The benevolence and compassion of the state...

Posting this link again as it is such a fantastic illustration of the non-aggression perspective behind the libertarian philosophy. It's sort of an idiot's guide introduction to the root philosophical idea behind which all of libertarian philosophy springs.

One of the key points that is brought up in the video, but not emphasized, is the role of the state in providing a way for individuals to be violent while pretending to themselves that they are not. Peaceful people, generally, will go to great lengths to avoid using violence to further their goals, if violence is not initiated against them in the first place (and even then peaceful people frequently find it difficult to engage in violence). And yet, through the state, peaceful people at least threaten violence on a daily basis. The state becomes a kind of proxy through which people are insulated from their own conscience.

More on using the state to push your moral agenda...

Roger Pilon on the bevy of Catholic officials who think it's the job of the state to take care of the poor.

I'm not even close to an expert on religious doctrine of any kind, so I'll leave that to Mr. Pilon, but somehow I doubt Christ had in mind that violent coercion should be used to achieve the goal.

An opportunity to understand libertarianism better...

Over at the Cato@Liberty blog, David Boaz links to a series of discussions and debates about "communitarianism" vs. libertarianism. He points to what I also see as persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation about what libertarianism is. It astounds me, sometimes, the comments that come from people criticizing libertarianism -- comments that expose such a complete lack of understanding that it makes you wonder why they even felt qualified to speak on the topic... and if you think about that for a moment it makes you wonder what other subjects they might be commenting on without sufficient knowledge.

Don Bordeaux: "Paving the Road to Hell"

On his blog, Don Bordeaux takes the opportunity of a commenter taking him to task for, in the commenter's words, "illegitimately privileg[ing] private morals over public morals," to make an eloquent case for the libertarian view that compelled compassion through the state can be neither moral, nor compassionate.

For my two cents, it's amazing to me how completely individuals can warp reality to fit their preferred cognitive construction.

Even if I were to entertain the idea of "public morals," the idea immediately falls apart in the context of government because of the inherent subjectivity of morality. Didn't we abandon the idea of using government to enforce a specific moral code when we sent the religious right packing with its tail between its legs? (yes, I know some think we're still fighting that battle, but the reality is that the religious right is all bet dead and buried)

When I talk to some who are sympathetic to the view of the state as moral shepherd, and I point out their similarity to the religious right, as far as I can tell the excuse is simply that their morals are correct. Well, of course -- the religious right thinks their morals are correct, too. As does every individual with their own set of morals... if they didn't think their morals were right, wouldn't they abandon them?

To me, the fundamental lesson of history is that humanity is everywhere and always set upon by a cadre of despots and tyrants, and damn near all of them -- now and in the past -- are despots and tyrants in the name of what they believe are noble goals. As the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

**

By the way, Bordeaux has included a quotation from a history of England (early-to-mid-1800s) by a Thomas Babington Macaulay, which does a surprisingly good job of succinctly describing the issue at hand.

In which Willie chastises Gary Johnson for showing him too much respect...

I finally decided to check out Gary Johnson today. He's a Republican candidate for President who has some decidedly libertarian policy perspectives (marijuana legalization, dramatic reduction in foreign interventionism, market solutions, etc.). Even if you don't like his politics he's a pleasure to listen to as he doesn't descend into the debasement of other candidates as way we are so used to hearing these days.

... but that isn't why I'm posting...

I decided to read Johnson's comments on Obama's violation of the War Powers Act vis-a-vis Libya, and discovered a rather amusing post by "Willie" in the comments section. I find his post interesting in that I think it is such a perfect expose of the kind of confused thought that seems to run rampant in the electorate. I originally was going to post my response there, but decided it wasn't appropriate in that venue, so here it is instead:

Willie, I found your comment on the Gary Johnson site (response to Johnson's statement on Obama's violation of the War Powers Act) somewhat confused and therefore worthy of a response.

Here's a point-by-point analysis of your statement:

1) "... to assert in any context that our President didn't have our interests at heart is disrespectful."

Really? Any context? That's an awfully bold statement. I take it, then, that when Bush was getting reamed as having entered into Iraq essentially as a war profiteer you were posting essentially the same statement in response to those assertions? That it was disrespectful and alienating?

Furthermore, Obama did make some public statements on the subject, in which he cited vague generalizations such as "[America's] unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom.", and "... our interests and values ...," although he failed to cite any real interests (nevermind the idiocy of suggesting that 300+ million people share values that would naturally lead to a rationale for the invasion). So the President himself has failed to prove that he has our interests in mind -- and the burden of proof is on him.

Anyway, Johnson nowhere in his statement makes the assertion that you attribute to him.

2) "... it is reasonable to ask why we are still there, [etc.] ...."

Yes, and it's reasonable to bring him under impeachment proceedings for violating the War Powers Act, too. Johnson's statement, by comparison, is more than reasonable, and in fact quite subdued.

3) "It WAS NOT a disregard for the law, ...."

Merriam Webster definition of "disregard": "treat as unworthy of regard or notice."

Obama did not appear to notice to the War Powers Act, at least not to any degree which matters (he is required by the law to address the Congress on the issue), so that seems to fit the definition.

In fact, I'll go one further: I don't believe there's a way in hell that he didn't give the War Powers Act some thought, which means he just didn't feel the need to consult congress or inform the people at all. That's a blatant contempt for the congress, the people, and the law. Again, Johnson's comments were relatively subdued.

4) "... language such as that is divisive & not beneficial to the overall discussion." That's pure opinion. I found it very beneficial. For example, it brought you and your opinions out into the open...

5) "If you want my vote, you need to bring your views to the table in a manner that asserts your position, but doesn't alienate supporters of the other side in your choice of words."

This gets the responsibility exactly backwards. You think it is his responsibility not to alienate you. But in fact it's your responsibility to give him the benefit of the doubt and try to interpret his words without applying your own baggage to it. That's what it means to be "tolerant," "understanding," and "compassionate." If it was everyone else's responsibility not to alienate others, then no one would ever be able to talk.

6) "... as the potential chief representative of this great nation, you must also have the tongue of a diplomat without losing the integrity of your position through your choice of words."

Really? Diplomats are great paragons of integrity? I always thought the job of a diplomat was, when necessary, to come as close to lying as possible, hopefully without actually doing so, so as to manipulate people into doing your bidding. Is that really what you want for a president?

7) "Be aware that you'd be my president too, not just one of your particular base."

And Johnson would do so by reducing the power and scope of the federal government, leaving more power in the hands of the states and the people, thereby granting you the power to represent your self, or be represented by people and governing bodies closer to you. The point is, you should not have to be concerned about whether the president is representing you -- the office is not a representative office, and it should be doing very little that would require representation.

8) "Remember, no matter what the outcome, the race itself is something that can change our country through it's [sic] national debate. Bear that in mind as you face off with your peers and the President."

Johnson has consistently (more consistently than any candidate I've seen) refused to engage in comparative analysis (pro or con, positive or negative) with his opponents. In fact, he consistently refuses to answer questions from reporters when they ask him about what he thinks about other candidates and their policies.

Criticizing sitting office-holders is a whole different ballgame, especially when the subject is something as weighty as the President of the United States violating the law.

9) "It's more than a race to me.....It's how you get a consensus once it's over win or loose [sic]."

Consensus is the problem, not the solution. Consensus and compromise are for parliamentary governments that were setup to do stuff. Ours is a constitutional republic, designed not do do anything other than exactly that which is described in the constitution. But putting that aside, it's hard to imagine a better candidate for building consensus than Gary Johnson, at least if you're looking at whether or not a candidate is likely to make his case respectfully.


Willie, you seem to be challenging Gary Johnson on the very points where he is one of the best candidates. If you're unable to read Mr. Johnson's very tempered comments on this subject without becoming alienated, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

Furthermore, in your concern about disrespect and alienation, you seem to totally overlook Obama's actions (you mention them but you don't address whether there is any disrespect involved). Don't you think it takes some amount of disrespect toward the congress and the people for Obama to have begun a war without making more than a token effort at explaining the 5 W's about it? Doesn't the president have to show you any respect?

Isn't the one thing that you should take from Johnson's statement the idea that if Johnson is elected president, he'll respect congress and the people at least enough to comply with the War Powers Act? Don't you think it's a little bizarre that it's more important to you that a candidate for president shows the sitting president respect, rather than that he shows you respect?

What candidate is most likely to show the sitting President the most respect? To my mind it is the candidate who owes his chances to, and supports the existing policies of, the sitting President. I can think of no better way for an imperial dynasty to be established in this country than for individuals to base their votes on whether or not a candidate is appropriately respectful of the sitting President, "in any context."