Posted By JHBowden on 13 Aug 2009 10:37 PM
"Regan coalition between Conservatives and economic liberals (liberals in the classical sense) is dead."

God and Mammon are aligned because they have similar systemic understandings of society. A market, for example, creates spontaneous order like an ecosystem. Moral traditions are same thing -- they contain the latent experience proven and accumulated over generations.

Socialists, in contrast, see all social causation as deliberate-- they think the only legitimate social institutions are the ones we collectively decide upon. Since no one voted to have the corporations that exist today, or for social institutions like marriage, socialists believe they can and should wipe it all away.

Libertarianism, pushed to its logical limit, has to become socialist. They're already most of the way there-- crime and punishment, fetal homicide, marriage, immigration, drugs, counter-terrorism, pacifism. There is a reason why liberalism historically morphed into socialism-- contract theory ends up relativizing any notion of rights.

Hey JH, I am so glad to see such an well thought out response. This is great. Again, glad to have you here. As a matter of fact I have mailed out this forum to a few democrat friends of mine because they always see me arguing with leftists. Very rarely argue with people on the right, especially as one as well educated as you.

Here goes:

1. I would disagree with your perception on where "god" lies as far as economic policy. In my readings jesus was very anti-capitalist (against money changers etc) or at least has a dubious record on pro economic liberty. The literal and figurative interpretation of scripture is so open, can so be miss translated it does not have a place in deciding policy. To me you are much better of quoting Aristotle or Plato as far as ancient thinkers.

2. I agree that chaos brings spontaneous order and agree with you on morality being a repository of ancient wisdom of needed survival. Morality should not be pitched out wholesale by society and certainly coherent morality is the foundation of civilization. Also the concepts of natural rights that libertarians hold, spring from morality which has its roots in philosophy and are unprovable axioms. -- An example of this is: "human life is sacred", "It is wrong to harm others" "It is wrong to hurt your self" etc. I don't believe these can be onologicly proven.

Moral traditions are same thing -- they contain the latent experience proven and accumulated over generations.

3. A majority of these moral devises were constructed at times when life for humans were much different. The morality has given values that inevitably allowed markets and technology to exist thus obsoleting many of them. That is why when you read the bible to day it is so alien. It has become merely allegorical narratives. Much of which is not acceptable such as annihilating competing tribes and capital punishment for adultery or blasphemy. Polytheistic myths have also gone the same way.

I want to also make it clear that I do not reject ancient morality because it is ancient nor accept new morality because it is new. I suspect that you would also agree. I suspect that you would also agree that humans have not changed much in the last 3000 years merely their conditions.

Libertarianism, pushed to its logical limit, has to become socialist.

5. I happen to disagree, also I think you are also drawing to close of a comparison between anarchy and Libertarianism.
With socialism there would be a classless society. (all poor) With Libertarian utopia people would be rewarded directly for their value. In this utopia, I would never be rich because I am more interested in philosophy.

There are many libertarian-socialists. (I think its the chic new way for people to be different) But I'm not here to argue their points.

6.

They're already most of the way there-- crime and punishment, fetal homicide, marriage, immigration, drugs, counter-terrorism, pacifism.

Libertarians, yes will be more apt to follow the constitution in these matters. They ask for a limited government especially battling a central federal power, the same federal power which may be used for good now but will inevitably turn into the leviathan we all fear. I believe it already has crossed the Rubicon with the New Deal.

Libertarians of course will be for social and economic liberties as it is logically consistent with economic liberties. Moral progress is married to economic process. As you erect barriers to one you retard both. People are not interested in the welfare of their neighbors if they have to struggle to eat or do not have the leisure time to practice philosophy. As they are restricted from making moral mistakes they can not grow and learn. I am divorced, I had a failed marriage. I have learned and become stronger and more mature from it. Should I have been prevented from that divorce? According to draconian religions I am either going to hell or would be prohibited from getting the divorce in the first place. How am i supposed to progress morally when I am not free?

Rules that prohibit and restrict marriage (assuming you mean homosexual rights), drugs, consumption of alcohol, you site retard human development as much as arbitrary tax code and technocratic regulation.

As far as counter-terrorism and pacifism, much of our problems are self caused. More over you will find many libertarians against a muscular foreign policy because they find the war its self and the powers given to the State to execute such war is more dangerous then the enemy themselves. You may disagree but it is a reasonable conclusion that to crush future generations with trillions in debt is dangerous. We have Rick Perry the Governor of Texas talking succession from the Union.

There is a reason why liberalism historically morphed into socialism-- contract theory ends up relativizing any notion of rights.

You may be right about this because interpretations change. But so do natural rights and religious interpretation. What do you recommend as its replacement?


JH, I'm looking forward to your response. I have learned from your post.

Liberty is only important as a means to an end, the end being welfare.

Thats what you think the end should be.

sbalbom, thanks for the thoughtful reply!

We probably agree completely on the nature of knowledge, along with the nobility of the profit motive. While progressives believe knowledge mainly resides in the minds of an educated few, we find knowledge in the world in a fragmentary and diffuse state-- in the minds of the many. Capitalism ought to be conceived as a method of coping with human ignorance. While politicians always boast of having solutions to problems, capitalism is the best way we have of finding answers we admittedly don't have. Are patients waiting too long to see specialists in Portland, Maine? What kind of healthcare coverage matters most to the near-elderly in Tuscon, Arizona? Allowing people to make their own decisions is the best way to capture this information.

I can't give you an image of a conservative Utopia. Conservatives see society as a ship at sea, something that can never be changed wholesale without self-destruction. Furthermore, all societies rise and fall-- in the big picture, ours will certainly sink someday. Hence, we want to keep it afloat as long as possible. In contrast, progressives believe hopeful change is necessarily for the better, which just happens to be a secularized faith, a version of the Christian idea of Divine Providence. Conservatives know that history does not take sides; sink, or swim.

Conservatives do share some idea of Original Sin. We can't forget the irrational side of men -- we're motivated by passion, custom, imagination, belonging, honor-- while the idea of the homo economicus shared by classical and modern liberals alike is useful within economics, it is a mistake to believe man is purely a rational being. This is where Aristotle comes in-- vice leads to viciousness. Self-destructive nihilism is a permanent possibility for all human beings. This explains why social innovation should be approached with caution, and why we shouldn't turn the other cheek for dictators and theocrats.

--Jason

Posted By sbalbom on 14 Aug 2009 05:13 PM

Liberty is only important as a means to an end, the end being welfare.

Thats what you think the end should be.

It doesn't matter who thinks it: what matters is whether it's true.

We probably agree completely on the nature of knowledge, along with the nobility of the profit motive. While progressives believe knowledge mainly resides in the minds of an educated few, we find knowledge in the world in a fragmentary and diffuse state-- in the minds of the many. Capitalism ought to be conceived as a method of coping with human ignorance. While politicians always boast of having solutions to problems, capitalism is the best way we have of finding answers we admittedly don't have. Are patients waiting too long to see specialists in Portland, Maine? What kind of healthcare coverage matters most to the near-elderly in Tuscon, Arizona? Allowing people to make their own decisions is the best way to capture this information.

Agreed 100% and I could not have said it better. I will amalgamate your wordsmiths into my vernacular. More to our epistemic theory and confidence, I have a dim view of peoples ultimate understand and control of events. Is this what you mean? Or do you mean that all knowledge is based off of axioms, therefore always open to interpretation?

I can't give you an image of a conservative Utopia. Conservatives see society as a ship at sea, something that can never be changed wholesale without self-destruction. Furthermore, all societies rise and fall-- in the big picture, ours will certainly sink someday. Hence, we want to keep it afloat as long as possible.

You get into the rational below...

In contrast, progressives believe hopeful change is necessarily for the better, which just happens to be a secularized faith, a version of the Christian idea of Divine Providence. Conservatives know that history does not take sides; sink, or swim.

Can you explain this? I don't understand. Are you saying that Rightest have a deeper understanding of human nature therefore have more practical solutions?

Conservatives do share some idea of Original Sin. We can't forget the irrational side of men -- we're motivated by passion, custom, imagination, belonging, honor-- while the idea of the homo economicus shared by classical and modern liberals alike is useful within economics, it is a mistake to believe man is purely a rational being.

Here we go... now we get to the meat. So you have a Hobbsean view of man's natural state. And below you get to the rational reason why you believe in creative destruction in economics but not morality.

This is where Aristotle comes in-- vice leads to viciousness. Self-destructive nihilism is a permanent possibility for all human beings. This explains why social innovation should be approached with caution, and why we shouldn't turn the other cheek for dictators and theocrats.

Very good. So now we get to the real issue: the battle against existentialism. Can man find meaning with out being tricked into thinking he has been assigned one. If man can not find meaning then he will fall in to the trap of nihilism or annihilation. Or as Hamlet said "To be or not to be... that is the question"

I argue that yes! man can look into the void of meaninglessness and find his own purpose. He will invent one that is more truthful then ancient myths constructed for sheep herders. As we keep man in bondage with our Noble Lie, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie), we stop him from his moral development. How can Man find truth if all axioms are myths put in place directly because elites think he can't handle the truth about reality? Man then becomes a slave.

It is only more glorious that man finds his own truth despite the chaos of nature and proceeds to build order. When you instill him with myth you deny him his ultimate conquest thus his ultimate development. True mastery of the self, self creation and moral progress.

As you have economic liberty you will drive social liberty and cracks will appear in the edifice that you try to protect. Conservatives and Leftists can't have it both ways.

sbalbom--

It seems we both believe men have a variety of motivations. This seems trivial, but it is of utmost consequence when we deal with the social and foreign policy issues. Empathy isn't an option-- we must put ourselves in the shoes of other people and see things from their perspective. Some people out there genuinely want to bring back the Caliphate, exterminate the Jews, and impose Shari'a everywhere. Rather than imposing lifeless, abstract "root causes" on others, we ought to understand others as they understand themselves.

Hobbes always struck me as the political equivalent of Robert Boyle. He constructed an atomic view of society: a gas of homogeneous selfish units each lifelessly calculating how to maximize its own pleasure. For gaseous society to retain any shape, we supposedly must use the pressurized container of the state.

I believe in the noble lie in a specific sense, in that not all social conventions are created equal. I'm definitely not a Hobbesian, for two reasons. One, Hobbes denies that man has a natural end-- a tao, a dharma, or a logos. Both behaviorism and existentialism follow from the Hobbesian assumption-- the behaviorists think man is infinitely malleable, while the existentialists think men are strangers in an alien world. Perhaps we can learn from Jonathan Swift, for he frequently reminded his contemporaries -- enlightened partisans of Reason -- that man is a natural creature with natural inclinations, functions, and limitations. Some lack the imagination to apprehend the most obvious and routine of realities.

The system of natural liberty as it was known during the Enlightenment, dubbed "capitalism" by its Marxist haters, isn't about greed, or doing what you want, or the war of all against all. Rather, it is a method of social coordination, cooperation, and interaction. Look around in your immediate environment -- most of your belongings were obtained through exchange. I certainly do not know how to manufacture a light bulb, or a window, or a pringle, or a computer, or a chair, or a stereo system, or a glass, or an aluminum can. It isn't that I'm not capable of doing so -- my degree is in physics -- it is that one person cannot know all things, so we need to specialize. Liberals are like economic creationists, thinking that nothing happens unless we obey a Universal Comprehensive Plan apprehended by a solitary intelligence. It isn't an accident they get results that contradict their warm and fuzzy intentions.

As you can see, there is no such thing as a conservative solution, just like there is no such thing as a conservative Utopia. We're always faced with a continuously unfolding series of trade offs. We don't get to rest on the seventh day like the Christian God. As Dr. Manhattan once remarked with INTP wisdom, nothing ever ends.

--Jason

Jason,

I find myself in agreement with what you are saying specify to issues and let me please address point by point

It seems we both believe men have a variety of motivations. This seems trivial, but it is of utmost consequence when we deal with the social and foreign policy issues.

Agreed 100%

Empathy isn't an option-- we must put ourselves in the shoes of other people and see things from their perspective. Some people out there genuinely want to bring back the Caliphate, exterminate the Jews, and impose Shari'a everywhere. Rather than imposing lifeless, abstract "root causes" on others, we ought to understand others as they understand themselves.

I agree with this partially. Yes the semi-literalists of the Muslim faith want to destroy our liberal (classical liberal non traditional) culture. However, many fantastic arguments from the isolationists point to much of this "Islamo-imperialism" is "blow back" from foreign policy blunders and interventionism on our part. Such as massive support for Israel and the installation of the Sha of Iran. The law of unintended consequences don't stop be because a Republican intervenes in the market or 10 other countries.

A fantastic book by Lawrence Wright, a national best seller, one of the top books I've read in the last few years give a very balanced account of blow back and why, along with the culture argument.

http://books.google.com/books?id=APt9mgmgidgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+looming+tower&ei=FdeISuXDPI_-ygTKme2MDg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Remember the genesis of Islamo-imperialism was the fact that Muslim Brotherhood's leadership was brutally tortured by Sadat's Egyptian regime. They were tortured by an "apostate" government supported and propped by our country. They knew they could never overthrow such a corrupt regime as long as we were supporting tin pot dictators across the globe.

Hobbes always struck me as the political equivalent of Robert Boyle. He constructed an atomic view of society: a gas of homogeneous selfish units each lifelessly calculating how to maximize its own pleasure. For gaseous society to retain any shape, we supposedly must use the pressurized container of the state.

An interesting analogy, I see where your going with it. Also please remember that no one is arguing for anarchy here. Mearly that we follow the Constitution allow for the same beautiful catharsis of Animal Spirits in the free market of ideas, economy and social liberty. Libertarians believe in the rule of law, perhaps more then any other group.

I believe in the noble lie in a specific sense, in that not all social conventions are created equal.

Sure and with reason and empirical observation we can find more officiant social rules.

I'm definitely not a Hobbesian, for two reasons. One, Hobbes denies that man has a natural end-- a tao, a dharma, or a logos.

What have you observed that lead you to believe that man has a logos ? Or is this more of a feeling?

Both behaviorism and existentialism follow from the Hobbesian assumption-- the behaviorists think man is infinitely malleable, while the existentialists think men are strangers in an alien world.

We both do not believe that man is a Blank Slate or Locke's "Tabula Rasa" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa) Sure. We are here at enfpforum . Agreed. So many leftists do view children that way. More and more social studies are coming out that affirm genetics and randomness have major effects on us.

I will split with your interpretation of existentialism. Man feels alienated because life is absurd and is not ontologically rational. The existence of Pi, suffering, evil, triangles, dreams, dogs, laughter, pollution, death, Mexico and ice cream do not seem rational, yet they do exist.

Perhaps we can learn from Jonathan Swift, for he frequently reminded his contemporaries -- enlightened partisans of Reason -- that man is a natural creature with natural inclinations, functions, and limitations. Some lack the imagination to apprehend the most obvious and routine of realities.

Sure and I can agree

The system of natural liberty as it was known during the Enlightenment, dubbed "capitalism" by its Marxist haters, isn't about greed, or doing what you want, or the war of all against all. Rather, it is a method of social coordination, cooperation, and interaction. Look around in your immediate environment -- most of your belongings were obtained through exchange. I certainly do not know how to manufacture a light bulb, or a window, or a pringle, or a computer, or a chair, or a stereo system, or a glass, or an aluminum can. It isn't that I'm not capable of doing so -- my degree is in physics -- it is that one person cannot know all things, so we need to specialize. Liberals are like economic creationists, thinking that nothing happens unless we obey a Universal Comprehensive Plan apprehended by a solitary intelligence. It isn't an accident they get results that contradict their warm and fuzzy intentions.

As you can see, there is no such thing as a conservative solution, just like there is no such thing as a conservative Utopia. We're always faced with a continuously unfolding series of trade offs. We don't get to rest on the seventh day like the Christian God. As Dr. Manhattan once remarked with INTP wisdom, nothing ever ends.

Agreed but still if nothing ever ends then why do you support random rollbacks on the progress of morality when you do not with economics? Why do you allow people to trade and do anything they want in the economic realm, set prices, bargain for wages etc but want to interfere with the market of moral ideas with federal government regulation?

Why do you believe in the law of unintended consequences in regard to economic law but not social law? Why do you think that that power can not be miss used? Why do you think that if socialists see conservatives use power for their end that they would not learn from their example and wield power for their end too? Why are you not fearful of government expansion if you are tolerant of half of it?

To me Republicans are no longer ideological consistent. Their franchise of limited government is shattered. They neither represent a free market and are belligerent to individual liberty. (from wire tapping, detention of citizens with out trial to sodomy laws) They yield no credibility.

In America you have two major parties. The Christian party and the Marxist party. Philosophy is the answer.

sbalbom--

We should not attribute progressivist-rationalist properties to agents and events they do not have. This is my central beef with the libertarians.

The idea of blowback is an awesome example; I could not have picked a better one. Muslim Supremacists violently advance their struggle in Thailand, western China, India, Russia, Nigeria, the Philippines-- to blame America for all of this has no logical coherence. Furthermore, we don't see the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Guatemalans-- citizens from countries where America *did* directly intervene during the Cold War -- strapping bombs to their children to send sinners to hell. A literal interpretation of the Koran is our missing ingredient.

The rationalist and the progressive demand explanations deeper than "religious fundamentalists are nuts." Plus, by blaming America, we can feel like we're in control-- we can change our circumstances by changing ourselves! Yay! This is more comforting than acknowledging religious fascists want to kill us for irrational reasons; the reality of nutjob fanatics implies action and sacrifice on our part if we want to survive in one piece. Just as in economics, we cannot get something for nothing.

Same follows for the social issues-- once we realize our story in the long run does *not* have a happy ending, then decadence and decline can understood on their own terms. But a progressive thinks all change is for the better; a rationalist finds all restraints on behavior unhappy for the same reasons he finds punishment unnecessary.


--Jason

Jason,

We should not attribute progressivist-rationalist properties to agents and events they do not have. This is my central beef with the libertarians.

First, 99% of Muslims are not terrorists and do not wish to destroy the West. I know we both agree to that. They are rational and do the best with their circumstances. They are also irritated with our massively interventionist foreign policy. They are upset that we support brutal dictators such as Saddam, Mubarak, King Hussain and other kleptocracies. The other fraction of 1% are rational in that their axioms are that parts of the Koran are true and thus must be followed. Their axioms are jacked. However I take them at their word that if we stopped being interventionist they would stop attacking us too.

The idea of blowback is an awesome example; I could not have picked a better one. Muslim Supremacists violently advance their struggle in Thailand, western China, India, Russia, Nigeria, the Philippines-- to blame America for all of this has no logical coherence. Furthermore, we don't see the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Guatemalans-- citizens from countries where America *did* directly intervene during the Cold War -- strapping bombs to their children to send sinners to hell. A literal interpretation of the Koran is our missing ingredient.

Right but it is also quazi political. To deny this is to deny reality. The authoritarians are corrupt and secular, the only way political change can happen in autocratic countries is by aligning with the religious. When we were struck on 9/11 we were struck because of our support for those same autocrats. 9/11 was a supreme symbolic political act, a political act to stop us from intervening in middle eastern affairs and to stop the US Federal government from supporting those same repressive regimes. These regimes torture people. Not the gay way our CIA does it. Really torture, maim and kill people.

Do you really think 19 men hijacked 4 planes and immolated themselves (went through all that trouble) because we gave franchise to women and we listen to rock music? That is to severally "mis-underestimate" who we are fighting.

From Bin Laden http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html

In a second fatwā issued in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. Bin Laden used Islamic texts to exhort violent action against American military and citizenry until the stated grievances are reversed, noting "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."

The rationalist and the progressive demand explanations deeper than "religious fundamentalists are nuts." Plus, by blaming America, we can feel like we're in control-- we can change our circumstances by changing ourselves! Yay! This is more comforting than acknowledging religious fascists want to kill us for irrational reasons; the reality of nutjob fanatics implies action and sacrifice on our part if we want to survive in one piece. Just as in economics, we cannot get something for nothing.

Yes and No. Again I agree there is some factor No most of the high ranking terrorists are highly educated. Most come from upper middle class.

From the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/business/14scene.html?_r=1

These terrorists are not desperately poor uneducated people from the Middle East. A surprisingly large share of them have college and even graduate degrees. Increasingly, they seem to be from Britain, like the shoe bomber Richard C. Reid and most of the suspects in the London Underground bombings and the liquid explosives plot.

Bin Laudin is a prime example, a son of one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. They aren't nut jobs, they are political reactionaries. I can not deny your premise that Fundamentalism isn't partly responsible. But you can not deny that our politics has at least played a pivotal roll. Deny political interventionist blowblack is silly. Agreed that leftists often argue "Blame america".

You still haven't made the agreement why you believe in interventionism when Republicans do it but not Democrats. And why you think that Leftists wont learn from your example.

-Saul

sbalbom--

You admitted that the people attacking us are highly educated. I agree completely! Once we've understood authors like Sayyid Qutb, then we can understand what the jihadists are trying to accomplish. You're definitely correct in that jihad is not a populist movement. You're definitely correct that these aren't oppressed proles.

Super! That's all you have to do is put these pieces together. If it is just a minority of people committing the violence, then siding the jihadists, instead of the sane Muslim majority, is a mistake. In short, you're holding a Leninist theory of imperialism which does not apply to the actors we're describing. (It doesn't apply anywhere, in fact.) We're dealing with something more than an anti-imperialist movement, given the violence is also directed at non-imperialist countries, and victims of previous imperialism don't strap bombs to their children to get revenge.

I do believe in interventionism when Democrats do it! I supported Clinton during operation Desert Fox, and I supported him during the NATO strikes against Milosevic. I had to leave the Democrat Party because they've gone Pat Buchanan on me on a lot of issues, from trade, to this therapeutic approach against violent religious fundamentalists. The George McFly foreign policy isn't going to hack it.

To scope out to the bigger picture, there is no such thing as a libertarian society. There never will be because such a society disintegrates internally and is easy prey for outside aggressors.

--Jason

I refuse to answer a loaded question like this. "Who is worse" indeed.

there was a post here that was deleted.

They're both embarassments to the country in their own special way. Both parties need to be reevaluated and redefined.

Are you serious? Did you see what Bush did to this country? Maybe you missed the near-meltdown of the economic system. If Obama were as bad as Bush, we'd be living the Book of Eli right now.