I got my ideas about liberals from reading P.J. O’Rourke. However, I think the traditional definitions are a tad dodgy and imprecise, to say the least, which is why I liked this http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm article on the subject. I think Pournelle has arrived at a much clearer way of veiwing the political spectrum.
Lib says
Only if we accept your definitions of decency and need. And of conservatism and liberalism.
[Spidey pretty much likes everyone and finds most people attractive because of liking them.]
I had stayed out of this thread because I didn’t exactly understand where it was going, but it might get a little more interesting if we define our terms. Of course, that would still be within each person’s closed frame of reference, and whether we would accept each other’s terms remains to be seen.
[scuttles off to think about own definitions and how to state them; back much later)
Oh come on… :rolleyes:
I’m a Republican with strong libertarian leanings, and while you could say that Boris’s views reflect modern liberalism, you could just as easily describe him as a Randian-style libertarian.
Ever hear the phrase “enlightened self-interest”?
How 'bout “The virtue of selfishenss”
They didn’t come out of the George McGovern handbook.
Besides, are you, as a libertarian, (not as a decent human being) saying that Boris should be bound by an obligation that he didn’t voluntarily enter into? Wouldn’t an absolutist libertarian would point out that Boris didn’t enter into a contract with his sister or his parents and she
isn’t legally his responsiblity? Why should the “tyranny” of obligations his parents chose to take on be forced onto Boris?
Granted, the majority of conservitaves and/or libertarians wouldn’t behave like Boris, but neither would the majority of liberals.
What it comes down to is that Boris is neither left or right, he’s just a selfish prick. And those come in all political flavors.
Fenris
(wondering why the article-writer described the parents of a young girl in a coma, and a selfish prick, as “neurotic”)
Chewie, thanks for that link! I found it quite interesting that my own views place me slightly closer to “various libertarians” on Pournelle’s axes than to “welfare liberals”!
Lib:
I’m not sure what you’re saying to me. I mean, I understand and agree with your statement, but I don’t know if you’re implying that liberalism leads to tyranny of the majority, or if you think as I do that it attempts to prevent this (and, when poorly realized, sometimes causes the reverse).
I agree with jb farley; why not prevent the invevitable members of society who will get screwed from falling into abject proverty if we can prevent that? Morality doesn’t occur between 1 person and his/herself; moral social actions can’t occur on individual bases either.
Yes, but the vagueness of “need” is such that an overall, well-reasoned defintion seems most likely to be effective in providing the greatest good for the most people. I’m not sure how your analogy works; no one prevents anyone from giving money to a person even if the govt says they do not truly have “need”, so I don’t see the comparison with being forced to leave alone a person declared to be “ugly”. Nor, AFAIK, is sexual attractiveness a thing that any govt has attempted to regulate by law, so it’s a bit of a stretch; “ugliness” and “need” are sufficiently different things that I don’t think a comparison works. I mean, “child abuse” is a subjective term, too, but I don’t think it would be effective at reducing child abuse to simply allow each individual person to define it. :eek: Simply becuase a thing is somewhat subjective does not mean it always would be a great idea to let everyone define it as they please.
Even in a purely libertarian society, I would bet that people would form organized charities, and these charitities would have to find some way to define “need” so that all can accept it. The problem with individual giving with no reference to the overall “need” of a group is it tends to be very specialized and things can slip through the cracks, simply because a single person does not have time to research all the various charities s/he can contribute to. For example, say I am in Illinois, which is a very prosperous land and the median income is 100k. Now, I may feel that a person who only makes 40K needs my charity, because I am unaware that in Minnesota median income is 10K and my money would be far more useful there. Or I may give to the Charity for Cute Fuzzy Bunnies and ignore the Charity for Naked Mole Rats, because I simply don’t have time to study the situation enough to determine which is ecologically more important.
An overall, well-defined and seriously studied definition of need seems like it would be most effective in helping the people whose “need” is the most. The 40K person in the land of 100Ks may feel very poor, but I think any reasonable person would agree that the person who makes 10K needs help more (assuming no savings for either and similar prices for goods and services). This sort of nationwide survey of “need” and the importance of various charities is something I simply don’t have time to do; I am glad we have many people to go through the effort to research the “needs” of the people and the worthiness of various causes. It would be nice if I had time to do an ecological study on mole rats, or study all the competing ones, to determine where the pennies of my money that the govt currently uses for species preservation should best go. But there are a hell of a lot of causes out there that I do wish my money to go to, and I am willing to pay the govt to do the studies and research that I cannot.
So, the vagueness of “need” is a problem for both libertarian and liberal governments; to avoid myopic giving, a large, organized charity with a clear defintion of need will likely provide the greatest good for the most people. Presumably, you would say that a libertarian govt would have several competing large charities, and we would choose the one that most accords with our goals, or simply give to whatever particular cause we feel like (inefficient as that may be). A liberal govt uses the govt to set up and maintain a large, organized charity, which is likely more efficient at helping those who need the most than individual giving (for the reasons I went into above), but results in loss of perfect control of all of one’s money (and in fact, requires contributions from those of us we determine are capapble of doing so), changing the the issue from “What shall I do with my money?” to “What shall we do with our money?” As an aside, one advantage of the govt-as-charity is that should disaster strike the country, a govt can borrow heavily to help its people, whereas I doubt a simple charity would be allowed to do so.
Gaudere
I only have a moment. In one context, the vague need is imposed with or without your consent. In the other, it isn’t.
As I reread the thread, I see that Lib did post a definition of “liberalism.” I would also have posted the definition for “liberal” from Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, or at least parts of it, because I believe they may also pertain to the definition of “liberalism,” and possibly how the word was derived.
and another separate definition from the same volume
From that same dictionary comes these definitions of conservative:
And for conservatism:
(The second definition pertains to a British/Canadian political party of that name.)
Need is defined as:
So far so good; fairly straightforward definitions, although multiple for each word. Then we come to the concept of decency, which also has straightforward definitions as follows:
So from Lib’s quote that says:
we have some interesting possibilities, and to state them all would be more easily accomplished with a mathematical equation.
But it does raise room for questions.
If taken to mean " a time or condition of difficulty requiring relief, is to those of a liberal political philosophy, as socially proper actions are (or altenatively, things needed for a proper or comfortable standard of living), to those of a conservative political philosophy," this would seem at best to be a fallacy of bifurcation: someone presenting a situation as having only two alternatives, found at this link given to me by Lib. At worst, it might be considered to be an adhominem attack, implying that only conservatives have any sense of decency.
Somewhere between the two, it might simply be considered to be vague. Was it off-the-cuff, Lib, and something you might wish to amend? Otherwise, could you please paraphrase it for me?
Hello Spider Woman! That was an excellent post, right up until you asked Lib to paraphrase. :eek: Now you’ve done it…
While we’re waiting for Lib’s no doubt intriguing, enlightening and eloquent response, let me see if I can offer my humble interpretation.
I took Lib to mean that conservative social action is motivated by adherence to accepted standards (i.e. regulatory or restrictive in nature), whereas liberal social action is motivated by perceived problems or deficiencies (i.e. corrective or preventive in nature). --Obviously, “corrective” actions can be restrictive, and “regulatory” actions can be preventive, so I think this comparison does a poor job of highlighting the effective differences between liberalism and conservativism. (Some would say there are no effective differences between the two, but that’s a different thread.) (See any of oldscratch’s socialism threads for interesting commentary.)
Thanks for the clarification and the compliment. I do wish Lib would check back in, though. What fun is posting to one of his threads if he is going to ignore us? 
Other writings of the time use “life, liberty, and property” as the triad of core rights.
If the government acts to restrict Liberty, or fails to act to defend it, it is failing in its core mission.
If the government acts to restrict Life, or fails to act to defend it, it is failing in its core mission.
If the government acts to restrict the pursuit of Happiness, or fails to act to defend it, it is failing in its core mission.
If the government acts to restrict the holding of property, or fails to act to defend it, it is failing in its core mission.
Needless to say, there are going to be occasions when one man’s freedom to do X trespasses on another’s freedom to do Y. When one man’s use of his property injures the property rights of another (this is why land use laws are constitutional). And so on. But this is the purpose of the rule of law; to adjudicate as between conflicting rights.
Now, to my mind, the prime purpose of government is to defend the rights of its citizens as spelled out above. And such additional activities as are necessary and proper to fulfill its prime purpose. E.g., having a Navy or Air Force is a good idea, because Moammar Qaddafi or Kim Il Sung may decide that coming in and depriving Americans of their property, liberty, and/or lives is a cool idea, and the production of ships, aircraft, and people trained to use them in combat is not something that can be done reactively to an attack, but must be accomplished proactively.
Now, I think there are some quite reasonable arguments on both sides of any question regarding them. If all people have the right to possess firearms, for example, one need not be a total paranoid to recognize that some of those “all people” are going to be sociopathic nuts that should not be equipped with a sharp pencil, much less a firearm. If I send my impressionable child to school, I can reasonably expect that the teacher is not going to impose his or her religious faith on my child contrary to my wishes. And the “right to property” has always been bounded by the idea of “fee simple” – I “own” my land as against all comers because I hold it in direct fealty to the sovereign – which in the American case is the people collctively united as a government – and it therefore has the right to levy taxes in lieu of knight service upon me in respect of my land. (The feudal origins of realty law sound strange in the 21st century, but are nonetheless valid law.) (And further, North Carolina at least levies against my “horse” – which is actually a 1998 Chevy.)
The interesting item in this package is “life” – the “right to life” argument is regularly used by rightists against abortion and leftists against capital punishment. But I see something more in it than the idea that neither Jack Kevorkian nor the sovereign state of X may affirmatively deprive one of one’s life. Is it not possible that the idea of “neglect to defend” can be extended by a reasonable man to cover the idea that all persons have a right to the necessities of life? Not that “the government” as some mysterious outside entity is obliged to provide them to everyone, presumably after they have been delivered by the S. Claus and E. Bunny Foundation, a 501©(3) exempt trust. But that no person is required to suffer the potential loss of life because despite his/her best efforts he/she is unable to supply himself/herself and dependents with those necessities? And that it is a valid use of one’s tax dollars to carry out this guarantee of one of our basic freedoms?
To me, the defense of all the inalienable rights, read in this manner, is what being a liberal is all about. It fits quite closely with the definition Spidey provided, IMHO. And it also fits well with FDR’s Four Freedoms, which might make a useful sidelight to this debate or the topic of a new thread.
I am perfectly well aware that there are other reasonable assumptions about what “Life” in the Declaration might mean. What I am asking is, although there are an inordinate number of nuances that I have not covered which alert posters might flag in attacking it, is the basic premise a reasonable one to hold?
Spidey, et al
Perhaps you can empathize that work is unpredicatable. Had I known that the day after launching a thread … bang! … I would have to immerse myself in work, I would have thought better of it. But, as I woof down my onion rings and Pepsi, I am typing this, and things are beginning to wind down. I have reliable assurances of a completely free weekend, and I plan to spend a good deal of it with Edlyn. But I think I can also get caught up here.
Quickly, I’ve notice that the Liberals are now appropriating for themselves a definition of liberalism that is so old it is actually a definition of libertarianism, which, as I’ve said many times, is also known as classical liberalism.
But if you believe in freedom from the coercion (initiated force and fraud) of others (including government officials), then we are bretheren despite whatever we call ourselves. This was the common ground I was hoping to find, and will pursue this weekend. You see, before the Wilson administration, Conservatives held the “rights” of society over the rights of individuals, but that all changed (vis. the liberal hand-wringing over societal “responsibilities”). And now, liberalism is morphing again into centrism this time. My fervent hope is that real liberals will resist.
Thanks for your patience. Until tomorrow!
I was beginning to worry.
Amen, brother! Amen.
Xeno
Yes, it is a very long list — of items that liberalism (lately, not classically) addresses by two means: (1) the redistribution of resources, and (2) the regulation of behavior. By contrast, libertarianism presents an empty list for number one, and a list with a heavily qualified single item for number two: a prohibition against the intiation of force or fraud. This establishes that liberalism and libertarianism are not the same thing, but that at least there is some minimal intersection of a part of an idea. Liberalism does not embrace entirely the libertarian ethic of noncoercion because it makes a solitary exception (itself often highly qualified) that libertarianism does not, namely, that agents of The State may act coercively (with preemptive or initial force) on behalf of their constituency.
Forgive me if I find that evasive. Consider Mr. and Ms. Smith who have earned just enough money to afford for their son an education at the school they both attended. Let’s say that figure is $85,000 (the exact amount of both their earnings and the current four-year tuition of their school). When your agent has extracted his tax, Mr. and Ms. Smith will be unable to afford what they had dreamed of for their son. They must now, against their will, either provide some other education for their son, or seek out charity, awards, and loans.
Liberal arguments I have heard all boil down to the notion that wealthy people having to modify their dreams is no tragedy because what they can afford is still more than what the poor can afford. In other words, if Mr. Jones cannot afford it, then Mr. Smith does not need it. They find it a tragedy when Mr. Jones must seek out charity, but not when Mr. Smith must seek out a loan. When Mr. Smith gets a loan, his son’s education costs the $85,000 that he would have paid plus the amount of interest on the loan for funds to replace your agent’s tax. You penalize him not only for his own success but for his predicament that results from your coercion!
Me neither.
That means that you have given your agents license to steal and have renamed their deed.
Al Gore isn’t wealthy? Ted Kennedy isn’t? The Clinton’s aren’t? Warren Beatty and ninety percent of Hollywood?
Gaudere argues that the vagueness of need is as much a problem in a libertarian context as it is in a liberal one. It is possible that someone might find that one need, in their view, is greater than another. How this is a problem goes over my head, but it appears from her post that she compares the operation of a central bureaucracy, charged with mediating a vague need across diverse demographics, with a personal assessment of need. Perhaps because she “lives in the tent”, it is difficult for her to imagine anything working some other way. Who can say?
But the key is this: as she wrings her hands to decide between bunnies and mole rats, vascilating because of her ignorance of ecological impact, it does not occur to her that she can decide among choices she does comprehend, leaving the decision about bunnies and mole rats to people knowledgable about the ecosystem.
I think her view nicely summarizes what Libertarians find so incredible about Liberals: people cannot be trusted to give the right amount to the right causes, but they can be trusted to elect people who will appoint people who will give the right amount to the right causes.
Another clue that she lives in the tent is this statement, “I am willing to pay the govt to do the studies and research that I cannot.” It does not occur to her that she could just as well pay a private research group. She is content to pay politicians and bureaucrats with their legal staffs to appoint postal workers in lab coats to carry out their operations under a thicket of regulations so complex that careers are made out of consulting on them. And because she is content, we all should be.
As to the remark that we are still free to give as we please of what remains after our property is seized, I leave that to its own merit.
Spidey asks whether my analogy of need and decency was off the cuff or a false dilemma. Clearly, it was not the latter since I used no “or” operator. The point of the analogy was that Liberals seek to legislate what they consider to be necessary redistribution of resources in the same way that Conservatives seek to legislate what they consider to be decent behavior. Liberals institutionalize the definition of need, just as Conservatives institutionalize the definition of decency.
From Sarah’s Gold:
I am at the great disadvantage of having to describe for you a libertarian context when you are accustomed to a liberal one. In the short story, you will find the flip-side, an attempt to explain a liberal context to people familiar all their lives with nothing but a libertarian one.
Lib:
That’s a fair definition of government, not of liberalism. And you must, whether you like it or not, include the “retaliatory” force of a libertarian style government under the definition of coercion. To do otherwise would be dishonest.
What was evasive in my statement, Lib? It was simplistic and unexplored, but so was the original statement of yours to which I was responding.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith (and son)
Well, we won’t argue the point (for now) about whether this family’s combined net income in a libertarian society would necessarily have been higher than their combined after-tax income in year 2000 USA. I’ll just state that I consider that assertion to be unproven, and respond to the sad scenario you’ve provided.
The Smiths, being responsible parents, will of course have planned their savings with their son’s college education in mind. They, along with many American families, may not have been able to put enough away that they can afford their (or their son’s) dream college. Because of this reality, liberal government programs such as student loans, grants and other financial aid packages have been created. Because of this reality, tax deductions for education have become a major plank in Al Gore’s liberal platform. Because of this reality, the Smiths have been given certain options by the liberals in government which will help them overcome obstacles in their pursuit of their dreams.
In the first place, you should stop paraphrasing liberal arguments, 'cause you’re not very good at it. Liberalism does not and never has boiled down to Robin Hood methodology.
In the second place, few Americans, liberal or otherwise, would weep for the Smiths simply because they could not afford to pay four years’ tuition for their son in one cash lump while at the same time the Joneses have trouble paying for their son’s high school supplies. Both families are eligible for tax breaks. Both students are eligible for low interest loans. Both students may be eligible for various scholarships. The Jones boy is eligible for more financial aid than the Smith boy, assuming both families claim their sons as dependents. “Need” is a relative term, as you pointed out in Sarah’s Gold.
In the third place, “wealthy” is also a relative term, Lib. Few Peruvians would consider either Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones to be anything but “rich Americans.” That’s because of the tremendous freedoms and opportunities availabe to most Americans, through the luck of our history and natural resources, and also through the liberal aspects of our government.
No, Lib, that means I acknowledge the need of this or any government to fund itself through taxation. In our system the government (whether you call what we have a “representative democracy”, a “republic” or some other term in Old High Libbish) represents the will of the people. {Aside: the reason many people find arguing with libertarians an exasperating activity is because of their propensity to charge their opponents with equivocation when we don’t accept their creative definitions.}
What’s your point? Your assertion to which I was responding was that liberalism fails because the “safety net” is drawn from the most successful citizens, who also “control the government” and thus, make the rules. I pointed out that, when those “most successful citizens” really made the rules they were conservative rather than liberal in their actions. You’ve asserted that certain individuals are wealthy without offering a shred of an argument that they “control the government.” Do I have to point out the obvious fact that Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and the Clintons don’t have a lock on Washington? (We would both do well to just ignore the “ninety percent of Hollywood” part of your remark.)
In reply to Gaudere, Lib wrote:
Lib, did you actually consider anything Gaudere said, or did you just skim her posts for sentences you could paraphrase in your response? She explained her support for governmental assessment of “need” quite well, and you have not responded to this:
The difference between a Libertaria with assorted charitable groups “knowledgable” about their various interests and a US with assorted public projects budgeted by Congress is that the Libertarian charitable groups don’t start out with a common fund to be divided between them based on their collective rational assessment of the relative need and importance of each concern (and in fact the very concept of any outside controlling body telling a charitable group how much to spend and where is anathema in Libertaria, making it impossible for such a collective assessment to occur).
Xeno
A coupla bones.
One, despite your Grammar Maven declaration, it has been common practice throughout the history of man to use terms that are specifically defined within disciplines that differ from definitions in common usage. Force used in physics does not mean the same as force used in ethics. Coercion is the term in libertarian philosophy that is used to mean initial force. Making that definition clear, as has been done here to a fare-thee-well, does not constitute anything dishonest. No way, no how. If the term “coercion” is a stumbling block to your understanding, then use the term “initial force”. Initial force is the only kind of ethical force that libertarianism opposes on principle. I’ll assume you didn’t know that because I’ll assume you are honest.
Second, I have learned an awful lot from Gaudere, and I haven’t learned it by skimming over her posts. I won’t even dignify that part of your post with any more of a response than that.
The heart of liberalism (the topic of this thread), in my view, is found in the interstices of your remark: “I acknowledge the need of this or any government to fund itself through taxation.” For the Liberal, a need constitutes a “right”. Mr. Jones, in need, has a “right” to what Mr. Smith owns. No offense, but I find that abominable and Neanderthal in its conception.
Oh, and this:
'Zat so? How does a collective assessment of language usage develop? Have you heard of Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order?
It did occur to me; I pointed out the likelyhood of organizations that do such a thing in a Libertarian society in my post. And of course, large charities who do their own research exist today. But the goverment is a research group; you may think it’s too bureaucratic and you may very well be right, but I have yet to see any large organization that does not have buckets of paperwork. One reason the govt has so much paperwork is because they are accountable to us in a way that a private businesses isn’t; as long as a company makes a shoe that costs what I am willing to pay, I have no right to complain if they are making 3000% profit, but our goverment can’t just take as much money as we’re willing to bear and not account for where it goes. We could cut out a large chunk or the paperwork if we simply didn’t care where our taxes went. But we do, so they track a lot of stuff. I realize that you are certain that charities run like business would be more effecient than govt-run ones, but in some ways I don’t want charities run like businesses; I don’t want charities to spend a lot of the money I give them to pay their CEO 5 mil a year, or mount ad campaigns to make people choose sexy charity A over lame-o charity B, or refuse to help someone because they’re over their budget.
Let’s say I live in a Libertarian society, and I have $2000 I wish to give to charity. Now, being a responsible sort of person, I don’t wish to merely fling $2000 at the nearest homeless person and consider myself done. Nor do I wish to give money to someone local who makes 40K and feels poor since they don’t have a new car when 500 miles away people are starving to death. I want my money to do the most good possible; I want it to go to those who are truly poor, to support the preservation of vital wildlife, to encourage people who have fallen on hard times to work to better their situtation, to help the needy in far-off lands, to support talented artists, etc. etc. Now, the research involved to weed out the genuinely good causes from less worthy ones is exhaustive; I do not have time to research income levels, create effective educational services, study the scientific papers on enviromental impact, evaluate every needy artist in Libertaria, etc. So what should I do? Give up and just give the money to the first needy-looking person I see, or do a slipshod job on my research? I simply don’t have the time to study all these issues, and even if I spent all my time on that, I’m only one person and couldn’t possibly do it all. So…I hire somebody to do it. In fact, I need to hire a lot of somebodies, because I really want them to do a proper job; I want them to do comparative surveys, measure whether the attempts to help the needy are truly effective, determine who what causes need the most and are most likely to be helped, use people who thoroughly know a subject (say, environmental engineering) to make sure that the money is used for the best ends and so on and so forth. However, I can’t afford all these somebodies on my own. I need to get a whole bunch of people to go in on me so that I can donate my $2,000 without all of it being eaten up by the cost of determining where it should best go. Let’s say I do this; now I what I have is a large-scale charity with a researched definition of need. Large-scale charities and a great deal of research and studies are, I think, the most effective solution to addressing the vagueness of “need”. And whether the large-scale charity is part of the govt or privately owned, they deal with the vagueness of “need” in the same way.
I’m not saying the Libertarian concept of everyone using private charities instead of taxing people and electing representatives who will use govt programs to help the needy is a horrible idea; I just wanted to point out that both Libertarian and Liberals have to deal with the “vagueness of need” in some large-scale researched manner if they want their money to be most effective. Therefore, the “vagueness of need” does not seem to me to be an effective argument against Liberalism.
Gaudere
[… sigh …]
Yes, yes, yes, of course. Forget for the moment that much of the paperwork burden on business is necessary to meet government mandates. (Contrast India, a democracy replete with abject poverty and year-long delays in even opening a business, with Hong Kong.)
The point isn’t the whether one bureaucracy is better than another. The point is voluntary consent. There is no sense arguing over what a great end we might achieve if the means themselves are tyrannical. There is a qualitative difference between having your earnings garnisheed and having the freedom to dispose of your earnings as you see fit.
It is effective because Liberalism equates needs with rights.
You must — you must — give over to them whatever portion of your earnings they say based on whatever need they say exists. But that isn’t all. What is seized from you may likely be squandered on pet projects for the politicians’ districts (so they can be re-elected and please their constituency, poor or not). At least with private groups, you could sue for fraud if they did not use your money in the way you see fit.