With Libertarianism and justice for all

[vovat]

For more radio fun, I listened to Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, being interviewed on NPR. I thought he came across as fairly rude and not too bright. (Brighter than Bush, I suppose, but then so are most potted plants.) Really, he struck me as being pretty similar to the Family Radio fundamentalist types, only instead of "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus," it was "private property, private property, private property." Yes, there are areas in which I think the government has too much control. The thing is, though, who doesn't? I'm sure if you asked Democrats, Republicans, and even Socialists, most of them are not going to say, "Yes, I want the government interfering in every aspect of my life!" There's certainly some disagreement among the different political parties in terms of exactly when the government SHOULD be allowed to interfere, but not wanting a lot of interference isn't an idea on which the Libertarians have a monopoly. Libertarianism, as least as explained by Badnarik (who might not represent the views of all people who consider themselves to be libertarians), seems to be based on easy answers and buzzwords. For instance, he said that criminals are people who don't respect private property. Also, Columbine was apparently caused by Ritalin (something with which the host of the program actually took issue), and a lack of restrictions on gun ownership would result in less crime. In addition, Badnarik used the word "steal" so often, you'd think he was a representative of the RIAA. It's a word that gets a reaction, even when used in a fashion that might not be entirely appropriate. So, yeah, even if I thought Badnarik had a chance of winning, I wouldn't vote for him.

Comments

[revme.livejournal.com]

Heh, I know... Libertarians tend to piss me off. (At least when they're Libertarianing. I mean, not always. Like, Penn & Teller are pretty awesome 99% of the time.) I actually sorta flirted with it for a while -- in high school, when I was young and stupid, I indentified as Libertarian, because I'm that way w/r/t Social Issues (i.e., pro-legalization, pro-choice, (not-sure-where-I-stand-on-Guns-but-can-see-both-sides-and-vacillate-between-them), anti-censorship, waaay-pro-free-speech), and didn't realize how ... um, batshit they were w/r/t economic ones. I don't know, Laizez Faire sounds good on paper, I suppose, but, erm, shouldn't it be painfully obvious that it doesn't work? I mean, look at all the recent deregulations of various industries and how, um, bad the output of said industries have gotten? Sure, the Invisible Hand will help out and stuff, but the Invisible Hand only works when the Biggest Company hasn't already beaten the others into non-existence, y'know?

Luckily for me, I soon realized that the Sane Bits of Libertarianism are strongly tied to the Ultra-Wacky Bits, and I completely ditched that Self-Identification Bit, because, uh, yeah. I'm a-OK with regulating companies. I'm completely down with that. And I'm so 100% OK with letting people do what they want, even if they're intent on hurting themselves. (I admit that the folks who argue for some stuff saying "it doesn't just hurt yourself, it hurts the people who care about you, too!" folks do have a point, but, I don't know, call me selfish, but as long as you're not, say, hitting me along with yourself, I'm absolutely cool with you hitting yourself with a lead pipe if that's your particular groove. I mean, I might _personally_ try to talk you out of it, and I might also personally think you're a goddamn idiot for doing it, but I don't think that Lead-Pipe-Self-Flagellation should be outlawed.)

I tend to think of Libertarianism as "naive assholery". Sort of the anti-Hippies, since they're naive (viz. the recent post/discussion about Adbusters and the like in my LJ), but they're at least trying to help people; Libertarianism, on the other hand seems to be sort of a "Well, hey, I got mine, too bad if you don't have yours, but, hey, I'm sure that that big bad-lookin' guy'll look out for you in the end -- after all, he got that way by being the best! Not at all by luck or being-the-best-at-one-time or simply by being born with loads and loads of money! He's the best! Otherwise he wouldn't be rich! So, anyway, ta-ta, I'm off to go play with Mine!"

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I find myself agreeing with Penn and Teller's positions on Bullshit! fairly often, but, while there's definitely a "get the government off our backs" undercurrent to a lot of what they say, I think they often come across as more liberal than Badnarik and other Libertarians I've heard from. But then, I haven't heard them address taxes or gun control, and maybe I'd disagree with them on those issues.

I get the impression that Libertarianism appeals to a lot of younger people because it IS simple, and it sounds pretty good on paper. I mean, I was never down with it, but I can sort of see the appeal to young people in particular. It's when you start to think about certain aspects more closely that the philosophy tends to break down. Not all issues DO have simple answers, or can be reduced to "Less government will solve that!"

As for the gun control issue, I'd say I'm definitely in favor of gun control, but I'm not sure how much of it. More than we have now, I'd say, but I don't think we can just go ahead and say, "Let's get rid of all the guns in the country right now!" It's sort of like money and drugs, which I also think generally aren't such good things, but abolishing them wouldn't be the best idea. Badnarik kept trying to compare the First Amendment to the Second, and I don't think that's entirely fair. He said something like, "Just because the Founding Fathers had no idea there would ever be an Internet doesn't mean free speech doesn't apply to it," and I agree wholeheartedly. But when you start to apply the same sort of reasoning to guns, there are things now that can cause damage the framers of the Constitution could never have fathomed. Not that they could have fathomed the Internet, either, but free speech online isn't going to hurt anyone (physically, anyway), while semi-automatic weapons really aren't good for anything BUT hurting others. I guess the way I see it is that the Constitution is definitely important, but the principle of doing the least harm is even more important. Besides, as Michael Moore pointed out in Bowling for Columbine, the "right to bear arms" could technically refer to nuclear weapons, and I doubt even the most hardcore Libertarian or NRA member would favor private citizens having those.

The problem with the lead pipe thing is that, under our present system, as zaph pointed out with his seatbelt example, if the guy who's beating himself up can't afford treatment, the rest of us are going to have to help pay for it. I suppose the Libertarian answer to this would be that, if he can't afford the treatment, he should just die or become severely handicapped, and I'm not so fond of that idea. I guess it IS consistent, though.

[revme.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- like I thought it was a little weird how their Expert on the Second Hand Smoke episode was... a Libertarian Radio Show Host. I mean, I'm pretty sure their science is right on that issue, but it didn't really help their point with me; it made it look more like a political axe to grind, rather than just a pseudoscientific axe. IIRC, sometimes Penn will write about Taxes and stuff like that (Teller tends to be quieter politically (heh) although it's pretty clear that he agrees at least mostly with what what Penn says.), and IIRC, he pretty much follows the standard Libertarian Line. Some of the things I do agree with them more -- Penn will go on rants about how the FCC is Unconstitutional; I'm not sure if it actually IS (law-speaking-wise, he's pretty much the only person I've heard say it and I've done a lot of study in Media Law and whatnot, so I'm thinking it's just hyperbole or a really wacky reading of the Constitution) but I'm not a fan, although I wager for different reasons than Penn -- or well, some shared reasons and different ones. Like, my main beef with the FCC comes down to censorship issues, i.e. The Filthy, Filthy Titty Issue or just swears in general; I'm pretty sure Penn would agree with that kind of thing being stupid, and I'm sure that he, like me, would actually be A-OK with, say, George Carlin being on the radio in the afternoon (I'm a firm believer in "If you don't like it, just change the damn channel") -- however, I DO like the regulatory aspect of the FCC when it comes down to Media Ownership, and Penn'd be all over hating that. (Although, way things are going, so seem to be the FCC-under-Powell...)

With guns -- I just don't know. It's not an issue for me that's clear cut (like, say, Gay Marriage, pretty much the only issue where If You Disagree With Me, As Far As I Can Tell, You Actually Are Stupid). I can really see both sides. That was the thing I liked about Bowling for Columbine (which a lot of people seemed to miss the point of) -- it's an essay film, and of course Michael Moore doesn't provide any Clear Answer, because there really isn't one. But yeah, Badnarik's argument is pretty daft; more information is pretty much an Absolute Good (well, as much as anything can be, really -- at least for short-hand), where more powerful guns tend to Physically Damage People. So the two aren't really that comparable... I suppose you can make arguments for it wholly mattering on intent; i.e. I can look up how to, say, drive cartilege into your brain killing you, but I won't necessarily do it unless I set out to actually do so, just like if I have a AK-47, I would have to set out to actually kill you to do it -- I wouldn't just automatically kill you.

... of course, it's a lot harder for knowing-how-to-drive-cartlidge-into-your-brain to misfire, but...

But yeah, some limits are good, of course. But I think the problem is a little bit less on the aspect of Actually Having Guns (though that definitely helps...) and more on the culture; sorta like Moore's point in BfC (though without the not-really-necessary-beatiing-up-on-Alzheimer's-Heston).

That is true about the treatment, and I don't necessarily know the answer to that -- I'm definitely in favor of National Health Care i.e. the European solution, but I'm not sure what to think about damages incurred through your own stupidity (er, Not Accidents, but actually Intent On Hurt, i.e. Drug Use, etc.). I suppose the most elegant solution would be something where people don't step in, but if you come to the state saying "Look, I've been beating myself with a pipe; I'm sorry, I need help, I don't want to do this anymore" then they should help you. But if you're just found, say, walin' away on yourself, and you don't seem to want any help, well then, I figure might as well just let you go to town, and if you die, you die. But that's still rife with problems and stuff so I know it's not perfect. So, uh, yeah. I'm not really sure.

Stupid multi-faceted issues with a stupid lack of easy answers!

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you're probably right about the politics in the smoking episode. I guess I kind of have a libertarian approach to that issue myself, though, in that I think that businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they'll allow smoking. I mean, in places where there are no smoking bans, restaurants usually have non-smoking sections, and some family restaurants don't allow it at all. (Friendly's is a good example of the latter, but I don't think they have those in your area.) Places where you have no choice but to inhale smoke (and whether or not second-hand smoke will cause actual physical damage, I still prefer NOT to inhale it, because, well, it smells horrible) are usually fairly easy to avoid, except in certain situations, like, say, a bar holding a concert that a non-smoker wants to see. There are probably better solutions to that than a total smoking ban for a city, though.

The Bullshit! episode on curse words took pretty much the same position you do (and I do, for that matter) on the FCC's censorship policy. But I also think that deregulation isn't a good idea, and I suppose Libertarians would be in favor of it. It seems to me that Clear Channel owning pretty much every radio station in the country isn't really good for anything. Penn and Teller didn't address that in the episode, though. (Well, since the episode was about censorship, it really wouldn't have been relevant for them to do so.)

You're right about people missing the point of Bowling for Columbine, but then, I think some of that comes down to the same ideas about a lot of people (especially on the conservative side of things) wanting easy answers and thinking they're right no matter what. It's like, since THEY only have one position and won't bother to consider any others, Moore must be the same way. I see this kind of thinking pretty often, really.

[revme.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- I don't know, the Second Hand Smoke thing is one where I'm probably more-or-less with that same approach too. I can't breathe around it, and I would be totally fine _personally_ if they banned it from everywhere (especially shows, sometimes I get headaches after being at a show where there's everyone-and-their-brother smoking because it gets in my clothes and everything), but while I like it _personally_, I'm not sure if I really think it's a Good For Society Thing. I dunno, it's kinda funny, because I actually pretty much agreed with the Second Hand Smoke episode, just not the way it was presented, I guess.

(I am less enamoured with the Global Warming episode, though -- the environmentalist they talked to; the guy with the More Or Less Economic Approach is _hell_ of controversial and there's a LOT of back-and-forth on him. I haven't looked enough at both arguments, unfortunately, so I can't really tell, but it seemed a little disingenuous of P&T to basically be all "This dude is the Bee's Knees!" since, well.. yeah. I don't know. I suppose, say, Magnetotherapy is "controversial" too, but the difference is basically the difference is "Scientists Versus Batshit Kooks" -- with that guy, it's more "Scientists Versus Other Scientists", with Kooks And Others taking sides, so... yeah. I am not willing to write him off all together, nor am I willing to say "Oh, P&T are 100% right with him!", but I think they could have handled it a bit better. That, and I thought that episode was a bit too... Let's beat up on the flakes and kooks! rather than actually dealing so much with issues. That's probably the least satisfying Bullshit! episode, and I wish they'd have gone back and redone it. Because I think they've got some good points but I think it's more complex than they're making it out ("Global Warming isn't real! What are you, stupid?!").)

Anyway, though, those episodes basically make Bullshit only, say, 99.9% The Best Thing Ever rather than 100%, so... hey.

But yeah, we don't have Friendly's, but I think I pretty much know The Type Of Place It Is. I'm thinkin' sorta a Denny's/Shari's or maybe even a TGI Friday's type place?

But yeah -- it was weird, though, since a lot of complaints about BfC even seemed to come from the Liberal Side as well. Like they wanted Moore to just go "GUNS ARE BAD!!! DON'T USE GUNS!!!" and do that for 2 hours, instead of an actually nuanced exploration of the issue. I mean, I don't think that Moore is the End-All-Be-All Type Guy or anything, but... yeah. I thought BfC was better than people gave it credit for.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Was the global warming episode the one where they kept talking to that clueless hippie who didn't really know why she was supporting her pet causes? If so, yeah, I think that was one of the weaker ones, although I can't remember for sure.

I guess my general thought on global warming is that it might not be quite as much of an imminent threat as some reactionary types want us to believe, but it's still happening, and something should be done about it. I mean, even if global warming itself ISN'T a big problem, the pollution that's causing it is almost certainly bad for a lot of other reasons.

Friendly's is kind of like Denny's, but geared more toward kids, and with more of an emphasis on dessert and less on breakfast. It serves a lot of the same kinds of food as Friday's, but doesn't have a liquor license. I don't think I've ever been to a Shari's.

[revme.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking of -- I mean, I totally agree that that particular chick was dumb as a box of hammers, and that a bunch of those sorts of folks are doing it because it's a Cause rather than actually feeling strongly about the particular issue, and that a lot of those types of Environmentalists are actually Pretty Embarassing and even maybe Detrimental To Their Cause. The only problem is that P&T were sort of doing a Clueless By Association Thing (More than with the other episodes, where, y'know, it's hard to find, say, someone who believes in Ouija boards who ISN'T clueless -- I had less of a problem with that sorta stuff, especially since most of the people they'd actively beat up on weren't People Who Were Taken In, but The Evil Motherfuckers Who Know Better But Are Saying This Bullshit To Make Loads Of Money), and they seemed to do less actually Hard Science in it. I tend to think that there was a germ of a good episode in that one, but as is, it was a really flawed ep, and sort of a bad way to go out, since wasn't it the season finale? But yeah, I don't hold that ep against the series or anything.

But yeah -- I don't know really. I'm pretty much where you are; I mean, I thought it was interesting that they mentioned in that episode about how in the 1970s everyone thought that Global Cooling was the Big Problem (although, of course, they didn't go into it as much, about reputable scientists-versus-kook/moneymaker scientists, I thought; after all, that's part of the charm of science; hypotheses can be proven wrong and scientists aren't felt compelled to hang on to them, even if it does look a little weird to be "Oh, this is True!" one day and "Oh, no, this wholly other thing is True!" the next -- no matter if you actually were working under a hypothesis the first day that seemed like it was going to bear out, and then the next the results were in that showed how wrong you were); so, I dunno. I think that barring me-doing-my-own-legwork and stuff, I'm tempted to more-or-less trust P&T, since I, well, I trust them and don't necessarily think they'd lie to me (Well.... you know what I mean, heh.) -- but, yeah, I tend to think of it more like you do: If it exists, it's not nearly as big a problem as folks are making it out to be, but it's still a problem. And if it doesn't exist, that pollution can't be good anyway, so something should still be done. I mean, it's not like anyone (uh, as far as I know... maybe some twits are...) is saying "OK, once we get Global Warming licked, we can just sit back and do whatever we want!" -- and since the Suggested Causes of GW are mostly stuff that we know is Bad Anyway, why not spend time fixin' them?

Also, Shari's might just be a West Coast thing, I'm not quite sure. They're sort of a Denny's but a bit better.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I get the idea that Penn and Teller are usually more or less accurate, even if they have an agenda that doesn't necessarily agree totally with my own political beliefs.

Is Shari's open all night, and do they have breakfast at all hours?

[revme.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I am. When I agree with them, though, it's AWESOME.

Definitely yes to 24 hrs, and I think yes to breakfast, but I'm not certain on that one.

[onib.livejournal.com]

I actually identified myself as a Libertarian at one time, too, and even voted for Libertarian candidates on occassion. I've shifted away from them over their desire to be too-hands-off. I mean, I still believe it's wrong to tax income. Income tax is the government's way of saying "hey, this is such a great country that we're going to take one third of everything you make just for giving you the opportunity to work here." I would absolutely support a national sales tax that would tax people based on how, where, and when they spent their money. I think that would be more fair to all tax brackets. But do I think it will ever happen? Not one bit. And the Libertarians would remove all tax and abolish all federal programs with the logic that with more money in their pocket, people will give it where they want to...Um, that's just dumb. The reason the government started social programs is because nobody was taking care of society's weakest members, and while our military isn't always cost efficient, I'd hate to see it try to run on public donations.

So, yeah, I still think government should get out of people's private lives and let them make their own decisions, even if they're really stupid decisions. But, I think we've seen enough evidence that businesses won't make responsible decisions whether for the environment, society at large, or even their own employees. So, I'm all about regulating them more closely.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

The problem with the national sales tax idea is that, in general, the lower classes have to spend a greater amount of their income on stuff. While the income tax system isn't perfect by any means, it at least guarantees that most people aren't going to pay more than they can afford. Higher sales taxes, on the other hand, would result in people who are already living beyond their means being forced to live even MORE beyond their means.

Badnarik said something about the American people being really generous, so they'd donate money even if they weren't required to. I've seen this same argument from other Libertarians on the Internet. While this might be true, would it raise ENOUGH money? Probably not. Really, I get the idea that any system that relies on the goodness of people's hearts is overly idealistic. Yeah, it would be NICE if everybody would contribute to society without being forced to, but will they? Probably not. If they would, we really wouldn't need to use money or have a government at all.

[zaph.livejournal.com]

My big problem with Libertarianism, but not libertarianism, is that it is a strict ideology, with almost no room at all for variation. It's the most rigid political philosophy out there.

And it is based on buzzwords and key phrases. There's no depth to it, since it's pretty damn close to anarchy. Ask a Libertarian to back up their views, and the answers are things like "The Constitution says X. It never says Y anywhere" and they can't elaborate. (I'm guessing that a lot of them have not actually read the Constitution, much the same way a lot of the so-called 'religious right' have not actually read the bible)

A lot of the core philosophies make sense - let people do what they want as long as it cannot hurt anyone but themselves. Great, I'm all for that.

But then you get the hypocritical privacy advocates arguing against seat belt laws, saying that if a person wants to be more prone to injury in a car accident, why not let them? Well, because it places the burden on the rest of society when the person is injured and goes to the hospital. And of course they'll turn around and argue that we shouldn't be paying for other people's health care in the first place... and so on.

They just don't believe that certain things are rights. To a Libertarian, everything is a privilege, even education and health care.

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

I think public education and healthcare are privileges. To call something a right gives it the connotation that you don't have to do anything to get it. When people get something for free, they tend to take it for granted. If they didn't, then we wouldn't have such awful public school systems in the U.S.

All citizens have the responsibility to contribute to society as best they can (whether that means paying taxes, voting, volunteering, whatever) and in return they should given privileges such as public education. That way, those privileges will not be taken for granted; the citizenry will feel that they have more at stake in those areas and work to keep the programs viable and healthy.

Of course, this is all just utopian dreaming. I live in a nation when people will raise hell if mall parking spaces aren't big enough for their H2s, but they don't care if Johnny and Susie can't read at grade level.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with zaph as far as education and (especially) health care being rights. To me, saying you have the right to life (as Libertarians apparently do, since Badnarik referenced John Locke's "life, liberty, and property") also means you should have the right to prolong life by the means that we have at our disposal. To say only some people should be able to have them strikes me as pretty cruel.

That doesn't mean that I don't think people should be required to contribute to society. I do, as long as they're able to do so. I guess I basically agree with the "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" principle in that respect. I think one of the main problems is poor organization. It seems to me like everyone should be able to have a home, a job, a decent education, and reliable health care. As it is now, a lot of people don't have any of those things.

[jenhime.livejournal.com]

I'm libertarian in that I think that the government should spend responsibly and that there are a lot of areas (i.e. public education) that the federal government shouldn't be involved in. Oddly enough, there was a time when that thinking would have made me a Republican.

At any rate, I think that most Libertarian candidates go too far off the deep end because they want to distinguish themselves from the Republican and Democratic parties. The two main parties are almost indistinguishable in most respects, anymore. In order to stand out a third party candidate has to be markedly different. One a third party gets established, then it's possible to have candidates that express more nuanced views of the party platform. The Republican and Democratic parties are well-known enough that they can have nuanced positions like "centrist," "right-winger," " left-winger," "socially conservative but fiscally moderate." But, other parties aren't well-known enough to have those shades of grey. If a Liberatarian candidate claims to be "fiscally conservative, small government" without going to an extreme viewpoint, the message will be lost and the candidate labelled "Republican." (Or a Green who claims the label "environmentally friendly, socially responsible" would be labelled "Democrat.")

America's a soundbite nation. Leaving the beaten path to include a viable third party candidate would require a level of thinking that a large percentage of the population is not prepared to do.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that Libertarianism is often considered to be a far-Right ideology, yet some of its principles are closer to the modern Democratic position. For instance, I would imagine Libertarians would be in favor of decriminalization of drugs, and I think that would be seen as a liberal viewpoint in this day and age. On the other hand, the anti-gun-control stance is associated more with the conservatives. Not to mention that fascism is also considered to be a far-Right philosophy, and it's pretty much the polar opposite of Libertarianism in a lot of ways. And I do agree that some of this is due to the change in the Republican Party. The Bush administration seems to be more opposed to individual rights than Republicans are generally supposed to be, and they've also increased the size of the government. But hey, they favor lower taxes for the rich, and that's what modern Republicans seem to care about more than anything else.

And yeah, you're probably right about third party candidates being concerned with coming across as considerably different than the guys nominated by the two mainstream parties. While I doubt I'd ever vote for a Libertarian candidate, having the party recognized might bring more parties with whose views I really WOULD agree out of the woodwork.

[revme.livejournal.com]

Well, I think what it is is that Libertarianism is a Economically Right-Wing philosophy, but Socially-Left-Wing. So I think that's why it tends to get grouped in that lump -- just because it seems that the more economic issues get more play in the media (i.e. corporate consolidation/impropriety; environmentalism; jobs/layoffs), so when that's mostly of what you hear about, since stuff like, say, drug legalization usually doesn't really come up in the news all that much, except when, like, NORML does a rally or there's a Medical Marijuana initative or something. (And, oddly enough, censorship issues NEVER come up in the media, which has always struck me as weird since, y'know, the free press is sorta the media's bread and butter...)

A while ago, there were a bunch of articles about "South Park Republicans". And how all these young kids were This Weird Brand Of Republican Mostly Seeming To Have The Same Sensibility As South Park, and I'm thinking to myself "Oh yeah, those? They're LIBERTARIANS, IDIOTS." Since, well, it seems pretty clear to me that Trey and Matt are Libertarians, at least Closer To That than most anything else. So... yeah. I dunno. I just thought it was amusingly stupid.