It is deliberately incendiary, and appropriate. I know a lot about libertarianism. In my college years I considered myself a libertarian, though I never joined any organization. But grew disaffected because I couldn’t square my conscience with the likely social consequences of abolishing affirmative action, the welfare state, etc. And that began the process by which, over many years and a lot of odd twists and turns and reluctant steps, I came to embrace democratic socialism (but not Marxism). And now, like a reformed Communist, I never want to pass up a chance to explain to Libertarians why they are wrong. With respect to their political views, Libs on the whole are even more blinkered and self-righteous than Commies, and definitely need to be taken down a peg.
It has to do with the things Debaser was defending – “states’ rights,” “local autonomy,” “decentralization,” “self-determination.” There are a lot of obvious practical merits to those things – just so long as you do not elevate them to the status of political principles in their own right! There’s a very ugly side to those “principles” in American history and that did not come to an end in 1865. Respecting “local autonomy” might mean allowing states and communities to make and enforce horribly unjust laws and policies, such as segregation, without outside interference. (Some of the quasi-official organizations created in Southern states to fight against the civil rights movement were labeled "sovereignty commissions.) It might mean leaving a local bully like Al Capone alone to lord it over his fief. It might mean allowing prosperous urban residents to relocate to gated communities outside the city line, and leave the city to languish, and stop paying city taxes while continuing to enjoy the regional economic and cultural opportunities for which the city is the main engine – and to start squawking about “local autonomy” if anybody suggests expanding the city boundaries. It might even mean allowing a prosperous part of the city to “secede” from the rest and divest itself of any responsibility for its neighbors’ problems, as Hollywood recently tried to secede from L.A.
Even the practical merits of decentralization are overrated. In “A Horde of Lilliputian Governments,” an article Michael Lind wrote for the New Leader (about 10 years ago – can’t put my hands on it right now), he noted that he had worked in government at several levels, and based on his experience he formulated what he called “Lind’ Law”: The lower you go in the federal-state-local hierarchy, the more stupidity, incompetence, venality and corruption you will find in government. If you think Washington bureaucrats are bad, just check out your local Clerk of Court’s office. (Or, slightly more relevant to this thread, your local Supervisor of Elections’ office.)
This, BTW, is why I won’t join the Green Party. One of their Ten Key Values is “decentralization.” They’re right about a lot of things, but not that.
I stated that as “IMO,” so it is not really appropriate to ask for evidence. But, for one thing, modern American libertarian thinking was heavily influenced by that heartless bitch Ayn Rand, who did indeed have a lot more in common with that rat-bastard than she had with John Stuart Mill – in both her thoughts and her actions. (Not that she actually kept slaves, of course. But some of her followers would have been hard-pressed to tell the difference.)
And it’s also based on personal experience. I’ve known a lot of libertarians over the years, casually and intimately, big-L and small-l. Most of them are decent people and some are remarkably wonderful people. But there are also many who seem to be libertarians mainly because they hate poor people, and don’t want to be burdened in any way by helping take care of them. There are many libertarians who seem to have the attitude that they are mentally superior types, like Howard Roarke or John Galt, who could thrive (and successfully exploit their inferiors) in the lawless or near-lawless society of which libertarianism dreams. There are libertarians who are simply social Darwinists of the worst kind. There are libertarians who seem to have the attitude, I got mine, so fuck the botched and the bungled. And their contempt for democracy, or for any form of communitarian values, is sometimes astonishing. I once saw a message-button at a science fiction convention (there are a lot of libs in fandom, for some reason – maybe it’s Heinlein’s influence, maybe it’s the alienated-nerd thing) which read, “Democracy is four wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” Which is pure bullshit. Democracy is four sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner. In real life the sheep outnumber the wolves and that’s the only advantage they’ve got.
Debaser, who rejects Kerry because of his “internationalism,” said, “I’m at a loss how to explain why something that threatens the sovereignty of the US is a bad thing for the US.” I was stating a case that it is wrong, even in libertarian terms, to reject Kerry for that reason. (For that matter, it is wrong to classify Kerry as an “internationalist.” He’s just as much an American nationalist as Bush, more’s the pity, he’s just more reasonable about it.) Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessarily a bad thing for a nation-state to give up some of its sovereignty; the European nations have done exactly that and done very well by it. As for, “What does this have to do with individual liberties?” – The same evidence shows that a nation can, indeed, give up some of its sovereignty without diminishing the liberties of its individual citizens. And the U.S. could do the same, and any really intelligent and open-minded libertarian should be prepared to at least consider that that might be a good thing.
Whoopsie ! That last one is about Tony Blair and his aversion to reading. 