RoR: Forum

Eva,

As a libertarian whose parents were GOP conservatives, I was in the same spot. Do I vote for a fiscal conservative who opposes social liberties, or do I vote for democrat that fights for those social liberties, but at the expense of building big government and lots of regulations. It was pretty easy for me to side with the most libertarian of the GOP conservatives IF they were small government advocates. And the integrative nature of Objectivism made that position easier to arrive at.

To me, getting a small government is like fixing the holes in the dam before the leaks tears the whole thing apart. Making strides towards social liberties at the expense of major growth in government power was like trading the of the future for what would end up being a temporary improvement in the present. Getting a small government will, when it gets small enough, bring liberty in all areas.

Big government that is moderately benign is either a myth we will never see, or at best a very temporary phenomena and the power of the big monster can, and will rapidly turn against the remaining freedoms and make all liberty a thing of the past - and then will come the rewriting of history till the very idea of liberty would have to be rediscovered anew.
--------------

My theory... is that many people don't vote because they're actively disgusted, and feel insulted that the system imposes a highly elaborate either/or scenario. They must thereby balance, weigh, cogitate and choose...

I can see that. And I think that there are many people who vote out of fear. They feel threatened by the policies of one of the candidates or parties and vote out of a sense of self-defense. Sometimes this might be a result of identity politics, such as where Progressives attempt to demonize the GOP in terms the group they are wooing will see as threatening. An example would be attempts to paint the GOP as racists, which is false. Or the attempt to paint the GOP as anti-woman, which is true, but only for some of the social conservatives. I voted in the last presidential election in a defensive mode - I would have preferred to give my vote to the Libertarian candidate as a way of standing by the most complete representation of my principles, but I thought that Obama was not just a serious threat to the country, but that the race was too close.
--------------

...the solution is privittization, but the practical issue seems to be how to get privitized individuals to think for themselves. otherwise, we default back to big gov for solutions, as inefficient and shoddy as the outcome might me.

Too true. I would phrase things a bit differently, but only because privatization is often taken to mean new legislation creating some kind of government-private organization partnership as the replacement for what was just government. What is needed is the elimination of government altogether from those areas where it is inappropriate, and to get from here to there, people will need to better understand individualism, become stronger individuals, and as you said, think for themselves.

Post 21

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 1:09pm

Eva, thanks for your insights and opinions. It is pretty easy to argue with the things I disagree, such as the Roosevelts R and FD. Rather, let me underscore your view, which is share that big government is not the cause of our problems.

Perhaps I don't agree that big gov is the primary source of loss of individualism, as they're are others, as well. I also see big gov as a poorly adaptive response to what Weber, et al, called 'de-personalization'.

Big government is a consequence. As long as no consistent philosophy of freedom provided a foundation for moral rejection of government intervention, everyone had some small, exceptional reason to go along this time or maybe the next for the things they want. I am a big fan of public libraries. However, I did vote against the last millage, which carried by a wide margin. Historically, public schools, inspection of foods and pharmaceuticals, regulation of interstate commerce, it was pretty easy for government to expand seemingly on its own. On my blog I have two essays on "unlimited constitutional government."

As Weber noted - and as Aristotle said - culture determines politics.

Post 22

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 1:42pm

Big government is a consequence. ... culture determines politics.

Big government is a consequence, but it then becomes a contributing cause. And although culture determines politics, it is via ideas and then those political ideas combine with special interest access to power, government acting in self-serving ways, opportunities for corruption, and the general hungering for other peoples money. These combine to change culture - to become a bigger part of the new culture. What we have is a degree of reciprocal causation - an unfortunate positive feed-back loop.

At any given point in history there is a practical limit to the quantity of media in a culture. Take the daily news cycle - only so many column inches and only so many TV or radio minutes of content will be consumed. The bigger government grows, the more of the total news content it will dominate. If the culture isn't, on average, strongly opposed to big government, the news media will move the culture closer towards accepting the idea that this is the norm. That big government is naturally an authority in understanding where we are going, on how problems should be solved, and on what one can and cannot do in the current political arena.

Big government is self-promoting. It stacks the education deck in its favor with public education, with corrupt partnerships with teaching unions, with other public employee unions, with the bribes of grant money. And each new generation coming out of the big-government influenced educational system tends to have more new voter, journalists, writers and teachers pushing for bigger government than those fighting for small government, and more of those than in the previous generation.

Like a variant of Gresham's law, big (hence bad) government will (via ideas in the culture) chase good government 'out of circulation.'

This isn't a statement that man's thinking is determined only by external factors, or hardwired, or that we don't exercise choice. Nor is it a denial that culture is never more, at its root, than the sum of man's past and present choices. But it is a realistic look at the influences at work in the environment where those choices get made.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/08, 1:48pm)

Post 23

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 6:47pm

Steve & Michael,

'Small govenment' means turning governmental functions back over to the states.
That many distrust the nature of state politics--with particular reference to individual liberties--is a given.

So again, it's a default question: where can we go to obtain social justice?
The feds (big gov) have traditionally stepped in and while not exactly covering themselves with glory, at least have offered us tangible interpretation and enforcement of the Bill of Rights.

So no, I really don't agree with Aristotle. Politics and culture interact, but both are determied to a great degree by circumstance and adaptation.

Eva

Post 24

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 10:36pm

Eva,

'Small govenment' means turning governmental functions back over to the states.

That isn't a given. I would only turn over functions to the states with the understanding that they aren't violations of individual rights that are covered by the constitution. The proper function of the states is to check the power of the federal government.

And I don't know what "social justice" is - too imprecise and fuzzy a phrase for me. I know what individual rights are and they are the only standard I would use to ensure justice of any kind that involves government - any government.

The key concept for us is limit government, all governments, to live within their constitutions. And any constitution that permits a violation of individual rights needs to be amended. People must give up the idea of getting anything other than the protection of the individual right from government. All other paths are different ways to arrive at tyranny - no matter how sweet the promises of their touts.
----------

Notice that the federal government has massively increased it's power at the same time it is securing those 'social rights.' I would much rather have gained the liberty in one area without losing it in other areas, especially at the price of letting the federal government grow so large that all liberties are likely to be lost.

... many distrust the nature of state politics--with particular reference to individual liberties...

True. But it should not be a question of which government shall we give up liberties too. And if it were such a question, I choose the smaller government, the one more directly answerable to its citizens (hint: that isn't the one in Washington), and the one that is in competition with other states.

So again, it's a default question: where can we go to obtain social justice?

If we become clear that liberty is that condition where individual rights are recognized, then we go to the libertarians. If the Libertarian party can do it, lets go there. If they can't let's keep pushing the libertarian wing of the conservatives. And if we can walk and chew gum at the same time, let's support both. But getting into bed with big government progressives - Republicans or Democrats - will never secure our rights.

Post 25

Thursday, January 9, 2014 - 12:36pm

Steve,

In the ideal world, there would not have been a Roe v Wade, nor a Brown v kansas, nor a 'Gideon's trumpet' to secure habeas corpus for poor people.

Likewise, no voting rights act of 1966.

Slaves would not have to have beed freed, nor made illegal, bucause all states would have passed voluntary measures--not just the northern ones--to grandfather out the institution.

Therefore no amendment banning slavery, nor the initiation of due process.

In the real world, the American government not only passed judgment against the states' behavoir, but also (gasp!) sometimes used real violence to enforce their decision.

My theory is that the government is bloatedly, awkwardly big because the habits of having a large, powerful authority around to make moral decisions die hard.

So my solution to an agreed-upon probelm is differnt. We can't just deflate the explicit responsibilities carried out by institutions until we can do it ourselves.

This means circumventing the idiocy of state-level decision makes. otherwise they'll just fill the power vacuum likw water throuh the hole in the dike.

Eva

Post 26

Thursday, January 9, 2014 - 2:45pm

Eva, I frame my thoughts regarding the evolution of a political system differently. I see the ideas as the primaries, and my judgment of them is my first focus. And I look at the context and the history, and then I'm adding in those individuals or groups of individuals that held, and perhaps fought for those ideas.

From that perspective I see different individuals, and groups and the state of the culture at the time aligning on one side or the other of major issues. At times in history the morally right side of an issue was held by the smaller number of individuals, and the less powerful government organizations. And sometimes they lost in the that contest. Other times they won. For every occasion where the force of a big federal government was used to secure some liberty that would otherwise have been eaten up by the states, it is easy to point to many more occasions where the big government WAS the rights violator (either with or without the consent of the states).

LBJ is given a great deal of credit for passing the voting rights act of 1965 (I assume you meant 1965, not 1966). (After which he was heard to say, "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." He was a bigot and had been for most of his life - siding with the Southern Governors.) That voting rights act has a long history. It was promised by Kennedy before he was assassinated. But what most people don't know is that it was proposed before that by Eisenhower who was the real civil rights hero back then. Eisenhower desegregated the military services (something he began in WWII), sent in the US military to get James Meredith into Ole Miss, and the 101st Airborne into Little Rock to escort students into the high school. He passed landmark civil rights legislation in 1957, and voting rights in 1960, but was frustrated from going further by the Senate Majority Leader at the time: LBJ. Neither he, nor LBJ could have bucked the block of Southern states without the support of the Northern states. Too see the morally corrupt Southern states as rights abusers is valid, but it is necessary to see all the states that fought to end that enforced bigotry.

It wouldn't make as much sense to frame all of this, or the civil war, or Roe v Wade, or any other clash as Federal over states and think that was the essence of the issues. It would make sense to frame it as ideas that gained sufficient support, and were driven by the right people at the right time who used whatever tools were at hand (Supreme Court, Constitutional amendments, Federal laws, State nullification, revolt against the rule of King George, etc.) to gain ascendancy. In most of history one can watch the trend towards greater freedom, or away from it. But the size of the government will never over long spans of history correlate with the pro-liberty trend.

And Lincoln, and the federal government, were pushed into the civil war by the individuals who were united in the North, and represented by the Northern states. Abolitionists were fighting and dying long before the federal government was very reluctantly pulled into the conflict - a conflict that was set afire by all of the states refusing to go along with the Fugitive Slave Act (a federal law).

Government's are structures, and they should be crafted to serve a purpose. And because they are exceedingly dangerous to the individual, they need to be structured in the way one would keep a dangerous watch dog - on a tight leash. The genius of Madison, and many of the other founding fathers lies in the crafting of all the different checks and balances - the separation of legislative, administrative, and adjudicative powers. The explicit statement of the federal government not being permitted to exercise any acts not specified in the constitution. And that it was, in the source of its creation, and its purpose, like a limited partnership. An entity made to serve the states (who were supposed to serve their populations as individuals).

You can't even have a massively big government without violating rights - because it means draining private individuals of their money through taxation. And the great mass of regulation is the natural product of the large government (try to imagine federal employees numbering in the millions who have the power to create regulations, but don't! I don't think that'll ever happen.)

Anyone who is choosing to argue for big government certainly isn't a libertarian in any sense that I understand.

It is always a battle between liberty and legalized control by force. Those are cast as ideas, and fought as issues. The opposing sides form, and they form from the ranks of individuals. The individuals make use of the tools they can put into play on their side. State governments, and the federal government are just such tools. We now see Obama using his control over his portion of the federal government to cram a form of socialized medicine down our throats. The progressives want bigger government and will continue to use it to violate rights - because they are in control. If the social conservatives were in charge they'd use the federal government to oppress individual rights of women and gays. If Neo-cons were in control they'd use federal power to go into more wars.

If the federal government were put back on a tight lease defined by individual rights, no faction could so abuse the power of the federal government. That doesn't mean that the states should be permitted to violate rights. The principle is to control government's use of power not to pass abusive power around like musical chairs.

Post 27

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 9:50am

Steve,

Thanks for the long and interesting reply. I'll be back later when I have more time to offer a response that justifies your seriously, thought-out text. So please don't think I'm being flip in responding only to your last paragraph, as cited:

>>>>If the federal government were put back on a tight lease defined by individual rights, no faction could so abuse the power of the federal government. That doesn't mean that the states should be permitted to violate rights. The principle is to control government's use of power not to pass abusive power around like musical chairs.<<<<<

My point is that without the fed intervention, states would systemically violate personal rights. The examples I offered in my previous post state as much.

'One last thought, pace Hume:
*We agree on the 'ought' .
*We most likely agree on the 'is' as historical fact
*I tend to firewall these two; politics, as said, is the art of the possible...

Eva

Post 28

Friday, January 10, 2014 - 7:00pm

Eva,

I'll look forward to any replies you choose to make when you get time.

You wrote:

My point is that without the fed intervention, states would systemically violate personal rights.

That would be easier to accept if you'd used the word "might" instead of "would." I think I made the point that sometimes it is the states that were keeping the Federal government in line. And I think that is a key point because what is sought after in the structure is a balance of power where no state can abuse it's citizens with impunity, but that the states retained enough power to rein in an abusive Federal government. Right now, we very much need for the states to have more power relative to the Federal government. But, please understand that even though I believe the ratio needs to be shifted towards more power for the states over the Fed, I strongly believe that the power of both, relative to the individual, needs to be greatly diminished.

Post 29

Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 11:37am

Steve,

No, I'm saying that the history of America strongly indicates that the fed govt & judiciary took on powers to combat state behavior. this is not a 'might', but lived experience.

One example of countless many: Brown v Kansas. Plessy is repealed, states can no longer have segregated scool systems because it's inherantly unequal.

The feds are obliged to en-force this mandate. Even Ike is displeased because it infringes upon state's rights.So please tell me, without Warren activism and troops, how would de-segregation have occured?

So is this a humean catastrophe in which 'ought' has nothing to do withthe 'is' of reality or, within your own system of values. de-segregation is irrelevant ?

Eva

Post 30

Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 1:58pm

Eva,

I'm sorry, but you aren't getting it. You are acting as if the Federal government has special powers and motivations that would never otherwise exist and are outside of every context. And you are treating its actions as if they were the only method that would achieve justice.

Do you believe that the federal government is motivated and acts against some states in the absence of any support from other states? Do you think that desegregation was not made possible by individuals and states standing against the Southern states who had passed the Jim Crow laws? Do you think the Civil War would or could have been fought without the Northern states? Do you think the Northern state were just state governments disembodied from the individuals in those states who sympathized with the abolitionists?

Do you believe that governments, state or federal, have motivations adequate to take significant actions even with zero support from individuals? It is as if you are somehow under the impression that only a special elite, with strong control over a powerful federal government would be able to achieve justice. Think for a minute how collectivist that orientation is, and how little individualism can be found in that kind of approach.

Here is what I'm saying:

Individual rights should be protected by governments, states and federal. This is how it should be.
Sometimes the states are violating individual rights and the federal government needs to step in to do the protecting.
Sometimes the federal government is violating rights and the states need to band together to force the federal government to stop the violating.
Sometimes the federal government is violating rights and is stopped by a ruling of the supreme court.
If the checks and balances aren't kept in place, individual rights are less likely to be protected.
One of the most dangerous out-of-balance situations is where the federal government becomes to large, and acquires too much power relative to the states (and the individuals).
If a significant portion of the population doesn't have some understanding and strong feeling about protecting individual rights, it won't be that long before they are no longer protected.

--------------

I'm saying that the history of America strongly indicates that the fed govt & judiciary took on powers to combat state behavior.

That does NOT contradict anything I said. Nor does it answer my point that individual rights are the standard for judging what powers should be taken on and which are wrong. Nor does history dictate the future or contain all possible permutations of the issues under discussion.
--------------

The feds are obliged to en-force this mandate [Supreme Court ruling]. Even Ike is displeased because it infringes upon state's rights.

You aren't getting my argument at all. If the administration side of the federal government grows large enough, and takes on enough power, it certainly can, and will begin to ignore the Supreme Court. Without checks and balances, tyranny is not far away.
--------------

...within your own system of values. de-segregation is irrelevant?

I'm a little touchy about being called a racist and that statement comes a little too close. I'm hoping that isn't what you were implying. I'd appreciate it if you quote my words, one or two sentences worth, and then explain what, specifically in the quote you believe is wrong and why.

Post 31

Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 4:00pm

Steve,

>>>>>>If the administration side of the federal government grows large enough, and takes on enough power, it certainly can, and will begin to ignore the Supreme Court. Without checks and balances, tyranny is not far away<<<<<<<<

No, I can't see the executive branch ignoring the supreme court, or even the fereral judiciary in geeral. Have you any instances to cite to the contrary?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>little touchy about being called a racist and that statement comes a little too close. I'm hoping that isn't what you were implying. I'd appreciate it if you quote my words, one or two sentences worth, and then explain what, specifically in the quote you believe is wrong and why.<<<<<<<<<<<<

It's curious that today we would frame opposition to Brown as 'racist'.

First, the decision to overturn Plessey was made on evidental grounds that proved seperation was inherantly unequal. Nothing was said regarding the intent of Plessey; it just didn't live up to its claims.

Next particularway of seeing the desegration events of the 60's as anti-racist comes from what I call 'cumbaya liberalism'. At best, it's a rhetorical stab in the dark against those with whom you disagree

Lastly, this cumbaya liberalism has carried over into the present, against which people get edgy and defensive. So of course it isn't.racist and of course you're not.

Even today they're strong arguments that Warren seriously overstepped the boundaries that require federal legislative action as a remedy. So paradoxically, one can argue that it was precisely the weakness of the federal lgovernment that caused the mess to be tossed over to the judiciary to begin with.

In any case, either an agrgregate of states or a trans-state aggregate of individuals would be de-facto acting as a 'federated' government, because that 's what the term means. Then, you'd still have the problem of scale, which is what the problem really is, anyway.

To what extent does any group have the right to speak for individuals?

Eva

Post 32

Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 5:02pm

Eva,

I can't see the executive branch ignoring the supreme court, or even the fereral judiciary in geeral. Have you any instances to cite to the contrary?

President Andy Jackson ignored the Supreme Court ruling that ordered Georgia to give back land illegally taken from the Cherokee nation. Jackson said, "They made their ruling. Let them enforce it." Had that kind of thing continued it would have meant an end to constitutional government. That is how close we are at all times to the destruction of liberty by loosing key checks and balances.

Newt Gingrich said this during a presidential debate, "I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters..."

President Roosevelt threatened to ignore any writ of habeas corpus issued by the Supreme Court when some German spies were captured in Florida. He said that he was the commander in chief and that let him ignore the Supreme court!

President Lincoln ignored Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's order finding unconstitutional Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus rights in 1861.

Look at any country that went from a representative or democratic form to a totalitarian form - like Germany under Hitler, and like the attempts of the president of Honduras who ignored their supreme court in 2009.

In effect you are saying that federal government will never grow in power to where it chooses to disband the Supreme Court, or illegally remove members, or simply ignore them. How can you look into the future and claim that it would never happen? What is the mechanism that checks that degree of growth?

The constitution is already being ignored by the executive and the legislative branches. The legislative branch is often being ignored by the executive who at times makes its own law. The Supreme Court could be next. I hope that we don't see a trend of such instances in the future.

Post 33

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 11:11am

Steve's history is substantially correct. I only point to the exact quote (never attested, but widely accepted) from Jackson: ""John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" It was personal.

I point out, also, that the U.S. Marshals are the oldest federal law enforcement agency and perhaps the oldest continuing law enforcement agency - possibly excepting the Coast Guard, depending on your definitions- in America. The Supreme Court could have used the marshals as their enforcement agency. They never did. They chose not to go to war against the executive branch. That speaks volumes.

Post 34

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 5:19pm

*Jackson's temporal frame of reference was only 20 years after Marbury-Madison, which established Judicial Review in the first place. I would assume that he opposed JR on principle.

Now, no one does-- realistically-- although the arguments against an overly-assertive SC are normally heard from Libertarians-- on our side, remember?

Moreover, an activist judiciary is precisely the problem with hyper- government power, regardless of whether they're overturning state or federal statutes.

** As for Newt, perhaps even the Georgia mountain people saw him as a menace. He's not a good example on anything or anyone other than himself.

*** Abe & FDR raised the issue as whether or not the prez, as commander in chief, can superceed habeas corpus, that does not exist in the military tribumnal as such. Bush also re-raised the issue as to whether or not terrorists can be tried by military tribunal and, of course, the internment at Git-mo.

That the chief exec may be able to ignore habeas during times of declared war is an interesting question; mislabeling the fight against terrorism a 'war'...not so much.

Eva

(Edited by Matthews on 1/12, 5:21pm)

Post 35

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 7:54pm

I think the important point is to keep in mind what Madison was attempting to do. To keep the federal power divided with the checks and balances so that the federal government didn't overstep the boundaries written into the constitution.

Don't let the judicial branch engage in enforcement. Don't let the Executive branch make laws. Don't let the legislative branch enforce the laws - keep the major functions separated so that no one branch headed by a would-be tyrant has an easy time throwing out rule of law.

And don't let the federal government grow so powerful that a large number of states can't join together and engage in nullification.

The people will most likely be able to rise up and take back the power of a state government that gets out of hand, but are far less likely to be able to stop a run-away federal government.

We need more checks and balances... not less. I'd have a constitutional amendment that created a small FBI-like agency that was administered by a rotating board of 29 State's Attorneys. It would be funded by a tax collected by the states on a per capita basis. There would be absolutely no control over this agency by Washington. It would only have one function - the continuous investigation of all nationally elected figures, their staffs and those they they appoint to office. Each such person would have to sign a privacy waiver to accept office or appointment. There would be extremely stiff penalties for inappropriate use of the gathered information, and the agency would have the power to convene grand juries and to indict. It doesn't eliminate very many problems we now have in Washington, but it would get rid of most of the corruption, and with it, a lot of the current motivation for being in office. Then the ideologies would be more visible and people could make better choices. Now they vote for the person who says they are for x, y, and z, but find out later the person did nothing but stuff their pockets and work on reelection.

I'd also favor a constitutional amendment that would permit a 2/3 vote of all state attorneys nullify any specific Supreme Court ruling as long at the vote was done within 3 months of the ruling.

I'd favor the repeal of the amendment Woodrow Wilson got through that made the Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by the states.

Post 36

Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 10:52pm

>>>>>I'd favor the repeal of the amendment Woodrow Wilson got through that made the Senators popularly elected instead of appointed by the states.<<<<<

This would concentrate power into the hands of the state government, away from the people....

Post 37

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 8:55am

Eva,

This would concentrate power into the hands of the state government, away from the people....

No. It would share the power now held mostly by the federal government with the states and that would be a better balanced system. And the people have far, far more access and control over their state representatives than they do over their federal representatives. And if a state abuses its power people can vote with their feet as well as go after their state representatives, and the fed can go after the state. But if you have taken the power away from the states, they can't go after the fed.

I would also favor an amendment that restricts U.S. senators and representatives to single terms, and rewrite the civil service regulations to make them merit based and non-union. You can't have a federal government with the size and power of this one without a severe loss of liberty.

I have to say that either you just enjoy the argument enough to play devils advocate, or you are not the usual libertarian. I've never met a libertarian who favors big government.

Post 38

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 11:35am

So you're for taking away the popular vote for senators and giving it to the governor for appointment...and you accuse me of advocating big government?!

Post 39

Monday, January 13, 2014 - 12:20pm