Probablly because of your statement about **JC **not be “subtle about it”. But also, the stereotypical “neocon agenda” is so antithetical to libertarian principles that one has to wonder why you would even ask. Are you that unaware of what libertarianism is about? It would be as if someone asked what the libertarian position was on prohibition.
At any rate, what do you say we let **JC **get back to discussing **practical **libertarianism in this thread.
Jonathan, let me start by saying that your beliefs are not terribly far removed from my own, and that libertarian strains of thought are usefully brought to bear on our political and economic system.
Having said that, I’d like you to clarify the above statement. The principal advantage of the corporate form is limited liability for the shareholders. Is it really your position that a large public company that acts in an egregiously wrong way should lose that advantage? Put more simply, is it your position that the shareholders of Enron should face not only losing the value of their investment, but also everything else they own – houses, cars, bank accounts, other investments, everything – of value solely by dint of their ownership in the company, however small that ownership might be?
Maybe I asked because he posted this:
The neocons are in power now, so it seemed relevant and practical to deal with that - especially re national security, terrorism, nuclear proliferation etc. The US is already in Iraq, so what would a practical libertarian suggest if somehow in power tomorrow? How to deal with N. Korea, or Iran? What about all the existing military bases overseas?
If prohibition was currently in force, I’d think it would also be something a practical libertarian would need to address. You’ve got to be able to say more than “it’s against libertarian principles”, no? Basically, I’m asking how you would sell it to the public…
So why my questions are puzzling to some of you is a puzzle to me…
In a lot of cases different freedoms conflict with each other.
An employer’s freedom to fire people for any reason at all may conflict with the employees’ freedom to live their lives in ways which the employer disagrees strongly with.
Your freedom to raise your children any way you want - including restricting their access to information - may conflict with your children’s freedom to make informed choices in some situations (birth control springs to mind).
Your freedom to control your property conflicts with my freedom to walk whereever I want. (A factoid which may seem weird (?) for readers across the pond: In Norway, we’ve a legal right to walk on other people’s property, if it’s wilderness, ie. not near buildings, cultivated land, etc. It’s illegal to create barriers (fences etc) which impede this freedom.)
And so on. Do you have any guiding principles on which freedoms you’d prefer to win in such conflicts, or is it more of a case by case/gut feeling thing?
And another question: There’s freedom to, and freedom from. Freedom to do what I want, and freedom from hunger, fear, etc. It’s my impression that libertarians usually deals with the freedom to-part, and that freedom from isn’t a central part of the ideology. Comments?
If you understand that then I fail to see what you are driving at Anna. Its like asking what a Democrat would do with the ‘neocon’ agenda if they got into power. They would junk it and go their own way of course. Just because we are talking about ‘practical libertarians’ here doesn’t mean they are going to toss everything out the window and just adopt a ‘neocon’ agenda. Even ‘practical democrats’ aren’t going to do THAT. 
As to the Bush supporter thing, you SEEMED to be equating neocon with libertarian (and thats still the way I read what you posted btw), the implication being that if one is a libertarian one must be a Bush supporter. I think JC was just pointing that out, and pointing out that many of the libertarians on this board don’t like Bush at all.
I’ll let JC answer this for himself, but my own answer to this would be that things would change…as they would if the Dems came to power. Practical libertarians (of which I’d like to think I’m one) might find keeping troops overseas distasteful, but would probably understand the practicality and continue that practice. I think some changes would be in order though, and I can see the US pulling back a large percentage of said troops, especially from Europe and S. Korea.
War on Terror and National Security would be two other things that would have to modify pure libertarianism I’d say, as SOME measure that libs would find distasteful would be necessary. Still, there would be some fairly radical changes to how things are done now. The Patriot act for one thing would probably be tossed out fairly rapidly. I think the US under a libertarian government, even a practical one, would focus more on internal security and less on aggressively and actively hunting for external threats.
I’m unsure what they would do in Iraq…probably a timetable for withdrawl with hard goals, if they didn’t just pull out immediately (Badnarik advocated the immediate withdrawl, but he isn’t a ‘practical libertarian’ :)). I seriously doubt that even a practical libertarian would want to deal with either NK or Iran (or most other nations not involved with trade with the US) proactively…probably just ignore them unless they became a direct threat to US overseas interests. Not our problem, mon.
Referendum I suppose. I can certainly see some relaxation of certain drug laws and other ‘nanny’ type laws by referendum, even for ‘practical libertarians’. The practicality would be letting the people decide in the majority just what, if any, laws would change and how they would change…despite the ‘libertarian principles’. The libertarianism would be LETTING the people decide through referendum votes and probably going back to a more states oriented government with a smaller federal government so that people would have more personal freedom based on what state they lived in.
And I’m puzzled by your continued puzzlement… 
-XT
I know a number of Objectivists who supported it. That viewpoint is reflected in the political cartoons of Cox and Forkum. I know that Objectivists don’t like being classified as libertarians, but I’ve always classifed them as one of the many subsections of greater libertarianism along the lines of minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, etc.
You’re wrong. Some Democrats do support neocon foreign policy (eg, Joe Lieberman). Neocon doesn’t equal Republican. It’s not about party politics.
Again, no. I wasn’t equating anything. You seem to be the one making that mistake.
I’ll apologise to Jonathan again though: I misunderstood his “not too subtle” request to not hijack. Sorry about the snarky reply to that. Apparently, he misunderstood the snarkiness as an accusation of “closet Bush supporter”. It was just a general “why isn’t my question worth responding to?” snark. I didn’t understand why “neocon” would inspire so much confusion. Also, I just realised that I originally used the term pure when I meant to say practical. I’m sure that didn’t help. No more posting while I’m (supposed to be) working…
Is “limited legal liability” a special favor? If so, then a libertarian government would most certainly disfavor corporations (or at least the version that currently exists in the US).
No, not quite. They simply should not be rights bearing entities.
Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.
Awake and aware. Even posting before I read PVP.
While you’re absolutely right that pretty much all wealth and such comes on the backs and blood of others throughout history we, as a country, are really incapable of turning back the clock.
That’s why I thought that ‘Beds are Burning’ song by Midnight Oil from 15 years ago was so silly. For those not plugged into the alt-scene from the 80s the song argued that European Australia had taken Australia from the aborigines and that it should be given back.
Nice for a lefty pop song…little impossible in practical application. Would that giving back override the wrong done to people who are currently on the land who had no part in the taking and had no guilt whatsoever in it? I think not.
Let me deal with the last one first there. I think I answerd the ‘Corporations’ question. But I wanted to point out that for my brand of libertarianism, at least, the paleo-cons are not all that good for fellow travellers. While we may have some overlap in the foreign policy and fiscal plan too many of the paleo-cons approach to religion and government sets my teeth on edge.
I speak as a man who came close to being GM of American Conservative magazine, too.
On to the other questions…
I find the most people and organizations desire to squelch dissenting opinion to be repulsive and intellectually dishonest. SHUT UP SHUT UP! is merely shorthand for ‘I don’t really want my views challenged.’
I do find American foreign policy to be a weakness. Both recent and longer term. I think the anti-communist policies of the 50s through the 70s of 'He may be a repressive and corrupt dictator but by God he’s not a communist to have been incredibly shortsighted and long-term harmful to American interests. Far better that we might have extended a variant on the ‘good neighbor policy’ where we encouraged freedom, even to choose a socialist government. Long term even hardcore communism would have been won over by that. A large chunk, IMO, of why the third world was STRIDENTLY communist during this period was to offset the threat of American intervention.
Drug policy always comes up in these discussions. I never feel I have the right to tell someone not to do something stupid with their body or their life. If someone wants to shoot smack I’d let them. I don’t come at this lightly, either. I spent 3.5 years in juvenile detention and lost 6 friends to drugs and suicide before I was 18. But in the end, I don’t feel wise enough to make decisions for others. I may advise…but I don’t wish to decide.
I do NOT support gun regulation. While I might think it a good idea in the abstract two things prevent it. A) It again falls under the ‘deciding for others’ thing and B) the second amendment is clear to me in allowing the private ownership of weapons.
Tough question as I think these things are a spectrum. I have certainly been accused of not being libertarian by some of the harder core ‘party line’ types. But I think there’s room for all in the tent. It would sort of being trying to define a specific spectrum that makes one ‘conservative’.
Follow ups are always welcome. One of the joys of doing this is picking apart my own political views and furthering my own thinking.
This sort of cuts to the quick, doesn’t it.
I would argue that I don’t want the government to play a large role in the economy and welfare of the state but that the people appear to wish it to occur. Some of this is moral and some is ‘bread and circuses’, I’ll be the first to admit.
In terms of most government actions I would limit many government positions to not regulation but evaluation and advisement. In effect, the federal government could evaluate all (an example that particularly irritates me) ‘dietary supplements’ and announce where they fall on an effectiveness scale. So the government could issue an intelligence release saying ‘Go ahead, take them. We find little evidence that they do anything. Knock yourselves out.’
Real world current example: My clothes washer. It comes with a sticker that defines how much electricity is should use given average use for a year. That sticker ALSO defines the spectrum of power consumption for all similar appliances. I was able to use that information to influence my purchase decision towards one with a more efficient power use history.
Advising the citizenry where such advise could be useful is a good thing. Using government data to forbid or compel is a bad thing. People are adults and therefore should be free to make good and stunningly bad choices if they so desire.
And this is where you lose me. What you appear to be saying is that, if the Government has proof that your washing machine is a fire hazard, it shouldn’t forbid them for being sold…because people should have the right to chose whether or not to burn themselves up.
If that’s not your stance, please clarify.
My first problem is that all people don’t act as adults. Like it or not, some people need to be told left from right or they will lay waste to society.
My main problem is, even if your understand what your choice means…your washing machine isn’t just your problem when it sets your house on fire. Your decision now places firemen at risk, your decision uses the resources of emergency crews and what if the fire spreads to your neighbour’s house? Your freedom of choice can quickly engulf everyone around you.
How do you come to grips with that? Insurance will only cover so much and certainly won’t bring back the life of someone killed trying to put your house out. Sue you, put you in jail? Wouldn’t it save society more to just forbid the things from being sold, as opposed to wasting resources putting out fires?
Doesn’t society benefit on the whole, if certain products simply aren’t allowed into the public arena? Doesn’t the benefit of not having houses full of defective washing machines outweight your inability to have the ‘choice’?
Great thread!
My favorite restatement of this point above is Goethe’s: “From the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made.” Isaiah Berlin, one of my favorite philosophers, talks extensively about this idea, and it was instrumental in moving me away from radical politics about ten years ago.
I briefly considered myself libertarian, from the ages of about 17-19; eventually, what I saw as a dangerous deference to property rights drove me away from the movement. Later on I read John Locke’s justification for property rights, which fails on just about every account (God didn’t hand them down; you can use something without having exclusive, absolute rights to it; resources are practically scarce).
You seem to be suggesting that property rights are not sacrosanct, and that coercion to redistribute property is both right and necessary under certain circumstances. So my question:
Do you have a working theory of property/usage rights, or is it kind of a muddle-along thing?
Daniel
One of the “rights” of a corporation is the power to sue or be sued. If you have a grievance with a corporation, in Libertaria would you have to sue each of the shareholders individually? If the corporation wishes to sue somebody, does that mean every shareholder has to sign on as a plaintiff?
Corporations are only “rights bearing entities” to the extent necessary to protect the underlying rights of the shareholders.
Jonathan, I know you’ve got a lot of posts to juggle here, but if you could answer my question on limited liability I’d appreciate it. If you’ve answered it elsewhere and I just haven’t noticed, just point out the post to me.
What do you mean by “underlying rights of the shareholders”? Are you speaking strictly of the liability shield, or do other rights that the shareholders have extend to the corporation?
Nitpick: I don’t think Midnight Oil was talking about all of Australia, but rather Ayer’s Rock, an aboriginal sacred site.
And also, asking what a practical libertarian would do to change the policies of the Bush administration if he were elected president tomorrow kind of misses the point. A true scots…er, practical libertarian would be practical enough to realize that they aren’t going to be elected president tomorrow, or the day after that, or the day after that. Libertarianism is currently a marginal political philosophy outside of internet message boards. So libertarianism, in practice, can only influence policy on the margins:
Hey, let’s not raise taxes right now.
Wait, maybe we shouldn’t increase penalties for drug use.
Aren’t these new FCC powers antithetical to free speach?
Let’s investigate market-based pollution control schemes.
Protectionist trade policy hurts everyone in the long run.
And so on. Arguing over whether private ownership of nuclear weapons would be allowed in Libertaria and suchlike is just intellectual masturbation. Nothing wrong with it, but there isn’t much point to it.
Dewey Cheatem Undhow, I don’t think Jonathon Chance was suggesting extending criminal or civil responsibility to shareholders. Not to speak for him, it just that it sounded like something I’ve always dreamed of: an organized “death penalty” for corporations. If a corporation is shown irredeemable, it is either forced into a some kind of full liabilty status or dissolved.
That was my take anyway.
Adding to Lemur’s list:
Let’s not invade Iraq right now.
Let’s not forbid gays from getting married (or at least leave it up to the states)
Let’s not put the government budget back into deficit.
**And **why is it that we still have a trade embargo imposed on Cuba?
Let’s not detain US citizens without charging them with a crime.
Let’s not play into the populist notion that “outsourcing” is ruining the economy.
Let’s see if we can simplify the tax system so its #1, #2, and #3 priority is too simply raise revenue (not induce people to behave in a certain way)
I suspect you’ll want a qualification on this; otherwise I got the simplification for you.
Everyone just has to send all their money to the IRS, right now.
Obviously, you want a qualification in which their priority to raise revenue is balanced against an obligation to do it in the least harmful manner possible. In fact, I’d say that should be their number one priority: when a particular revenue-raising scheme causes unnecessary harm, that scheme, no matter how effective, should be dropped.
But I tentatively agree that taxes shouldn’t be used to influence behavior: honestly, I’ve not thought much on that issue.
Daniel