About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, May 10, 2010 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you're looking to explain the individualist POV to a left- or right-statist, this article elegantly summarizes the case with clarity and brevity.

You can find the article here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/carkuff1.1.1.html

Post 1

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 6:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Also invariably critics on the left accuse libertarians of being 'selfish' and 'greedy'"

Then they should thank them for the compliment :)

Post 2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's a snappy aphorism, but I didn't think much of the article.  In particular, Carkuff doesn't justify his remark.  Doing just this could have made a better article.

I wonder if Carkuff realizes that he's invoking modern philosophy's notion of a category mistake, in which subject and predicate just don't fit together in a way that makes sense and yields a true or false statement.

Anyway, I doubt that conservatives "hate" libertarians.  You might have said this about the National Review crowd forty or fifty years ago, but not today.


Post 3

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, Buckley's dead, so who reads him any more - Rand, on the other hand.......

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"to a [] right-statist..."

Considering the actual beliefs of those on 'the Right' today, a 'right statist' is a contradiction in terms. That they may make errors in application (abortion, stem cell research, etc.) does not make a 'rightist' an advocate of Statism, any more than the anarchist's misunderstanding of how individual rights must work in the real world makes him an opponent of freedom.

(Added in edit:) Read any of a dozen major conservative blogs today - both the posters and the commenters - and you will soon find statements such as "conservatives advocate individualism, the free market, and limited government." Hardly the view of a Statist.


(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/16, 3:17pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, May 17, 2010 - 8:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff: "Considering the actual beliefs of those on 'the Right' today, a 'right statist' is a contradiction in terms ... and you will soon find statements such as "conservatives advocate individualism, the free market, and limited government." Hardly the view of a Statist."

If they actually consistently adhered to those ideals, then they would not be statists. But, to say that no right-wingers are statists is to fail to observe the actions of many such people.

If a right-wing politician voted for TARP or the bailouts, is that not statism?

If one of them advocates for the War on Drugs, locking up prostitutes for plying their trade, or any other social-con dream, is that not statism?

If one of them votes for or introduces nanny-state legislation like mandatory car seat-belt or motorcycle helmet laws, etc., is that not statism?

I could go on and on -- conservatives tend to have different preferences for their statism than liberals, but very few self-described conservatives are non-statist to any great extent, since if they shed most of their statism they tend to use different labels to describe themselves, such as libertarian or Objectivist.

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/17, 8:54pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 11:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

A fair response.

One difficulty is whether we're talking about the same group of people when we say "rightist." You're thinking of politicians - possibly; I'm thinking of columnists and commenters.

But even at that I think you make an error of hasty generalization. No, a vote on TARP doesn't necessarily make one a statist. In part, it depends on one's reasons. Even Paul Ryan voted - in my view mistakenly - for TARP. If Paul Ryan is a "right wing statist" then anyone who - ever, any time, anywhere - votes for or advocates something that someone (who?) decides is statist, is a statist. In short, I refer back to my statement about errors in application.

(Added in edit: For example, in the current Arizona law/immigration debate, one side is ultimately right, the other wrong. Would you say that any of those - John Armaos, Fred Bartlett - who argue the pro side are statists? Intentions count.)

As with any mixed-premise person or position - i.e. everyone but me (joke!) - it can be difficult to know where to draw the line, of course. But, overall, if one looks at the positions taken by an individual - and looks to their basic principles and general outlook - it helps in placing them. Naturally, one should fold in whether their actions follow those basic principles and general outlook. You'll find that individuals like Jim De Mint, Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachmann, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers are pretty good in that respect.

Moreover, I'm not sure why one might label those who advocate locking up prostitutes or (illegal) drug users as being "on the right." Here again, though, we run into the difficulty of the mixed-premise person.

It's no longer true, as it was 40 years ago, that we can say with alacrity that "the Left want to leave you free in your personal life and control your economic relationships, and the Right want to leave you (relatively) free in the latter but control the former." The culture - and 'conservatism' - have changed.

This statement in particular, "...very few self-described conservatives are non-statist to any great extent" is simply no longer empirically true, as time spent reading conservative media - The American Spectator, NRO, Townhall, and others - will readily reveal. You would be hard-pressed to read them for any length of time and find much deviation from views that Madison or Jefferson would find very congenial. There are exceptions, of course, but they are few and becoming farther between.

But, then, maybe you think those two gentlemen were statists?


P.S. Would you describe the Tea Party movement - overwhelmingly populated by self-described conservatives - as statist?


(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/19, 12:22pm)

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/19, 2:11pm)


Post 7

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff,

I sanctioned your reply. I'd go farther and say that 'conservatism' isn't sufficiently monolithic anymore to be represented by a single word. Look at the differences between Neo-Cons, Social Conservatives, Paleo-conservatives, Goldwater Conservatives, Reagan Conservatives, Red-neck gunpowder conservatives, and those who are conservatives but are almost at the point where it makes more sense to call the Libertarians. It has recently, and rapidly, disintegrated into these myrad factions. I suspect this splintering is part of an ideological evolution at work - that we are witnessing the reorganization of the opposition to statism. The seeds have been there for a long time (Locke, Jefferson, Rand...) but it took the progressives coming out of the closet and achieving their stunning victory at the polls - putting socialists in power with Obama and the majority in Congress - to germinate the seeds.
-------------

Jim can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he does think Jefferson and Madison were statists. He chooses to mis-define that word so that it includes anyone who believe in any form of monopoly government - even a strictly limited constitutional minarchy - thus, putting Jefferson and Marx both in the statist camp. Its an anarchist thing.

Post 8

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
But even at that I think you make an error of hasty generalization. No, a vote on TARP doesn't necessarily make one a statist. In part, it depends on one's reasons. Even Paul Ryan voted - in my view mistakenly - for TARP.

I look on it more as people are statist or not, and to various degrees, for particular issues. If a politician voted for TARP or the bailouts, I would classify them as statist regarding those particular issues. They may be individualist about many other issues.

There are, of course, people (like all three people who allegedly "represent" me in Congress) who are consistently statist on virtually every issue imaginable.

Jim can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he does think Jefferson and Madison were statists. He chooses to mis-define that word so that it includes anyone who believe in any form of monopoly government - even a strictly limited constitutional minarchy - thus, putting Jefferson and Marx both in the statist camp. Its an anarchist thing.

I think Jefferson was a classical liberal on most issues, far more than most people of his day, with only a few statist pockets in his ideology. He was very much a minarchist, and minarchists are only statist about a few things, and commendably individualist about everything else.

So, no, I don't see statism as a black and white, either-or thing, but rather a plethora of issues, on each of which you can be for freedom or not, and each of them separable from each other.

Moreover, I'm not sure why one might label those who advocate locking up prostitutes or (illegal) drug users as being "on the right."

Actually, both people firmly on the left and firmly on the right tend to be for locking up prostitutes or drug users. It's a bipartisan thing. Where it matters is in differentiating between free-market conservatives and libertarians -- they agree on economic principles, and generally part ways on such social issues. Essentially, being for individual freedom on prostitutes and drugs is a pretty good litmus test that someone who thinks of themself as a conservative is a former conservative, and is now a libertarian, whether they realize it or not.


Post 9

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 5:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
P.S. Would you describe the Tea Party movement - overwhelmingly populated by self-described conservatives - as statist?

I can't speak for the Mainland Tea Party movement. I haven't met enough of those individuals to form an impression of them. I did go to a Hawaii Tea Party event, and what I saw was anything but a monolithic bloc of people all thinking alike. I know quite a few of the people who attended, so this isn't just idle speculation about their political views. There was a center-right skew, especially relative to the hard-left skew of people in Hawaii on average, but the Tea Party attendees were hardly "overwhelmingly" conservative, and they were a mix, from people with quite a bit of statism in their outlook, to a few people arguably more radically anarchist than me. Here is my writeup I did for the Oahu Libertarian Party newsletter:

***

Scenes from the 2010 Tea Party Tax Day Protest Rally


I didn’t know what to expect at the 2010 Tea Party Rally at the state capitol,
never having been to one before. I’d heard liberal commenters and reporters
derogatorily describe "teabaggers" as a bunch of racist old white Republican
men, but confirmation bias is a bitch – people tend to see what they want to
see, point the cameras at the people and signs in a crowd that match their
preconceived narrative, and block out inconvenient bits that cause cognitive
dissonance and wreak havoc with their most cherished beliefs.

So, when I arrived at the rally, I meandered through the crowd – the entire
crowd – trying to see them as individuals, and not bit actors in a collective
narrative.

The first impression that struck me is that this was a flag-intensive bunch.
People carrying flags – people wearing flag shirts – flag hats –-flag pants --
flag ties, some with little flag tie tacks in case you somehow thought they
might be ambivalent about the whole patriotism thing. Mostly American flags, but
some yellow Gadsden “Don’t tread on me” flags. No rainbow flags, though. Not
that kind of a crowd.

People gave speeches about flags. I talked with (well, more like “listened to” –
politicians loooove to speak) Representative Kim Pine, who had gotten into a
pissing match that day with Senator Will Espero over the cause of the demise of
Pine’s flagpole bill, though I was distracted by her stylish and
expensive-looking snakeskin (?) shoes. I'd heard Will Espero give his side
earlier that day. Apparently there are two eerily similar but parallel universes
existing in Ewa Beach, with no apparent points of overlap between these two
separate realities. Flagsflagsflags.

But enough about that rot. Let’s go down the MSM liberal talking point
checklist, “a bunch of racist old white Republican men”:

“A bunch of” – maybe so. I’d guess there were perhaps 1,000 attendees, jammed
solid into the area from the Capitol steps by the Father Damien statute out to
the roadway, with people overflowing on the edges, and hanging out at the
capitol railings overhead.

“Racist.” No visible indications of that whatsoever. No racist signs, no ethnic
slurs, nada.

“Old.” Nope. The crowd ran the gamut, from the adorable pre-teen kids waving
signs to passing cars honking back, to elderly people, and every age in between.

“White.” No again. An ethnically diverse Hawaii crowd, perhaps more Kailua than
Kalihi in average melanin levels, but a crowd that would look conspicuously out
of place at, say, an Iowa cornfeed.

“Republican” – quite a few. Definitely a center-right skew. Lot of Charles Djou
T-shirts, Republican politicians, a blue and red Reagan T-shirt with the slogan
“Right” mocking the Obama “Hope” poster. But also libertarians and objectivists
(a black “Who is John Galt” sign, a speaker quoting from “Atlas Shrugged”) and
Constitutionalists (an Oath Keeper T-shirt on someone with a military-grade
physique and haircut).

“Men.” Men, women, and at least one T-girl.

The speeches: hmmm, how do I put this tactfully? Rick Hamada – quit hogging the
damn mike. Seriously, STFU. Let other people speak. OK, not so tactful. One does
one’s best. ;)

The Tea Party movement is supposed to be a grassroots, leaderless
non-organization. This lack of top-down, command and control order was most
noticeable at the microphone, where allegedly 2 minute speeches often ran waaaay
over, blatantly ignoring the moderator who kept breaking out an orange “Wrap It
Up” sign. It’s not Congress, folks. Give a speech, not a filibuster.

Applause lines: mentioning the flag (natch), Glenn Beck, homeschooling, cutting
taxes, cutting spending, cutting taxes AND spending. Did I mention taxes or
spending? If not, my bad. ;)

The three best speeches IMHO were all delivered back-to-back by the three
teenagers who took the mike (disclosure: I’m not totally objective, since one of
them was my daughter). They wowed the crowd, especially the freshly scrubbed,
insanely articulate and polished homeschooled kid, Ryan something or other, who
is clearly Going Places. And, if my normally tomboyish daughter’s gushing
comments on the car ride home was any indication (“He’s sooo cute and smart! And
such pretty blue eyes!”), Ryan is on the verge of getting himself a new
girlfriend, whether that’s his intention or not.

Ryan, if you’re reading this, four words of advice: Run far. Run fast. The
Rasmussen women, once they put their crosshairs on a man, are
Terminator-strength relentless. They do not stop until they have fulfilled their
objective. Unless you like tall smart blonde sassy Valkyrie tomboys, in which
case slow down and let her catch you.

That is all.

Post 10

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

Anyone that would see Jefferson or Madison as statist has abandoned logic or decided that words don't matter.

Statism:
- The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
- concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.
- an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve both economic and social goals. An example would be promoting the view that the state has a major and legitimate role in directing the economy, either directly through state-owned enterprises and other types of machinery of government, or indirectly through economic planning.

A rational, thinking person would look at the what history provided to Jefferson and the other founding fathers back at the time that they were designing a brand new government. What models did they have to choose from? How could someone say Jefferson is a statist?

Post 11

Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve -- there are more definitions of statism online than the ones you referenced. Words can have several different meanings depending on context. Here is one definition of statism I found online:

"The belief that the centralization of power in a state is the ideal or best way to organize humanity"

Now, that definition assumes that it's all or nothing, you organize all your thinking that way or you don't, but that's just one author's opinion, filtered through their outlook and assumptions. It's not written by God on tablets of stone, an unalterable truth -- it's an opinion. Other people may justifiably use the word filtered through a different perspective. If, as I maintain, statism is separable for each and every issue -- you can be statist about some things and individualist about other things -- then that definition of statism might be rewritten as follows:

"The belief for a particular issue that the centralization of power in a state is the ideal or best way to organize humanity"

then I maintain that on the issue of slavery, based on his deeds and not his words, then Jefferson was a statist for that particular issue.

That is, Jefferson owned around 100 slaves, and despite his nobel words about "all men are created equal", he kept all but a couple of those slaves in bondage until the day he died.

I consider owning slaves when the law allows slave ownership to be an incredibly statist act, a deference to the state's power to violate one of the most fundamental principles of individualism. An individualist about that issue would absolutely refuse to take advantage of a coercive law passed by a monopoly government allowing him or her to own slaves. An individualist about that issue would maintain that this is not a power any state should be granted.

So, yes, I do belief Jefferson's actions were statist with respect to the practice of slave-owning, while being non-statist about most every other issue. He was mostly an individualist, but on at least that one issue he was a statist, as I have modified and defined that term above, his rhetoric about the issue notwithstanding.

Post 12

Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 1:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

You'll have to find a better definition than that one. It is too vague to be useful as a definition.

You don't argue in an honest fashion. You start with the belief that government is evil and twist words, definitions, contexts,... anything to fit your ends. You are as much an anarchist regarding the rules of logic as you are about the rules of governing.

If you can't see the absurdity of calling Jefferson a statist, then you've drunk too much of your own kool-aid, and leaped free of all logical constraints. I guess that for Jim words mean whatever he wants them to mean. That is what I dislike the most about discussions with anarchists... and most of them have that trait, that willingness to cloak themselves in the appearance of logic while violating it's rules as much as they can get away with. They throw intellectual bombs and run.

If I were to adopt your methods, I'd say Jim Henshaw is a statist. He advocates stripping us all of the right to a monopoly of objective law and forcing us to be subject to all manner of force including initiated force. How do I justify such a claim? Simple, I'll just define a statist as one who advocates subjecting people to a system where the application of force isn't related to a monopoly of objective laws based upon individual rights.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.