A commentor at Hit & Run puts Jon Henke in his proper place:
"One of the problems libertarians have had is the "purity" issue. I've never seen a group of political activists so determined to kick people off the team."
Jon, your analogy is wanting. If you are willing to compromise the principles of libertarianism (and libertarianism is nothing if not an ideology derived rationally from clear principles), then nobody kicked you off the team. You were never on the team. You did not show up for practice.
Of course Billy is of the opinion that Jon was put in his place by this comment, when in fact, the comment simply points to the continued state of denial the do-nothing purists who call themselves libertarians find themselves.
Its not about compromising principles. Its about compromise in order to eventually see your principles enacted. Its about becoming a part of the political process in order to change the process and the outcome instead of screaming about it from the margins and being roundly ignored.
Instead of claiming to be in possession of the "one true way" and demanding all instantly accept and enact it, its about accomplishing the possible incrementally to achieve the goals your principles establish.
And, as Billy points out, we've talked about this for at least 15 years. I've been one that has constantly and consistently pointed out that this will not happen by 'revolution', but instead by evolution. Evolution is a slow and incremental process, not an overnight change. And political evolution requires work within existing institutions in order to move them toward new goals.
So the bottom line is instead of telling everyone how stupid they are for not agreeing and accepting my "one true way" of how life should be lived, I've decided to see if I can persuade people there's a better way to live and govern and to work toward that change.
To purists like my friend Billy, its more important to be right than be effective. A line Jon used in one of his articles The New Libertarian said it very well ... the purists should all have a great party and slap each other on the back for a failure well done.
Goddamned right. They are not "libertarians", and never were. Their presumption about "the team" is an utterly outrageous fraud.
So says Billy of the "one true way", which, quite conveniently makes the point QandO made in "The New Libertarian." Among them, conformity to ideology is sacrosanct. Deviation is unacceptable. Billy's answer is to say Dale and Jon don't meet the purity test and contradict his own point. "They are not 'libertaians' and never were." Litmus test applied, application rejected.
Unfortunately for the screamers out there who hue to the purist line, the paleolibertarians who refuse to participate but require the process conform to their desires, no one listens to them.
No. One.
It is appalling to me that Bruce McQuain is hanging out with these two rotten punks. Appalling. I've been reading him and discussing American politics with him for nearly fifteen years, and I would never have predicted this. It's obvious, I suppose, that I don't know what's going on in this aspect of the thing, but I regard it as quite tragic.
Bruce: if you read this, I'm telling you. You don't need those two. Unless, that is, there is some other value that you see in the association. What could it be? Exposure? If that's it, then I'm here to say that you could have done at least as well on your own. (And I might as well say it right out loud: I very much suspect that this is a great deal of the thing with them. They're only in it for the noise. They like it when Eminences quote them.) Do you really believe all this jazz they're touting?
If so, then I seriously misplaced a great deal of my confidence in you over the years.
A couple of points. Let me address a minor one first. This project didn't start out as something to increase 'exposure'. It started as something aimed at actually 'doing' something beside setting up a little network of like minded friends who would reinforce my value system by acting as an echo chamber. The increased exposure has been a function of people finding this blog, reading it and making it popular by word of mouth. In other words its been a result of what I and Jon and Dale do, not a goal.
Secondly, and speaking of appalled, you have no idea of who Jon and Dale are, just as they don't really know you. However, I've noticed that doesn't keep you from dismissively waving your hand and saying they're just in it for the noise.
You have no idea what they're in it for, but I can assure you its not for what you think and certainly not for the "noise". But assuming that makes it much easier to denigrate their effort with a breezy and dismissive hand-wave doesn't it? Then you can insult and ignore that which is inconvenient to the 'one true way'.
Most inconvenient to the true believers is no one, no one, pays attention to them.
If in fact you've misplaced your confidence in me over the last 15 years its because you haven't been paying attention. There is nothing at all out of character with what I'm doing. As mentioned I've talked about evolution over revolution for most of those 15 years. Do yourself a favor, review the BBS archives and check it out for yourself.
Here I see a small opportunity to actually effect some change toward more freedom and liberty in a country I love. Obviously its entirely possible it may not have any effect at all ... but at least, at least, I am attempting to make such a change a reality.
My problem?
I've grown tired of the incessent screamers who constantly decry the problem but don't lift a single little finger to remedy it, all the while denouncing those who do for supposedly "compromising their principles".
That would describe most of those who Billy would call "libertarians".
NOTE: Oh, and Billy ... please do me the courtesy of not leaving any comments to this reply until you open comments on your blog.
Fair warning: Any comments left by you without Two-Four offering the same opportunity for comment will be deleted. If you want to offer a reply, you can do what I just did ... you can put it on your blog.
I’ve really appreciated this blog for opening my eyes to the libertarian cause. I’ve never really afiliated myself with any political party, but I find myself agreeing with many of the libertarian principles described in your blog. It’s sometimes frustrating not being able to find a political home, but I’m glad I can sometimes find common causes.
It’s also interesting to note that as the democrats are reorganizing and the republicans are fighting among themselves, libertarians are also fighting over who’s "on the team." Who doesn’t like to watch a good fight?
If in fact you’ve misplaced your confidence in me over the last 15 years its because you haven’t been paying attention. There is nothing at all out of character with what I’m doing. As mentioned I’ve talked about evolution over revolution for most of those 15 years. Do yourself a favor, review the BBS archives and check it out for yourself.
(sigh)
As had I, though the same period, up to, and including today. Understand the scope of my comments, please... this is not a personal attack on Billy by any stretch... He at the moment and for the last week or two has thought himself ill-used, I suppose. But I’m not about personalities, here... I’m about saving my country, which I se as the best hope for Freedom this world has on it.
There is much in Billy’s writing.. and his thought... to commend it... Billy more than most of the radical libertarians I’ve read. I’ve always said so. He’s a good writer, often touching, usually forceful.
Yet, as sharp as he can be, he, like all of us, has his blind spots. As I’ve tried to tell him and anyone else of a similar bent, calls for a popular rebellion against government (Amred or otherwise) FIRST needs to be popular. Else, it’s doomed to fail. Seems a basic enough premise. And demonstrably, what’s been done so far hasn’t worked. THeir brand of libertarianism has been attempted for the last century... longer than the failed USSR. Apparently, like the soviets, the all or nothing crowd just figures we’ve not done it right, yet, when it’s clear to everyone else that it’s not going to work.
As I suggested in my own comments section a few days ago;
A free society or even a marginally free one...tends not to move in any direction all at once.
We got to this juncture in our nation’s history because of a continuing effort by the left over the last century towards the situation we have today.... and because of a lack of involvement in the process by people who have refused to take part in the process of turning those losses around... in short abandoning the dream, while claiming to be fighting for it. I am resigned to a fight I may or may not never see come to anything like victory.
But I’m DAMNED sure we’re never going to get where we want to be, in my lifetime or afterward, if we don’t start pushing in the other direction, within the existing system.
To that end, I have been outspoken in my support of the President, and of a goodly portion of the Republicans... not because I hold any affinity with them because they’re Republicans, but because I see them, on the whole, as working toward the end of the reduction of government to it’s original purposes... at the moment. At the moment, they’re going the direction we need to go. When I see someone come along that has a better change of providing what I seek, at that point THEY will have my support.
I’d sooner have someone like Billy on the front lines with me. He’s a sharp guy. But either way that goes, my direction is chosen already.
...libertarians are also fighting over who’s "on the team." Who doesn’t like to watch a good fight?
Within libertarian ranks, this is nothing new. They’ve been tossing out "heritics" for some time now (since the doctrinaire libs took over the party).
I say let ’em have the so-called "party" and good riddance. People among that group who want a libertarian government but would rather remain pure than enter into the politics necessary to effect change marginalize themselves from the get-go. They can effect nothing but a lot of noise and complaining.
Why they even bother with attaching "Party" to the end of "Libertarian" still puzzles me as they have absolutly no desire to act as a poltical party whatsoever and they certainly display no real desire to effect change either.
Well, here’s another Billy that stands in stark contrast to the one who’s giving you a hard time. I’ve been in the LP for fifteen years - contributed to campaigns and even worked on some. And I’ve had it with the Libertarian Party.
I always knew it was amateurishly run, and too doctrinnaire. But I had hopes for some realization and maturation over time. Not any more.
And the big turning point was the position on the Iraq War, Phase II. I got frustrated when the LP opposed Phase I back in 1991, because anyone who’s read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich knows that you stop enemies of freedom before they get the power to take over half the world, not after.
But after 9/11, the head-in-the-sand isolationism of the LP is beyond comprehension. Look, continuing terrorism is a guarantee of expansion of government powers and lessening of freedom! So letting that problem simply fester was likely move us in the wrong direction at light speed.
Their answer - disengage from the Middle East to take away the terrorists’ "motivation" and "stop them at the borders" if that doesn’t work - is in complete denial of a world of religious jihad and nuclear weapons.
Call me a "Heinlein libertarian". RAH was one of the major influences on my libertarian thinking, and he could be very hawkish when liberty was threatened. he was also a champion of being pragmatic about finding ways to accomplish one’s aims.
I’ve known for a long time that his brand of libertarianism was considered tainted or naive among the purists. But they’ve had their shot. It’s time to let pragmatic libertarianism take a swing at fighting the trend to increase government forever. Heck, we can’t do any worse than the purists.
And I think they owe it to us to at least stay out of the way and not distract us with their carping, even if they can’t find it in their heart to cheer us on. I’ve put up with them for fifteen years. A little recipriocity is in order, I think.
As Jon and Bruce know, I emailed them earlier today and asked to be taken off the NLN listing. No hard feelings, it’s just that the I prefer the principled approach.
That’s my style, my comfort zone. It’s not so much that I have trouble with pragmatic political actions. I do have a problem with:
1. Explicit statements admonishing a pragmatic approach.
2. Explicit criticism of the principled approach.
I’m a business guy. We do things pragmatically all the time, but we do so within the framework of very strict business principles. True, we don’t necessarily instruct our clients in what our explicit business principles are (unless it pragmatically helps us make a sale), but they are there nonetheless.
What I mean is that there’s place for both, and I don’t think all of one or all of the other is going to do it. The principles come first. They are always there. They have to be there. They have to be reflected in your actions—even your pragmatic actions.
So, the problem for me is: if we’re going to advocate pragmatic actions, then what actions? On what principles do these actions rest? ...And if you say "none in particular," then you’ve got serious problems; and if you say, "this and that principle," then how can you be criticizing anyone who upholds them?
I think there’s room for both of you. As I’ve learned over and over in my company:
1. There’s no single approach that works for everyone.
2. There’s no approach that can’t be continually improved upon.
What I mean is that there’s place for both, and I don’t think all of one or all of the other is going to do it. The principles come first. They are always there. They have to be there. They have to be reflected in your actions—even your pragmatic actions.
Well, yeah, Rich ... its kinda hard to call yourself a ’libertarian’, even a new one if you don’t believe in some basic principles. And, I agree that they have to be reflected in your actions.
However there are, call them principles, call them policies that we disagree with .... Billy Hollis descibes one such policy, "head-in-the-sand isolationism". That’s not a policy with which I can concur, so it isn’t acceptable to me and I will work toward seeing it overturned as a libertarian principle/policy. It flat ignores reality. And I’m afraid that’s just something you can’t do and remain either viable, credible or alive today.
So I reject that "principle/policy" of the libertarian party up front and with mustard on it. Its simply stupid. When I see the doctrinaire types begin expounding on how they’re more libertarian than I am because I don’t accept that line of drivel, I simply stop listening.
They can be more of whatever they wish, but it will be people who realize the danger of their thinking and actually do something about defending this country (other than on the borders) that will allow that bunch to feel smugly superior about their foolishness.
That isn’t a violation of a viable principle as I see it. Its a rejection of an unworkable utopian 19th century notion that should have been ditched when its fatal flaw was exposed with the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
So, the problem for me is: if we’re going to advocate pragmatic actions, then what actions? On what principles do these actions rest? ...And if you say "none in particular," then you’ve got serious problems; and if you say, "this and that principle," then how can you be criticizing anyone who upholds them?
They stand on the principles of liberty and freedom and their maximization. Have you read The New Libertarian Rich? They’re in there. No one here is saying "none in particular".
And we’re not criticizing valid principle we’re criticizing the credo that says principle is all that’s important. Where in the world has it gotten them?
Nowhere.
Working within the process to make the world more libertarian makes much more sense than standing on the sidelines flinging your own feces at everyone and declaring how superior your are. This is long range hard work which libertarians are going to have to do to even effect incremental change.
What even incremental change have the feces flingers brought about in their years of being in charge?
But bottom line: it doesn’t mean you have to compromise your principles at all. It means you’re not going to get your way all at once no matter how many times you stamp your feet and hold your breath. You’re going to have to effect change gradually. You’re going to have to reorient the majority. And government. But nothing about effecting that change requires that you must compromise your principles to do so. If you’re going to compromise them, why bother?
Here’s what I told someone else on that very same point:
"As for "volating principles", I’m not at all willing to violate them to accomplish marginal gains. The point of principles is they stand for something. There’s no point in claiming them if you’re willing to violate them just to make a little gain (for example: imposing libertarianism to foster a ’non coercive’ government is completely unacceptable on principle not to mention a dead end for any "libertarian" regime). I’m willing to work toward their full implementation and settle for accomplishing that incrementally, but violating principles to accomplish their goals seems completely contradictory (and self-defeating) on its face."
I think you guys are coming at this the wrong way. There’s no reason why we incrimentalists can’t coexist with the doctrinaire folks, if only for this reason: they make us look like moderates by comparison. Democratic socialism origianlly became accepted as moderate and mainstream (more in Europe than in the US) in part because it was seen as modest in compaison to the raving communist loonies. So the No Treason types can keep espousing libertarian principles their way, and we can work in our way, and there’s no reason that it has to be a zero-sum game. Let’s just stop wasting pixels cracking eachother over the head, shall we?
I agree with the stated aim of moderating ourselves for leverage, I just fear how much we’ll have to give up to get in.
Lately I’ve been pondering if maybe the LP should consider a Parasite Strategy: recruit some real ruthless, political warrior* types, then "target" one of the "majors" for destruction & replacement. You can guess which one I’d want them to "target"...
(* - by this, I mean the following: "where’s the libertarian Gingriches & Begalas?" Libertarians need to drop the pretense of being too good to get in the trenches & learn to rip some flesh)
In case you guys would like to take up any of the egregious errors in the inaugural issue of "The New Libertarian", you’re welcome to visit my post on the matter.
It’s not that we’re against pragmatism—we’re against non-libertarianism and bad writing.
I’d actually already read your post, Justin. I didn’t find it very compelling—inasmuch as you seem to ignore the matter of just what "entanglements" meant to the FFs, and what they thought constituted an alliance, as well as blurring the meaning of "economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy"—so I didn’t comment. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but since you seemed more interested in berating than engaging, I thought I’d let you beat your chest to your hearts content.
Non-libertarians, though, huh? Well, maybe if you draw the net a little tighter, you’ll be more successful. And maybe if you’re just a bit more utopian, you can be more effective. How’s that been working out so far?
You’re welcome to engage the arguments on an intellectual level. I’m not interested in anything else.
My last comment was drafted and posted, not having seen Billy Hollis’ comment. Our comments must have crossed in the posting process.
Had I seen it, I would have pointed out that Billy Beck is far, far, FAR from an LP “ideologue.” In fact, I’ve known Billy for even longer than I’ve known Bruce, which is about 10 years. I’ve battled the likes of Scott Erb & Co. alongside them both, on USENET. I’m in tune philosophically with them both, but you know what? I’m in tune philosophically with a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I could stand to be around them. I’ve not had the distinct pleasure of meeting Bruce face-to-face, but I drove 50 miles to San Francisco about a year ago for the express purpose of meeting Billy, and I knew beforehand I’d only get about an hour of one-on-one time. I mention this because I dearly adore both of these guys, personally. The easiest way to describe why is because they’re both the kind of guys who can and like to get their hands dirty, and that’s the only kind of guy I can like on a personal level.
Billy can defend himself with regard to Bruce’s post as he sees fit, but I just want to make sure everyone knows that Billy’s not some wet-behind-the-ears ideologue who just finished his first reading of Atlas Shrugged a week ago. He’s as faceted and complex as any genuine person you’d want to get to know.
Ok, that’s a bit digressive, but it’s for a purpose. The LP is no bastion of ideological purity (they tell people to vote, after all), and Billy is not impractical. The LP is just simply whacked, and impractical (as well as being pragmatic), and Billy’s stand on principles is dead on right.
Here’s the thing. I’d be way more interested in what you guys have in mind if you dropped the “pragmatic” bit. Is that what you really mean, because to me, pragmatism means that you sacrifice principles to results. Certainly, that can’t be what you have in mind.
Could it be that you mean to be practical? That, I can buy. You know, there are all sorts of principles on all sorts of levels that children and young people need to be instructed in, but that doesn’t mean it’s practical to instruct them on how to approach the opposite sex at the age of three. The principle is correct, but it’s impractical. Our target audience is a bunch of infants when it comes to matter of individualist principle. It’s not unwise to approach their learning with a certain mindfulness of the practicality of getting them through stage after stage without losing them.
How many times did I roll my eyes when there were matter of grave political practicality going on, and I’d get an email from the LP about some loser in California who had run for Gov and is now being prosecuted for medical marijuana? Yea, like you’re going to win over the kind of people you want to win over with drug legalization as your banner issue. Truth is, I supported the LP for a while, even sent them money, but the moment I read that first blame-America email from Harry Brown after 9/11, it was all over for me. Every one of their direct mail pieces has gone straight to the trash since. Their isolationist stance since has far from impressed me, and I know it has not impressed Billy either.
So, I guess my message is: dump the pragmatism, because I don’t; think that’s what you really mean, and embrace practicality, but within the very strict bounds of your principles. That is, you don’t compromise them, but you don’t flaunt them, either, before the time is right.
My last comment was drafted and posted, not having seen Billy Hollis’ comment. Our comments must have crossed in the posting process.
Had I seen it, I would have pointed out that Billy Beck is far, far, FAR from an LP “ideologue.” In fact, I’ve known Billy for even longer than I’ve known Bruce, which is about 10 years. I’ve battled the likes of Scott Erb & Co. alongside them both, on USENET. I’m in tune philosophically with them both, but you know what? I’m in tune philosophically with a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I could stand to be around them. I’ve not had the distinct pleasure of meeting Bruce face-to-face, but I drove 50 miles to San Francisco about a year ago for the express purpose of meeting Billy, and I knew beforehand I’d only get about an hour of one-on-one time. I mention this because I dearly adore both of these guys, personally. The easiest way to describe why is because they’re both the kind of guys who can and like to get their hands dirty, and that’s the only kind of guy I can like on a personal level.
Billy can defend himself with regard to Bruce’s post as he sees fit, but I just want to make sure everyone knows that Billy’s not some wet-behind-the-ears ideologue who just finished his first reading of Atlas Shrugged a week ago. He’s as faceted and complex as any genuine person you’d want to get to know.
Ok, that’s a bit digressive, but it’s for a purpose. The LP is no bastion of ideological purity (they tell people to vote, after all), and Billy is not impractical. The LP is just simply whacked, and impractical (as well as being pragmatic), and Billy’s stand on principles is dead on right.
Here’s the thing. I’d be way more interested in what you guys have in mind if you dropped the “pragmatic” bit. Is that what you really mean, because to me, pragmatism means that you sacrifice principles to results. Certainly, that can’t be what you have in mind.
Could it be that you mean to be practical? That, I can buy. You know, there are all sorts of principles on all sorts of levels that children and young people need to be instructed in, but that doesn’t mean it’s practical to instruct them on how to approach the opposite sex at the age of three. The principle is correct, but it’s impractical. Our target audience is a bunch of infants when it comes to matter of individualist principle. It’s not unwise to approach their learning with a certain mindfulness of the practicality of getting them through stage after stage without losing them.
How many times did I roll my eyes when there were matter of grave political practicality going on, and I’d get an email from the LP about some loser in California who had run for Gov and is now being prosecuted for medical marijuana? Yea, like you’re going to win over the kind of people you want to win over with drug legalization as your banner issue. Truth is, I supported the LP for a while, even sent them money, but the moment I read that first blame-America email from Harry Brown after 9/11, it was all over for me. Every one of their direct mail pieces has gone straight to the trash since. Their isolationist stance since has far from impressed me, and I know it has not impressed Billy either.
So, I guess my message is: dump the pragmatism, because I don’t; think that’s what you really mean, and embrace practicality, but within the very strict bounds of your principles. That is, you don’t compromise them, but you don’t flaunt them, either, before the time is right.
1) Our country was founded in an extremely dangerous geopolitical environment. By contrast, "The New Libertarian" characterizes the security situation thus:
"In Jefferson’s day, America was protected by two very wide oceans. Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of nations. Self-defense was relatively easy and inexpensive for the U.S."
This is just factually false. Three powerful European empires were all roaming the North American continent. French, Spanish, and English invasions were all feasible, and all feared at one time or other. The neoconservative reinterpretation is ahistorical. It is factually wrong. That’s a pretty clear assertion, I think.
2) Your guy also asserts that "In addition, America had and [sic] economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy." False. Factually incorrect. England continually tried to limit our ability to trade with other European powers, and the Founding Fathers fought tooth and nail to prevent England from successfully constraining America’s policy of free trade. The statement in quotes is another factual error, not a matter of "meaning blurring."
I am saying, to be perfectly clear, that your author misrepresents, either willfully or out of ignorance the number of dangers faced by the FF’s, their dependence on and dedication to the principle of free, neutral trade, and their devotion to maintaining a "Don’t tread on us and we won’t tread on you" foreign policy.
Those critiques are pretty clear, I think. You may prefer to characterize them as chest-beating, but I’d be quite interested to hear if you could refute them factually.
Here’s the thing. I’d be way more interested in what you guys have in mind if you dropped the “pragmatic” bit. Is that what you really mean, because to me, pragmatism means that you sacrifice principles to results. Certainly, that can’t be what you have in mind.
I have a copy of the American Heritage Dictionary sitting aroun d here somewhere that defines "pragmatic as: Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
So, let me see if I get tis straight: You object to what we’re doing, and have the temerity to imply—in the nicest possible way, of course—that we’re unprincipled as a matter of semantics?
If so, then, with all due respect, that’s simply an extraordinarily silly criticism.
Your guy also asserts that "In addition, America had and [sic] economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy." False. Factually incorrect.
The U.S. economy was almost wholly agrarian well into the 19th century. In 1800, only 5 percent of Americans lived in cities or towns with 2,500 or more residents. In 1831, 10 out of every 11 Americans lived on family farms.
Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of nations. Self-defense was relatively easy and inexpensive for the U.S."
This is just factually false. Three powerful European empires were all roaming the North American continent. French, Spanish, and English invasions were all feasible, and all feared at one time or other.
So, let me see if I get this straight. Your objection to the statement that "Mounting an effective and sustainable invasion of America was beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of nations" is to reply that there were three nations capable of mounting such an invasion. And that refutes the point how, exactly?
In point of fact, Great Britain’s punitive expedition of 1812, while accomplishing the destruction of Washington, failed to take Baltimore either by land or sea, and the Britsh retreated. The British attempt to invade New York from Canada was aborted by the defeat of the British fleet on Lake Champlain by American navy units under the command of Commodore Macdonough. And, of course, General Jackson defeated the British forces at New Orleans.
Moreover, if the Revolutionary War proved anything, it was that even the most powerful European Empire of the time, Great Britain, was militarily and financially unable to sustain an occupation of a hostile America, even when defended only by a tiny professional force backed up by a part-time militia. A lesson the war of 1812 reinforced, by the way.
The idea that Spain, unable to maintain its own empire in Central and South America from losses to local revolutionaries, posed in any way a threat of invasion to America, is laughable.
Finally, France, having been unceremoniously removed from its major toehold on the continent, Quebec, during the French and Indian War, and having a second-rate navy even in the Napoleonic Era, was similarly unsuited to pose a threat of invasion. To posit otherwise defies credulity.
You can quote the dic all you like, but you know as well as I do what libertarians think of when they hear the word "pragmatic," as well as its use in the political sphere.
It’s usage is explicitly, "don’t bother me with principles, I have things to do."
On another score, facts require a context, so I would ask, are you concerned with the facts in the context of your principles, or in the context of pragmatic results? And that’s no false dichotomy.
There is a distinction to make between the pragmatic and the practical, in this context. Practicality easily incorporates your principles—it just means you’re employing them effectively. Pragamatism means that they take a back seat to what you want to get done.
And if not, what word would you use to describe a situation where principles can be sacrificed to results?
There is a distinction to make between the pragmatic and the practical, in this context. Practicality easily incorporates your principles—it just means you’re employing them effectively. Pragamatism means that they take a back seat to what you want to get done.
In other words, yes, you are basing your criticism on semantics.
And if not, what word would you use to describe a situation where principles can be sacrificed to results?
This is just factually false. Three powerful European empires were all roaming the North American continent. French, Spanish, and English invasions were all feasible, and all feared at one time or other. The neoconservative reinterpretation is ahistorical. It is factually wrong. That’s a pretty clear assertion, I think.
Its also pure nonsense. Look at what was going on at the time IN EUROPE (see French Revolution, Napolean, etc). Why do you think France sold the "Louisiana Purchase" at bargain basement prices? It certainly wasn’t to retain a foothold in the new world, that’s for sure. And Spain, allied with France, was in a downward spiral as well.
If you believe that invasions were ’feasible’ much less sustainable, then you’re the only one who does.
The reason they weren’t is because two wide oceans protected the US and they were at each other’s throats, as usual. That gave America the time and distance it needed to develop enough to protect itself.
Due to technology those oceans no longer afford the US that sort of protection.
Your guy also asserts that "In addition, America had and [sic] economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy." False. Factually incorrect. England continually tried to limit our ability to trade with other European powers, and the Founding Fathers fought tooth and nail to prevent England from successfully constraining America’s policy of free trade. The statement in quotes is another factual error, not a matter of "meaning blurring."
Which has absolutely nothing to do with a "self-sufficient agrarian economy". Trade was important and it was a "good thing" but it wasn’t vital to our strategic survival as a nation, as it is now ... and that’s the difference that you obviously don’t understand. There was no commodity, such as oil, which could cripple us if foreign sources denied it to us. Our economy doesn’t work that way it did in the 18th century anymore. Anyone who doesn’t realize that, such as yourself, is whistling in the dark.
I am saying, to be perfectly clear, that your author misrepresents, either willfully or out of ignorance the number of dangers faced by the FF’s, their dependence on and dedication to the principle of free, neutral trade, and their devotion to maintaining a "Don’t tread on us and we won’t tread on you" foreign policy.
And I’m saying its abundantly clear that you’re a graduate of public schools.
In other words, yes, you are basing your criticism on semantics.
So let’s say, arguendo, that it’s only semantics. Don’t you think "practical" has less baggage, and you wouldn’t have to keep defending the word "pragmatic" all the time, like you’re taking up time doing now? Wouldn’t it be more practical to use a better word if one was available?
Please see my post above.
I’d be happy to. Could you kindly point me to the word (if not "pragmatism") that describes the situation where one sacrifices principles in order to obtain results. Alternatively, you could just name the word (if other than "pragmatism," that is).
But that’s not what I’m talking about. I don’t deny that you have principles. I’m asking you to give me the word (a single concept) that describes the philosophy of sacrificing those principles to expedient results.
If that word is not pragmatism, then what is the word? Or, do you claim that we don’t have one?
The morality of an action doesn’t change with popularity, so why exactly do you think a "purist" would consider the fact that no one pays attention to him to be at all relevant? Long ago, I accepted that neither I, nor anyone else who shares my principles, will ever make a dent at the polls. I’m over it and I laugh at your attempt to provoke a reaction with that lame remark.
When you talk of "compromise", what that means is that you’re going to allow government to keep stealing our property, to keep locking up people for victimless "crimes", and so forth. The widow whose home is auctioned to pay for taxes suffers with your blessing. The man whose life is ruined by mandatory sentencing suffers with your blessing.
For what? An ephemeral hope that maybe, possibly one day enough people who now endorse such attrocities might have second thoughts and change the system, despite all the built-in motivators driving participants in the exact opposite direction?
Why don’t you ask the dispossesed widow if she is willing to be miserable until the day she dies if you promise her that there is a miniscule chance that her great-great grandchildren might see a day when such things are no longer the routine? (What will you ask her if she has no children?) Ask the man languishing in prison, giving up the best years of his life, if your "compromise" makes him feel better. These people don’t have the time to wait for your "evolution". Their lives belong exclusively to them and no one else, not even an enlightened person like you, has any claim on them, even if you judge them to be an acceptable cost for your cause.
I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong. It is not my business to be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then?
I’m asking you to give me the word (a single concept) that describes the philosophy of sacrificing those principles to expedient results.
Politics.
I understand that compromise on the path towards goals might be undesirable to many—even, perhaps, unconscionable—but the alternative is certain failure. The opportunity cost is greater than the compromise.
In any event, if such compromise on the way to an ideal is so unconscionable to many, then it’s hard to see why they would speak up about politics at all. I recognize your right to be a conscientious objector, but I’m not sure why a conscientious objector (Billy, for example) insists on showing up to the war to tell warriors how to hold a gun. For people who reject politics (i.e., compromise), you guys certainly do spend a lot of time hanging around the battlefield. I’m not sure I understand why.
And so it is now come to, "You cannot play in my sandbox if I cannot play in yours"? All the years...all the words, so carefully constructed and hewn to their barest minimum to express the thoughts concisely...all that energy left to such a meaningless retort?
Perhaps I am biased - after all, it was Billy I called when life was...at its lowest ebb. It was he that came and asked no questions. Just those long fingers that I could trust to reach deep and pull out that dangerousness inside. And no judgment at all made in the moment.
So I come at this from a prejudiced view. But to lay at his feet the "do nothing" gauntlet? Oh, no. That will not do, McQ. There is only one person I have ever known who actually walks the walk. At great and terrible risk to himself. And he does it without requiring that you do it nor that you give a rotten damn if he does it. All he asks is that you don’t lie to yourself about what you are doing - or not doing - about it all. On that he will challenge you - and if you wish to put it, your ethical equivocation, online then you will absolutely be challenged on it.
It’s often I’ve wished I could follow his path - I am a creature of black and white, trying to not allow weasle words and grey areas to cloud my choices and actions. But I am too afraid of the great beast that lumbers about our lives, able to snatch us up in a heartbeat. It is hard enough feeling the fetid breath on my neck daily.
So you pick that gauntlet up, my good man, and stow it back in your belt. It is not for him to show truth in action - he does so daily.
Thanks for the more temperate response. My apologies for going off, but I’ve been dealing with Fundy Lemmingtarians for a few days now, and I’m just about tired of the constant demands to run off the cliff with them, or be branded with the Scarlet H(eretic). So, I’m a little touchy lately.
I’ll still disagree with your criticisms, for reasons already laid out fairly well by Dale and McQ. In addition, though, I want to point out the interpretation of what our FFs said. Foreign "entanglements" did not refer to any activity outside our border, or support for any ally. Instead, it was said in the context of the European diplomatic paradigm, which—at that time and long thereafter—was a constant, burdenson, overheated battle to maintain the balance of powers. The FFs wanted to avoid the unnecessary costs and obligations of permanent alliances—warring on behalf of friends, incurring the pique of other countries by siding with a "permanent" ally in a fluid situation, etc—prefering instead to devote the treasury solely to our own interests.
Well, that’s what we want, too. Our position is twofold, and rather simple:
1) At our countries founding, we enjoyed the ability to engage in the "spendid isolation" that Great Britain aspired to—and eventually attained—because of our separation. In fact, while Britain enjoyed some small degree of it, because they were separated from the Continent, we enjoyed that much more, because our separation was so much greater. However, today we are much more connected to the world than Britain was during their period of Spendid Isolation, and—despite our oceans—probably more connected than Britain is today. We cannot withdraw from the world, precisely because our interests are not so distant from the global political struggles.
The FFs merely wanted us not to form alliances based on habit, eternally fiddling with the balance of powers to our own detriment; instead, to act always in our own interest. We should continue to pursue that path.
2) However, the nature and extent of "our interests" has broadened over time, to include more abstract components, such as stability, democratization, and threat-prevention. We recognize that there are US interests at stake, and we believe the US should reserve the right to act in the furtherance of our values, when those values coincide with our national security interests.
Frankly, I think that’s quite a libertarian position.
So I come at this from a prejudiced view. But to lay at his feet the "do nothing" gauntlet? Oh, no. That will not do, McQ. There is only one person I have ever known who actually walks the walk. At great and terrible risk to himself. And he does it without requiring that you do it nor that you give a rotten damn if he does it. All he asks is that you don’t lie to yourself about what you are doing - or not doing - about it all. On that he will challenge you - and if you wish to put it, your ethical equivocation, online then you will absolutely be challenged on it.
What Billy’s done is fine as far as it goes Laura, and he’s welcome to challenge anything he sees fit to challenge, but when he tries to tell me that he’s got the people here and their motivation figured out and that this is all about exposure and noise, then he’s barking up the wrong tree and it is I who will do the challenging.
I’ve got grandchildren Laura, 4 fine grandsons. I feel compelled to do something that might help them live a life of more liberty. That means I want to more that just "walk the walk" myself. I want them to be enabled to "walk the walk" as well.
The do-nothing label is used in a general sense. Billy has his reasons for withdrawing from and not participating in the political process. I have reasons for participating, as I’ve just outlined, and it has nothing to do with "exposure" and "noise".
It’s often I’ve wished I could follow his path - I am a creature of black and white, trying to not allow weasle words and grey areas to cloud my choices and actions. But I am too afraid of the great beast that lumbers about our lives, able to snatch us up in a heartbeat. It is hard enough feeling the fetid breath on my neck daily.
So you pick that gauntlet up, my good man, and stow it back in your belt. It is not for him to show truth in action - he does so daily.
The gauntlet wasn’t thrown down here, Laura ... and you know it.
When you talk of "compromise", what that means is that you’re going to allow government to keep stealing our property, to keep locking up people for victimless "crimes", and so forth. The widow whose home is auctioned to pay for taxes suffers with your blessing. The man whose life is ruined by mandatory sentencing suffers with your blessing.
Did you bother to read anything said above, or did you just come here to preach from a false premise?
"’Your guy also asserts that "In addition, America had and [sic] economically self-sufficient, agrarian economy." False. Factually incorrect.’
The U.S. economy was almost wholly agrarian well into the 19th century. In 1800, only 5 percent of Americans lived in cities or towns with 2,500 or more residents. In 1831, 10 out of every 11 Americans lived on family farms."
If it was almost wholly agrarian, it was NOT economically self-sufficient, esp. in relation to the industrial powerhouse of the planet, England. IIRC, restrictions on trade were a major factor in the Revolution
The Libertarian Party has been a do-nothing organization for so long precisely because it is a political *Party*. Libertarian politics is inherently contradictory, and the meltdown of the party is the inevitable outcome of that contradiction. It’s no surprise that, without acknowledging the contradiction, the two main approaches to undoing the pitiful state it finds itself in consist of trying to wish the contradiction away.
On one hand are the "purists" - not the Billy Becks of the world, but the petty shiny badge crowd within the Party - who try to wish away the compromises of principle necessitated by electoral politics and think that this will make their politics stronger. On the other hand are the neo-libertarians who want to start all over again from the same contradiction - so that they can spend another 30 years feeding the beast while pretending to starve it. But neither group even considers the possibility that the answer is not to be found in politics - that politics *is* the problem.
There’s an apocryphal meme of the dog facing a chain-link fence through which he can see a juicy piece of meat. He tries and tries to get at the meat through the fence, over it, under it, but to no avail. What his little dog brain can’t conceptualize is that there is an open gate twenty feet away, and that if he just walked *away* from the meat temporarily, he’d be eating it in less time than he’s already spent banging his head against the chain link. Instinct says dig or climb, but attack that fence no matter what. Reason sees the fence as just one aspect of the problem.
I imagine it’s kind of funny watching this, in the same way that it is sadly funny watching the Libertarian weiner-dogs - neo and otherwise - arguing over whether to climb the fence or dig under it. A fence implies a gate, so please excuse me from all this while I go look for it. Happy drooling.
The one aspect you fail to mention here... and it’s frigtening... is that while you’re suggesting going outside the system, there’s one one result of doing so... with any hope of getting to a point of change... Violence. The violent enforcement of such ideas. I’ve pointed this out just recently, and taken some heat for it, but here it is again... I found just this morning on the website of one such purist:
At this pace of history, there is far more to be recovered than can be managed at polls. Although this is immensely tragic in terms of individual lives, the real danger is in the loss of an ideal."
I imagine it’s kind of funny watching this, in the same way that it is sadly funny watching the Libertarian weiner-dogs - neo and otherwise - arguing over whether to climb the fence or dig under it. A fence implies a gate, so please excuse me from all this while I go look for it. Happy drooling.
Kyle, as I’ve become accustomed to, lately, makes good points. This is somewhat like the business analogies I’ve used.
In fact, just this morning I was thinking about how to summarize this whole thing on my own blog, and I was at the point of an analogy where some problems could never be solved by Newton’s physics. I’m optimistic about the future, but only because I believe in the potential greatness of man above all other aspects of existence. But I’m not optimistic that classical individualist philosophy is every going to get us anywhere. It’s had its chance. I am, however, quite certain that any form of political compromise/involvement is a crude and pointless waste of time—top-to-bottom and wall-to-wall. Even if you get one of two of your "points" enacted, the money and power will just shift elsewhere.
I negotiate deals for a living. Currently, my staff of 30 employees does 200-250 deals per month involving over $1 million. I’ve been doing this for 13 years. I’ve settled multi-million dollar debt portfolios for under 10 cents on the dollar, and nobody ever had to set foot in a courthouse or file any chapter under the Bankruptcy code. You could say I’m an expert negotiator.
So, my question to you NeoLibertarian Negotiators is: what do you have to offer those in power to give up some of their power, influence, and money?
Yea, I know, you’re going to pitch the voters, right? Well, that tells me you don’t know anything about negotiation. You have to negotiate with the one(s) with the power or yer jerkin’ yerself off. So, what are you going to offer them? Sure, they might enact one or two of your points. What are you going to give them in return? I’ll tell you what. You’re going to look the other way when that money, power, and influence just shifts somewhere else and the year’s budget is bigger than the one before. Nice exercise, but you’ve gotten nowhere.
I wish you well, but what you need is an Einstein, i.e., an entirely new, radically different approach that no one has ever thought of before.
I doubt such a solution is going to come from philosophers or politicians, or philosophically literate political activists.
You bring up the old canard that "outside the system" can only mean violence. To torture my dog analogy to the point of exhaustion, the map of your backyard has only two areas on it: the fence, and a vague misty area labelled "Here there be Tygers". Well, lets explore behind the frightening mist.
First of all, "the system" I’m talking about abandoning is the electoral system. I’ve said nothing about abandoning or undermining other social and political institutions - though they are all fair game if necessary (and some are - public schools come quickly to mind). There are many ways outside this system. Claire Wolf’s "Galt’s Gulch" isolationism, Galt’s strike, the underground economy, escape to foreign countries that are openly corrupt (and thus possibly easier to deal with), political espionage, and yes, violence, to name a few. That’s what I can think of off hand, and I don’t necessarily endorse any of them, which is why I said I was going to go *looking* for the gate - I haven’t found it yet.
My preference is to avoid violence - its bad for profits - but I hope I have the strength to respond accordingly when and if it is brought to me.
It’s seems to me that your ready jump to violence as the only alternative is based on one core fallacy: that you insist on freedom not only for yourself, but that you won’t have it until you can take everyone with you - kicking and screaming if necessary. That’s sooo 20th century. It’s old news. It’s collectivism in the guise of liberty, and collectivism breeds violence, hence your blinders about violence being the only alternative.
Richard is right, we need an Einstein. More, we need a Heisenberg, a Turing, a Godel... Maybe he’s out there, or maybe we have to each figure it out on our own.
It’s seems to me that your ready jump to violence as the only alternative is based on one core fallacy: that you insist on freedom not only for yourself, but that you won’t have it until you can take everyone with you - kicking and screaming if necessary. That’s sooo 20th century. It’s old news. It’s collectivism in the guise of liberty, and collectivism breeds violence, hence your blinders about violence being the only alternative.
I’m not calling for violence at all; Rather the reverse. I’m suggesting, fearfully, that it’s what will happen once the system is bypassed. War, after all, is politics by another means. The supposed third option doesn’t exist. History speaks rather loudly to that point, as do the quotes from otherwise peaceful people as I’ve posted here.
It’s seems to me that your ready jump to violence as the only alternative is based on one core fallacy: that you insist on freedom not only for yourself, but that you won’t have it until you can take everyone with you - kicking and screaming if necessary. That’s sooo 20th century. It’s old news. It’s collectivism in the guise of liberty, and collectivism breeds violence, hence your blinders about violence being the only alternative.
I’m not calling for violence at all; Rather the reverse. I’m suggesting, fearfully, that it’s what will happen once the system is bypassed. War, after all, is politics by another means. The supposed third option doesn’t exist. History speaks rather loudly to that point, as do the quotes from otherwise peaceful people as I’ve posted here.
I wrote "...but that you won’t have it until you can take everyone with you - kicking and screaming if necessary." I lapsed into the editorial ’you’ there. Actually, your (particular) position on your blog sounds more like "...but that you won’t have it until you can get permission from everyone else". No matter, same collectivist fallacy, different manifestation.
In light of this, it is hopefully more apparent that I wasn’t accusing you of advocating violence, rather the "ready jump to violence as the only alternative" I refer to is an intellectual one. Whether in favor of it or deathly afraid of it, you don’t see any other alternative. Your fear of "tygers" prevents you from determining whether they are really there or not. Yes, *somebody* is screaming "rather loudly" that they are there - in fact, a little too loudly to be believable.
"I wrote "...but that you won’t have it until you can take everyone with you - kicking and screaming if necessary." I lapsed into the editorial ’you’ there. Actually, your (particular) position on your blog sounds more like "...but that you won’t have it until you can get permission from everyone else". No matter, same collectivist fallacy, different manifestation. "
Until that happens, yo’re still subject to the current situation, like it or not. And yes, I see the alternative you and Billy rekect out of hand... getting involved in the system to nudge it in he direction I want it to go.
Four simple words that express all that violence that you are so afraid of. I know, I know, you are not advocating violence. But these four words are a stern warning, aren’t they?
Tell me, from whom would that violence arise, the one who says "I don’t like it, count me out", or the one who says "like it or not"?
I’ll work on finding a way to say "Adios" to the state without *initiating* violence, and with a minimal probability of having to respond to it. You go ahead and keep waiting for permission, while fancying yourself a glorious freedom fighter.
Has anyone else been watching the dragging stolen-election scandal in Washington State? Summation: the Democrat machine blatantly manufactured numbers out of 100% pure horseshit over a series of "re-counts", then declared victory once it had an infinitesimal lead. Blogs like Soundpolitics were all over the case every nanosecond of the way.
So.... what happened? Did 500,000 people pour into the streets like they did in the Ukraine or Lebanon? Why, no! That would require too much labor for the average American with a life-threatening obesity problem. Why no; they signed *petitions*. Your could hear the bones crack as the Seattle courts and press stretched and yawned.
— That, you neo-libs and paleo-libs and any other electorally active libs, is the very best you can ever look forward to by playing your enemy’s game by his rules.
The neos need a Zen master to crack their heads with wooden dowels, and then they need to read and re-read the following until they get a -real- understanding of who they’re proposing to "COMPROMISE" with:
Has anyone else been watching the dragging stolen-election scandal in Washington State? Summation: the Democrat machine blatantly manufactured numbers out of 100% pure horseshit over a series of "re-counts", then declared victory once it had an infinitesimal lead. Blogs like Soundpolitics were all over the case every nanosecond of the way.
So.... what happened? Did 500,000 people pour into the streets like they did in the Ukraine or Lebanon? Why, no! That would require too much labor for the average American with a life-threatening obesity problem. Why no; they signed *petitions*. Your could hear the bones crack as the Seattle courts and press stretched and yawned.
— That, you neo-libs and paleo-libs and any other electorally active libs, is the very best you can ever look forward to by playing your enemy’s game by his rules.
I’ve said my piece elsewhere, but I should add this: if you guys are so determined not to sully your hands with politics, why in the hell are you here? We’ve told you our intentions (we want to do what we can); you’ve told us yours. (doom!)
For a bunch of people who spurn politics, you certainly do spend a lot of time hanging around political sites, talking about....politics.
Who says we aren’t, Jon? Ironically, you’re the intolerant absolutist here because you can only think of politics as either "direct personal involvement in the American electoral process" or "absolute indifference," a false dilemma if ever there was one.
When I teach an indifferent youngster about the joys of reading and philosophy, that’s a -political- act, for starters. I shouldn’t have to tell a grown adult what other options exist out there.
Even if I were to accept your bogus dichotomy, I would still have the intellectual right to point out your errors on both "pragmatic" and historical grounds without having Obligation 1 to propose a solution, run-mad statist Teddy Roosevelt to the contrary.
Four simple words that express all that violence that you are so afraid of. I know, I know, you are not advocating violence. But these four words are a stern warning, aren’t they?
They sure do, but not what you think... not in the least. That’s not at all what I’m saying there. Look, regardless of the level of violence employed, "the system’ not only has the power by all the usual legal means, they also, and more importantly, have public support. THe state is not hated by the majority... and therein lies your problem. Yourproblem is not with the state, but with the people.... a people who are much larger in number than you reckon, I think.As I said before, any popular uprising... of any stripe... needs first be popular. That’s kind of a basic, eh?
You need to change MINDS first and foremost before anything else will happen in your favor... and what’s been done so far has done nothing to win the minds of the people you supposedly seek to free... THere’s only two ways to change those minds... The political process..... or with a gun. Which will you have?
Who says we aren’t, Jon? Ironically, you’re the intolerant absolutist here because you can only think of politics as either "direct personal involvement in the American electoral process" or "absolute indifference," a false dilemma if ever there was one.
Nice to see the attack rabbits show up right on cue.
Thanks Earnest. Although you don’t know it you very predictably proved a point.
Ironically, you’re the intolerant absolutist here because you can only think of politics as either "direct personal involvement in the American electoral process" or "absolute indifference," a false dilemma if ever there was one.
Oh jesus fucking christ. WE are engaged in the "American electoral process". THAT is the politics to which I refer. If you don’t care to engage in it, fine. I’ve no problem with that whatsoever, and I can respect the people who make that choice. And since you’ve chosen to turn your back on it, why the fuck are you here whimpering about our choice?
You’re like the guys who refuse to mow their yard, because "it’s just going to grow back, so what’s the use". And then you stand at your fence, and bitch at your neighbor for mowing his yard. Yes, it’s one option. But it’s fruitless for you, and tiresome for us.
You are going to learn the old lesson that you cannot compromise with the -real- fanatics in American politics, i.e. the statists who have a "religious" dedication to expanding government power.
"Compromise" is only possible between individuals who share mutual premises of rationality which are themselves not negotiable. The reason that I use Krugman as an example is that it is crystal clear that he will NEVER accept any compromise from your camp. The man has openly and without shame contradicted himself on the need for SS reform, and when someone trashes the Principle of Non-Contradiction, you can write off trying to reason with them. He IS a fine representative of the mal pensant pod person that you’re going to go up against in a mob-to-mob battle...
and on those terms, he’s going to win every time.
You can only succeed if you -educate- the masses into understanding what dependency means. Take the civil rights movement, for example. As soon as it became about "voting," it became corrupted and evil, (Goodbye King, hello race-pimp Rev. Jesse) switching from a movement for self-respect into a movement for government freebies.
I don’t even -have- to make an appeal to "principle," you are going to lose so badly on "pragmatic" grounds that it isn’t even going to be pretty.
Wish I had your crystal ball, Earnest.
"History tells us you can’t succeed at this, so don’t try".
Sound like sage advice to you? Sounds much like the "world is flat" to me.
Although in other words, that is precisely what you’re saying, even though history is rife with people who ignored that sort of nonsensical thinking, went ahead anyway and succeeded.
Obviously I have no way of knowing whether an effort like this can succeed ... nor do you. But I’m at least willing to try.
Of course if we were to be successful, you’d have nothing to bitch about, and you’d happily take full advantage of the outcome. But being such experts in all of this, you’d still find some way to condemn not only the effort but the result.
If that floats your boat, have at it. Frankly I’m tired of hearing from the feces flinging monkeys and the other heel nippers who’s only contribution is to tell others why what we’re attempting won’t work.
You haven’t the foggiest idea whether this will or won’t work, and at best, your guess is no better than mine.
BTW, you can continue to pound the straw man of "evil pragmatism" all you want. We’ve defined and refined what it means. Its not the bugaboo you and the Randians claim and you know it. We’ve also carefully pointed out that the practical application of libertarian principles toward marginal and incremental gains is the aim of the effort, NOT compromising principles as the critics continue to insist. I have no idea how many times we have to make that point before it sinks in.
So sail on under those false premises, Earnest. Howl against the moon. But if you want your critique to have any substance (and frankly a REAL critique is always welcome), you might want to talk about what we’ve actually said and not what you’ve cobbled together and claim we’ve said.
That, of course, means you need to read TNL and some other things here.
You can only succeed if you -educate- the masses into understanding what dependency means. Take the civil rights movement, for example. As soon as it became about "voting," it became corrupted and evil, (Goodbye King, hello race-pimp Rev. Jesse) switching from a movement for self-respect into a movement for government freebies.
That’s right ... but your answer is to claim it can’t be done while citing an example in which it was indeed done. That it was later subverted doesn’t mean that it can’t be done again, does it? The founding of our country demonstrates the same process. We didn’t go from a free and freewheeling capitalist state to an industrialized welfare state over night. It happened incrementally. We’re simply positing the same process in reverse.
Somehow that’s seen as some sort of heresy. For the life of me I have no idea why.
But in order to prove that point, first you have to try. It would have been interesting to see MLK say, "well it can’t be done, we’d have to compromise too much with the white power structure. We’re going to remain pure in principle and not even try", wouldn’t it?
Had he done that, we might still be sitting a white’s only lunch counters watching things get worse while MLK bitched about it and condemned anyone who tried to change things while personally refusing to engage in trying to effect change in order to maintain his ’purity’.
It was "done" by going outside the regular electoral process via educating the general public through civil disobedience and other means, NOT by futile efforts to form a "Civil Rights Party."
The Athenian democratic oligarchy did not vote itself out of self-destruction.
The Roman Republic did not vote itself out of self-destruction.
The Western European democracies are currently voting themselves INTO more self-destructive spending habits, not less.
History testifies that once the Caesars get the bright idea to offer "bread and circuses" to the masses, freedom flies out of the window.
You will ignore these unhappy facts in favor of self-deluded scraps of "hope" from firmly statist politicians, instead of taking a cold, clear look at the rotteness of the situation and start pitching in more on the side of educating individuals to freedom.
This IS -realism- about the current American political scene.
McQ: "We’ve also carefully pointed out that the practical application of libertarian principles toward marginal and incremental gains is the aim of the effort, NOT compromising principles as the critics continue to insist."
You’re right, but only because you’ve defined your principles in such a way as to make compromise an inherent part of them. You define your *principle* as things like "as much freedom as possible". As a principle, it may succeed at justifying compromise, but it negates the essential function of a principle, which is as a standard to measure something against.
Be clear on this: "as much X as possible" as a principle supplants any principle of "X". That’s what a principle is, the highest standard. You can’t measure anything against "X" if you elevate "as much X As possible" to a principle. It’s like saying that your goal is to fill this container as full of water as possible, but studiously ignoring any question of whether the container is a bucket or a bathtub or an oil tanker.
You end up with the "as possible" part as your only yardstick, which in effect means that you are letting the electoral process itself set your standards.
It’s easy to say "I won’t compromise on principles" when your principle is "I will compromise."
Bithead: "As I said before, any popular uprising... of any stripe... needs first be popular."
I’m not looking for a popular uprising. I’ve been arguing *against* seeking a popular uprising as a primary goal. Let me know when you’ve integrated that into your collectivist fantasy, then we’ll talk.
It was done within the system by using the system against itself, Ernest ... and you know it. Civil disobedience only drew attention to it. It was legislation which changed the law and thus the legal status of blacks and that wasn’t accomplished through civil disobedience. It was accomplished by making people rethink their prejudices and live up to their rhetoric about freedom and liberty being an equal right for all.
You will ignore these unhappy facts in favor of self-deluded scraps of "hope" from firmly statist politicians, instead of taking a cold, clear look at the rotteness of the situation and start pitching in more on the side of educating individuals to freedom.
Yup, in order to take that jaudiced look at history I have to ignore the historical relevance of what happened right here 200+ years ago.
What, Ernie, should Jefferson and the boys have refused to participate because the Constitution didn’t encompass all their principles and until it was a perfect match, screw everybody they just wouldn’t participate?
You’ve read the debates. Should they have just thrown up their hands, walked away and felt smug in their self-indulgent and self-defeating philosophical purity?
Or do you do as they did and get as close as possible? Then work toward change that you hope WILL get even closer to that ideal?
Tell me how YOU would have done it Ernie. Or would you have refused to "compromise?"
Let’s face it ... with the do-nothings in charge, we’d still be a colony of Great Britian. This is freakin’ contact sport, and you can’t win if you’re sitting in the stands booing both teams.
You’re right, but only because you’ve defined your principles in such a way as to make compromise an inherent part of them. You define your *principle* as things like "as much freedom as possible". As a principle, it may succeed at justifying compromise, but it negates the essential function of a principle, which is as a standard to measure something against.
No, not at all. It means you take any positive GAIN toward the full accomplishment of the principle, no matter how small and you reject any move which takes you in the opposite direction.
That’s has nothing to do with compromising the principle or lowering the standard.
But you tell me ... as a libertarian —and I’m assuming here—who believes that coercion is bad, how do you plan on accomplishing any principle without force if not incrementally?
Be clear on this: "as much X as possible" as a principle supplants any principle of "X". That’s what a principle is, the highest standard. You can’t measure anything against "X" if you elevate "as much X As possible" to a principle. It’s like saying that your goal is to fill this container as full of water as possible, but studiously ignoring any question of whether the container is a bucket or a bathtub or an oil tanker.
You end up with the "as possible" part as your only yardstick, which in effect means that you are letting the electoral process itself set your standards.
Nope. It means that the standard is the standard, the principle is the principle and any move toward gaining a larger share of that standard and principle are positive gains.
As for your analogy, the size of the container is irrelevant if the gain is positive. "Incremental" doesn’t mean it must be a gain of a certain size or it will be rejected. It means a gain in the direction of accomplishing the principle is a positive gain.
Do you think your wishing and hoping will make the tax structure of the US go away tomorrow? Yeah, me neither.
So if there is a proposition for a tax cut which would work toward less taxation, more freedom for the recipients and less taxation overall, is that a positive development toward the principle of "no taxation" or a negative one?
Again, reality says we’re not going to abolish taxation anytime soon. But if we lower taxes drastically and everything continues to function, its a hell of a lot easier to make the case for no taxation then than it was before, isn’t it?
So while we may never be able to abolish taxation in our lifetime, trying to get taxes cut to much lower levels will provide tax relief and more freedom to a hell of a lot more people and allow the case to be made that they can go even lower (with the eventual hope of abolishing them).
Maybe its just me but it seems a much more practical approach than your trying to wish it away.
It was done within the system by using the system against itself, Ernest ... and you know it. Civil disobedience only drew attention to it. It was legislation which changed the law and thus the legal status of blacks and that wasn’t accomplished through civil disobedience. It was accomplished by making people rethink their prejudices and live up to their rhetoric about freedom and liberty being an equal right for all.
When a libertarian Martin Luther King crams a million people into Washington for an "I Have A Dream" speech, with the implied threat of mass civil disobedience if terms are not met, maybe you’ll have a shot.
Of course if you LOSE—then what?
What’s ’Plan B’?
I submit that the Libertarians’ ’Plan A’ has been a bust for thirty straight years running—and a fresh coat of paint ain’t gonna help.
You will ignore these unhappy facts in favor of self-deluded scraps of "hope" from firmly statist politicians, instead of taking a cold, clear look at the rotteness of the situation and start pitching in more on the side of educating individuals to freedom.
Hey, you know what? I don’t think the thing is that damned rotten. I think we’re doing about as well as anybody else, and a hell of a lot better than 99% of human history. In the short term—which is how long I’ll be around—I think it can get a bit worse, or a bit better. I would rather things get a bit better than a bit worse.
God help us if the Founding Fathers, after fighting the Revolutionary War, had simply thrown up their hands and refused to work within the system to design the Constitution. It wasn’t perfect. But, goddamnit, it was a long shot better than the alternative.
But you wouldn’t have been a Thomas Jefferson, working to make the best of a flawed world. You’d spit on him for even trying, knowing the compromises he had to make, and the imperfect government he accepted.
It was done within the system by using the system against itself, Ernest ... and you know it. Civil disobedience only drew attention to it. It was legislation which changed the law and thus the legal status of blacks and that wasn’t accomplished through civil disobedience. It was accomplished by making people rethink their prejudices and live up to their rhetoric about freedom and liberty being an equal right for all.
When a libertarian Martin Luther King crams a million people into Washington for an "I Have A Dream" speech, with the implied threat of mass civil disobedience if terms are not met, maybe you’ll have a shot.
Of course if you LOSE—then what?
What’s ’Plan B’?
I submit that the Libertarians’ ’Plan A’ has been a bust for thirty straight years running—and a fresh coat of paint ain’t gonna help.
1. Getting libertarian candidates elected in sufficient quantity to amount to a damn.
2. Getting 10,000 libertarians to be in Washington by April 14 (this year or any year) for an SSN-card barbecue.
....?
Mike, who’s asking libertarians to do any of that?
Certainly not me.
If that’s what you think this is all about then I’ll tell you the same thing I’ve told most of the other critics ... come back when you know what your talking about and perhaps I’ll pay attention to what you have to say.
I’m not looking for a popular uprising. I’ve been arguing *against* seeking a popular uprising as a primary goal. Let me know when you’ve integrated that into your collectivist fantasy, then we’ll talk.
<.blockquote>
Sure, you’re not. You’re seeking the overthrow of government. Don’t you figure you’re gonna need a few folks to go along with you on that one?
And as for 10,000 SS cards being burned... Tell me; Do you really think people won’t consider it simply a collection of nutziods? Oh, yeah... that’s gonna convert a lotta folks to the cause.
And as for 10,000 SS cards being burned... Tell me; Do you really think people won’t consider it simply a collection of nutziods?
Of course, but the point is that there aren’t enough cops or enough jails to do anything about a collection of nutzoids that large all in one place.
Oh, yeah... that’s gonna convert a lotta folks to the cause.
Your problem is you’re trying to "appear respectible" when you ought to be appealing to the people who are tired of imperious assholes micromanaging their lives. I.e., follow the 10K SSN barbeque with 10K joints being lit up.
Who smokes the most dope? Who hates SS taxes the most? Who has a track-record of activism? Who owns the least seizable "fixed assets" (which the government could threaten)?
Young people—that’s who.
Go to the college campuses and steal the leftists’ base right out from under them.
"Let’s face it ... with the do-nothings in charge, we’d still be a colony of Great Britian."
Oh, God, I knew it was BAD, but I thought that I would leave before I had to give you expletive deleted AMERICAN HISTORY LESSONS...
Did the Founding Fathers *#%$&#$&@#$& VOTE King George out of office, Bruce?
No, they took up arms AGAINST the government and DESTROYED the colonial system. YOU would have been the "do-nothing, work within the system" pseudo-Loyalists in that context.
Likewise, the civil rights movement educated the PUBLIC, which is why the legislature went along with them. King was under no illusions about "working in the system" in the South, which is why he ADVOCATED BREAKING THE LAW NON-VIOLENTLY.
As for "reverse evolution," you are assuming that the starting point now and the starting point then are the same. They aren’t. The statists started working on a basically healthy and free (save for the pathology of racism) society and gradually grew government to where it will grow on its own now even if Bush pulled a Harry Browne this very day.
Secondly, the statists "evolved" us to this situation via lying parasitism. If you propose to do the same thing in pursuit of your goal, you’ll wind up just like they are.
You know what Ernie, your "American History" lesson is short on both "American" and "History".
This isn’t about VOTING for Christ sake. Its about DOING SOMETHING beside carping and feeling superior.
Its about doing something other than throwing shit at people who actually want to change this freakin’ mess and head it back toward more liberty, not less.
Its seems this bunch you run with has a little template they apply to everything and even if its a round peg in a square hole, they’re bringing their boilerplate rebuttals which, in most cases, ignore reality for feel-good, feel superior rhetoric.
And you might note its the same little crowd of feces flinging popinjays every time.
The point I was making about the Founding Fathers is they WROTE and VOTED on a CONSTITUTION. They FOUNDED a GOVERNMENT.
Horror of horrors.
And they didn’t quit in either endeavor a) because they had to vote and b) because it wasn’t perfect and didn’t involve every single principle they each wanted.
They freakin’ COMPROMISED. They took a PRAGMATIC approach. They knew what WOULD and WOULDN’T make the grade with their citizens and they took all they could take.
Somehow, you and the kool-aid drinkers seem to have missed THAT part of American history.
And as for 10,000 SS cards being burned... Tell me; Do you really think people won’t consider it simply a collection of nutziods? Of course, but the point is that there aren’t enough cops or enough jails to do anything about a collection of nutzoids that large all in one place.
MayDay, 1970 or 71. Washington DC. Read about it.
I believe they held them in RFK stadium.
However, my guess is people, to include the cops, would merely shake their heads at this sort of a demonstration. Seems to have all the power of lighting candles, joining hands and singing songs for peace at an anti-war protest.
the point is that there aren’t enough cops or enough jails to do anything about a collection of nutzoids that large all in one place.
MayDay, 1970 or 71. Washington DC. Read about it. I believe they held them in RFK stadium.
They arrest ten-thousand peoplesimultaneously? I rather doubt it. In any event—what do you suppose publicity like that would be *worth*? I mean: Thousands of people not paying their taxes and lighting up, and getting away with it.
Martin Luther King knew what he was doing. Leftists watched, and adopted the civil-disobedience tactic to great success. Why don’t libertarians? I say it’s because they’re lazy blabbermouths who live soft lives and really don’t care if things go inexorably to hell so long as they’re dead of old-age before the flames are too high.
VOTED on a CONSTITUTION. They FOUNDED a GOVERNMENT. Horror of horrors. They freakin’ COMPROMISED. They took a PRAGMATIC approach.
Yes: It was a horror; and the state of the nation today is exactly what anyone sensible could have predicted the very instant he heard of such bloody nonsense—provided, of course, he lacked the hard facts of The Whiskey Rebellion (over 200 years ago now) proving the case of a government already out of control barely after it’d left the crib.
from Jon: You’re like the guys who refuse to mow their yard, because "it’s just going to grow back, so what’s the use". And then you stand at your fence, and bitch at your neighbor for mowing his yard.
You’re like the guys who are pushing around a lawnmower with no blades. Billy Beck and some others are just pointing out the out the futility of it and that it’ll profit you little or nothing to compromise even the slightest of principles the effort because it’s going to cost you in the end.
I, on the other hand, think if you’re dragging about the bladeless mower for aerobic purposes, then knock yourself out. Have a blast, but don’t pretend you’re cutting the grass.
