I have an argument with a left-leaning friend. She thinks libertarianism is good in theory but doesn't believe people can be trusted to do the right thing voluntarily. So governments have to take charge of wealth redistribution rather than leaving it to a freely functioning labour market. That sort of thing. She has a rather poor opinion of her fellow beings. Increasingly though her estimation is fleshed out. While I hold to the vision (the Thomas Sowell sort of 'vision') that without more individual freedom we will never know what many people are constructively capable of.
The following excerpt pretty much says it all for me. Our current predicament isn't a failure of the market (which was never free anyway). It is a failure of values. And it vindicates for me why honesty and moral principles are the bedrock of any organisation - be it a family or a multi-national conglomerate or a political party.
The market economy has generated more real wealth, eliminated more poverty and liberated more human creativity than any other economic system. The fault is not with the market but with the idea that the market alone is all we need.
Markets don't guarantee equity, responsibility or integrity. They can maximise short-term gain at the cost of long-term sustainability. They don't distribute rewards fairly. They don't guarantee honesty. When it comes to flagrant self-interest, they combine the maximum temptation with the maximum opportunity. Markets need morals, and morals are not made by markets.
They are made by schools, the media, custom, tradition, religious leaders, moral role models and the influence of people. But when religion loses its voice and the media worship success, when right and wrong become relativised and morality is condemned as “judgmental”, when people lose all sense of honour and shame and there is nothing they won't do if they can get away with it, no regulation will save us. People will outwit the regulators, as they did by the securitisation of risk so no one knew who owed what to whom.
The big question is: how do we learn to be moral again? Markets were made to serve us; we were not made to serve markets. Economics needs ethics. Markets do not survive by market forces alone. They depend on respect for the people affected by our decisions. Lose that and we lose not just money and jobs but something more significant still: freedom, trust and decency, the things that have a value, not a price.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Excellent!!!!!!!
It is critical to have values. Neither should we forget that values imposed by the state don't work. In reality, of course, the state is subsidizing bad values. The social conservatives want the state to mandate good values. Liberals don't. Bad values must not be subsidized, good values must not be legislated.
Leave individuals with the consequences of their own actions and good values will follow.
Mitch. I dunno why a Libertarian would post something like this when you have as a political group adopted all of the moral positions of the Progressives, and in doing so you have worked with them to destroy everything that ever was moral about our society.
Almost every evil afoot in our society today can be blamed on the Progressives, and they are the political enemy of the Conservatives, those who so often bear the brunt of your contempt and derision.
"The social conservatives want the state to mandate good values."
What worthless crap. Conservatives want small weak government that stays out of people's lives, and for morality in general to be an individual choice only subject to the judgment of your peers.
Libertarians are so often such contemptible liars.
"Mitch. I dunno why a Libertarian would post something like this when you have as a political group adopted all of the moral positions of the Progressives,"
How Red?..please explain.If you are saying something like "Progressives support Gay rights and so do Libertarians"....you are missing the crucial point of difference which is...what "rights" exactly? The Individual, negative rights all human beings have that Libs support...or the positive' bogus conflicting "rights" that progressives do...?Theres a massive difference and you know it.
The former says Gays are as equal as anyone else and have the same human rights as the rest of us and no more while the latter says Gays have special rights that are above everyone else's because thay are Gay....you know what Im saying here ....and you know no Lib worthy of the name has ever supported the latter position.
The only other possibility is that you don't belive gay people have equal human rights with everyone else and you don't want them to....which says a lot about you sadly....I think you are one of the best Liberatrian commentators around on your day...;-)
"What worthless crap. Conservatives want small weak government that stays out of people's lives, and for morality in general to be an individual choice only subject to the judgment of your peers."
Then you are talking about Libertarians...not conservatives...at least not the ones who have repeatedly argued for Government intervention in peoples live to make them act 'morally" re abortion,drug use,sexual activity,religious observance.censorship etc....or do you have another name for THOSE people?
James:
There are a wide range of views in both the Conservative and Libertarian camps. There are libertarians who support abortion for example, and those who oppose it as a breach of the non-aggression axiom.
I call myself a conservative, and I'm with Redbaiter on the small, weak government thing etc. But certainly there will be some who disagree with us and still call themselves conservatives.
At the end of the day, a label is just a label, and can cause as much confusion as it resolves sometimes.
Take the "gay rights" issue for another example. Some people will support individual rights by saying the government shouldn't be doing anything about what people do in their own bedrooms. So they shouldn't be trying to teach about homosexuality in schools, they shouldn't be trying to set up institutions to recognise homosexual relationships (civil unions etc) - they should just butt out of the whole issue.
Others will push for state action to balance out perceived inequalities - state education mentioning homosexuality as an equal option to heterosexuality, the state setting up institutions such as civil unions / gay marriage to officially recognise such unions etc.
Most libertarians I talk to fall into the second camp for some reason, some fall into the first. Personally I believe the first is most consistent with a small, weak government, and that is roughly the line I take as a conservative.
But as you can see there are a range of views held by people who all think they are promoting "freedom".
"Then you are talking about Libertarians..."
James, those ideas were espoused by true Conservatives a century before the Libertarians were ever even a thought in someone's mind.
The so called Libertarians are merely Johnny come latelies who are trying to make political capital by reviving Conservative ideas.
"....or do you have another name for THOSE people?"
They're socialists or leftists. Not Conservatives. That they are the way they are, and that you think of them they way you do, is symptomatic of NZ's incredibly narrow spectrum of political discussion.
A spectrum controlled by the left so effectively and for so long, and so damaging in the effect it has had on NZ politics.
What's the bet you think the stinking socialist poseur Dunne is a Conservative.
The present Pope said something very similar in 1985. The essence was:
1) Marxists and free-marketeers agree with each other that morality is irrelevant to economics and they are both wrong and 2) Moral failure can and will lead to market failure.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JL09Dj02.html
By the way James, why would conservatism have generally been associated with the "right" of politics, if it were all about state control?
"They (morals) are made by schools, the media, custom, tradition, religious leaders." So all we need is brainwashing and everything will be fine?
It appears that many people believe themselves to be good, but large numbers of fellow citizens to be potentially bad.
On the contrary, most people are good, and everyone is potentially good. We just need not to screw up peoples incentives. All we need is the rule of law, sound institutions, and limited government subject to the law.
This mind-control nonsense has given the conservatives the green light to form large intrusive governments which inevitably became corrupted and mutated into a means for folks to seek to live at each others expense.
Dave Christian
"This mind-control nonsense has given the conservatives the green light to form large intrusive governments"
Anyone who could write something so utterly wrong has to be a complete ignoramus when it comes to understanding where certain political ideolgies lie on the small government - big government spectrum.
No true Conservative ever ever ever cheered for big government.
Go away Mr. Christian. You're a time and bandwidth wasting moron.
"The Market' is morally neutral and it's time to stop blaming morally neutral systems for what we do!
You're right Ruth. So is a gun. You can choose to use the market in a moral or an immoral manner, just as you can choose to use a gun morally or immorally. Morality is very important.
But the market IS the morally correct mechanism for human beings to interact in.....because it rests on consentual trade and respecting property rights etc.....therefore its consistent with mans natural rights making it moral....and the moral is also the practical....hence the market system providing greater wealth and life quality than any other system tried.
Communism,Fascisim,social Democracy,Theocracy etc are plainly immoral because they violate and conflict with mans rights.
Mr Dennis:"By the way James, why would conservatism have generally been associated with the "right" of politics, if it were all about state control?"
Those terms simply came from where the persons sat in the French Parliament of the day....and it was back to front from what we know know those terms to mean.The Rightists were the socialists...sitting on the right of the chamber...the Liberals (classical) the leftists...ditto.
Libertarians ,contray to Red, have a vast and long history.Conservatism...while maybe originally standing for a smaller state it never the less never had the philosophical basis to remain so...usually religion was the only justification that could be offered for supporting Capitalism and that was inadaquate to counter the socialists appeal to altruism and sacrifice,something that the Cons via religion were bound to themselves....they were morally unarmed.A secular upstart had knackered them with a rejuvinated version of their own dogma.Heaven was not now awaiting in the afterlife..it could be had here on Earth via revolution!
The philosophy of Objectivism discards the altruist morality and posits mans life and happiness as his moral standard and rejects life as a sacrifical animal being at the dispossable whim of others unlike the Socialists and the morally disarmed Cons.That finds expression in the politics of Libs...for the most part.
Tell me Red...what is your standard to base whats good morally and whats bad? Tell us your standard you judge matters of morallity against.I suspect it will invole a deity of somekind and a message invoking self sacrifice ....am I wrong?
"Tell me Red...what is your standard to base whats good morally and whats bad?"
One's own conscience.
"Tell me Red...what is your standard to base whats good morally and whats bad?"
One's own conscience."
Comon dude... Ted Bundy and Charlie Manson are fucking angels if you allow that subjective basis to stand......."ones own concience" still begs the question...a conscience aligned to what standard?
You know that a standard is required to measure actions against...and I know you are pretty much 90% plus Lib aligned....its just that 10% we need to sort out....so....come on....can we end the hostility?
:-)
......."ones own conscience" still begs the question.
It does not "beg the question", it raises the question.
"Ted Bundy and Charlie Manson are fucking angels if you allow that subjective basis to stand"
Sure. They're psychopaths. Devoid of conscience. James, people are good or bad all over the world, religious or secular, Conservative or Progressive.
You do not measure against anything other than yourself. Your own self respect.
"can we end the hostility?"
Well, I wish we could, but you guys started it, with the particularly irritating and completely incorrect dogma about there being "no difference between right and left".
This is effectively declaring yourself as my enemy, and you and many other Libertarians frequently act in line with that silly doctrine.
James, I fight for Liberty, and if you (libs) choose to align yourself with the left, and fight against me then fine, I will return the fire.
I will never back down.
I want to broaden the spectrum of political discussion in this country and I will not be diverted from that objective, by leftists/ Progressives posturing as Libertarians or anyone.
Fuck em. The enemy are the left and they must be destroyed. You can't work out what side you're on, you'll just have to go down with them.
James: Which is exactly why I disagree with Redbaiter and believe there is an absolute source for morality - God. Our consciences generally reflect this because He made them, but some people don't reflect it as well as others.
Redbaiter: Despite that difference we tend to agree on most issues and it is great to have you on the blogs - keep up the good work!
I too find it incredibly frustrating the amount of people who claim to be Libertarian then as soon as we get to homosexuality or similar issues want the state to intervene with "affirmative action" to try to counter alleged discrimination. This is blatant leftist thinking that has no place in the mind of anyone who supports a small government.
"James, I fight for Liberty, and if you (libs) choose to align yourself with the left, and fight against me then fine, I will return the fire."
Red, please explain just how Libs as we know them are aligning with the Left.Do you mean supporting EQUAL human rights to life,liberty,property for gays,women,blacks etc....? What could be your issue with that? Those are the decent and moral things to do.Everyone standing on the same level before the law.
If you mean supporting State backed privlages as the Left do that raise these people above others then you are in total agreement with Libs....so where is the problem?
"
"Well, I wish we could, but you guys started it, with the particularly irritating and completely incorrect dogma about there being "no difference between right and left"."
The problem seems to be in the definition of "Left and Right" as used by you and Libs.You seem to hold the view that all big Government freedom destroying actions come from the "Left"...like you have bundled it all up and put in in the box marked "Left" so as to have a counter box all to yourself called 'Right"..
Libs recognise Left and Right as two sides of the same Statist authoritarian coin...one side wants to control the economic activities of man...one wants to control the moral aspects of man...Libs say they are both enemies of freedom...which under that definition they are.
So....that seems to be our sticking point....a conflict of definition.You have more in common with Libs holding the anti authoritarian view than the "right" wanting to regulate mans morals.....
"This is effectively declaring yourself as my enemy, and you and many other Libertarians frequently act in line with that silly doctrine."
I think its a definition problem that leads to us talking past each other and conflict arising where it doesn't need to...you and I frequently tag team on blog debates against Lefties and use the same arguments about force and property rights...that tells me there isn't that great a gulf between you and Libs as I described.I imagine I would equally oppose the "Libs" you seem to find expousing Leftist drivel too....
Mr Dennis:
"I too find it incredibly frustrating the amount of people who claim to be Libertarian then as soon as we get to homosexuality or similar issues want the state to intervene with "affirmative action" to try to counter alleged discrimination. This is blatant leftist thinking that has no place in the mind of anyone who supports a small government."
No argument from me or anyone else here on that issue,I have never heard a Lib worthy of the name make that case in NZ...certainly not anyone in Libz the party nor in general.
"the amount of people who claim to be Libertarian then as soon as we get to homosexuality or similar issues want the state to intervene with "affirmative action""
Where do you find these "Libertarians"? No true Libertarian would advocate this state intervention.
Red said...
"You do not measure against anything other than yourself. Your own self respect"
But again...against what standard of "right and wrong"?
If your conscience is to be your guide to morallity then how do you know what your conscience is telling you is correct? There must be a pre standard that you measure your conscience against...
Personally I start at the axiom that existence exists (the only natural and therefore knowable starting point we can begin at without flying off into the supernatural (God. From there its a logical progression throught to mans rights and what is objectivly moral for man to do and what isn't...the measuring standard being Mans life...and the requirements of it that nature has set.
Its well explained here by NotPC
http://pc.blogspot.com/2005/05/cue-card-libertarianism-rights.html
James-
While Libertarians are tearing their arses to pieces and 'internalising' over doctrine, the Conservative has one basic mantra. Its directed at government, and its "Leave me alone".
Its really that simple. All the true Conservative wants is for the government to leave him/her alone.
I'm free to have my moral standards. You're free to have yours.
I'm free to judge you if I so choose. You're free to judge me if you so choose.
I don't need all that stuff about rights. Government just has stuff all to do with it, other than to provide a legal framework wherein I can go about my life and the pursuit of liberty and happiness in a lawful environment.
Basic law enforcement, defense of the realm, (and record keeping) are the government's only roles. Otherwise, leave me the hell alone.
Mr. Dennis.
Thanks sincerely for your words of encouragement.
I have great respect for people who follow Christian teachings. I do not criticise anyone for believing in God, for I do not fully understand life and time and space myself, and I think those who presume to know all about these things, and positively declare there is no supreme entity of some sort are arrogant.
"Where do you find these "Libertarians"? No true Libertarian would advocate this state intervention."
Well, as far as I recall, the Libertarian stance shifted from the state should stay out of people's bedroom, to mandating that marriage, the traditional social framework for sexual union and the raising of offspring within the accepted beneficial environment of the nuclear family, and where any man can marry any woman, should be subject to legislation giving homosexuals special status.
You call on the state to legislate to give you what you yourself perceive as rights but what many see as special rights. This at least opens the gate to Mr. Dennis's argument.
This is the downside of Libertarians, where we always seem to end up focused on homosexual issues, when in reality, the much more dangerous and important issue of growing leftist totalitarianism is breathing down our necks, and there are so many more pressing threats to our liberty than Queers getting married for Chrissake.
Redbaiter has summarised what I was referring to as "affirmative action" very well.
Most libertarians I speak to (and you may be an exception) support civil unions and homosexual marriage. Both are state-sponsored institutions that are none of the state's business. Frankly, if a couple of guys want to sodomise each other that's their own business. We don't need the state to interfere and set up institutions to promote "equality".
The word "marriage" has always, throughout history, referred to a relationship between a man and a woman. That is what the word means. For the state to put in place gay "marriage", what the state would actually be doing would be legislating to change the meaning of the word "marriage" - and interfering with language is none of the state's business.
If a couple of people want to sign any contract, that's their business. There is no need for the state to meddle.
Now, as a libertarian, do you support the state setting up homosexual civil unions & marriage, or do you support a limited government?
"
"Well, as far as I recall, the Libertarian stance shifted from the state should stay out of people's bedroom, to mandating that marriage, the traditional social framework for sexual union and the raising of offspring within the accepted beneficial environment of the nuclear family, and where any man can marry any woman, should be subject to legislation giving homosexuals special status"
What a mixed context load of twaddle Red.How is allowing gays to "marry", or whatever term you care to use...give gays "special rights?"
Gays have always raised children...thats nothing new...why is allowing gays to do so an issue?
Two (or more people) "marrying" and having it recognised by the state,in the words of Thomas Jefferson..."neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"...meaning it doesn't violate my rights or yours at all.
"You call on the state to legislate to give you what you yourself perceive as rights but what many see as special rights. This at least opens the gate to Mr. Dennis's argument."
Which is wrong.
Mr Dennis:"Now, as a libertarian, do you support the state setting up homosexual civil unions & marriage, or do you support a limited government?"
Gay marriage doesn't require the State to set up anything....just to refrain from STOPPING gays from doing so..ie" recognising their EXACT SAME individual human rights to life ,liberty,property, pursuit of happiness...no more or less.
You two seem to think that for the State to recognise and uphold these exact same rights for gays that the rest of us have is somehow confering on them "special rights'...bullshit and moronic.....all that has been done is to finally allow gays to step UP from the repressed unequal position they had endured for so long and stand EQUALLY alongside the rest of us human beings....it's not "giving" gays new rights...its recognising the rights they already have but have not been allowed to exercise.
Don't like the word marriage being used...? too bad...no matter what its called Gays will themselves feel "married" and good for them.How its anyones eles business is beyond me.
The States only involvement should be the same as for straight marriage...legal recognition of the union for estate and other legal matters...otherwise its none of their business.
Im sensing some bigoty hiding behind neo Freedom supporting argument and its sad...especially from you Red...its flawed and beneath you....you are better than that.
Mr Dennis,Red....heres an essay that cotradicts and exposes your flawed line of thinking...
http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=75
Have the courage to read it and respond.
James:
"Gay marriage doesn't require the State to set up anything."
It requires the state to change by decree the meaning of a word that has been used for thousands of years to mean one thing - a union between a man and a woman.
Marriage itself should ideally be nothing to do with the state. And the actual contract (vows) made should be honoured, rather than the state defining the terms of the marriage (such as terms around divorce). In these issues I agree with the article you link to.
But the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, generally for the purpose of having children. There is no need to change that definition.
Now, if marriage was completely out of the state's control, there would be nothing to stop some gay couples calling themselves "married". And there would be nothing to stop the general public choosing to either recognise or not recognise these unions. In general I suspect you would find most people would not recognise them however.
I believe this is why the gay-marriage lobby (I don't say the "gay" lobby as not all gays support gay marriage) attempt to get gay marriage established through the state rather than just having relationships, calling them whatever and expecting people to recognise them. They know most people won't unless the state forces them to.
I think if you were truly being liberal, you would not push for the state to control the terms of yet more relationships, you would instead be lobbying to have the administration of marriage taken off the state and returned to religious organisations and private individuals as it was until around the 1700s I believe.
"Gay marriage doesn't require the State to set up anything."
It requires the state to change by decree the meaning of a word that has been used for thousands of years to mean one thing - a union between a man and a woman."
Words change...language adapts....deal with it."Christian" used to mean a follower of Christ...now it seems to mean hate filled busy body...
"Marriage itself should ideally be nothing to do with the state. And the actual contract (vows) made should be honoured, rather than the state defining the terms of the marriage (such as terms around divorce). In these issues I agree with the article you link to."
Hooray!
"But the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, generally for the purpose of having children. There is no need to change that definition."
Its not being changed so much as expanded....and not by the state as such but in general usage....if two gay people form a union akin to straight marriage then thats how people will see it.
"Now, if marriage was completely out of the state's control, there would be nothing to stop some gay couples calling themselves "married". And there would be nothing to stop the general public choosing to either recognise or not recognise these unions. In general I suspect you would find most people would not recognise them however."
Then let them do it and lets see...
"I believe this is why the gay-marriage lobby (I don't say the "gay" lobby as not all gays support gay marriage) attempt to get gay marriage established through the state rather than just having relationships, calling them whatever and expecting people to recognise them. They know most people won't unless the state forces them to."
I think the "gay marriage lobby" are thinking more of the second class citizenship and discrimination they suffered under the law as it stands...like in not being able to have their foreign partners able to become citizens of their conutry of birth because they are the same sex...or how same sex partners have no rights when it comes to the last wishes of their dying partners being respected in regard to jointly owned property and funeral arrangements etc etc.
If that was you on the end of that Mr Dennis I think you too would be fighting hard for your right to marry....no?
"I think if you were truly being liberal, you would not push for the state to control the terms of yet more relationships, you would instead be lobbying to have the administration of marriage taken off the state and returned to religious organisations and private individuals as it was until around the 1700s I believe."
Im not pushing for the state to control marriage in the slightest...mearly recognising that letting the state know you are in a permanent relationship to clarify later legal matters is no problem for this Liberal...its smart.
I see it as....
A:" Hi...we're in a permanent relationship/marraige etc and just want it on record with you guys to cover us legally and estate wise etc..."
B (State):"Congrats...yep I'll just note that down here...so you and him/her are together in a permanent relationship huh?"
A: "Yes we are."
B: "Cool....all done....you are registered with us ....have a great life together"
A: Thanks!"
The end.
Post a Comment