leftlibertarian.org

This is a Downsizer-Dispatch I posted today. Excerpt:

A real competitiveness bill would cut taxes, simplify the tax laws, and repeal burdensome regulations that hurt small business and drives corporations overseas. It would also allow businesses, families, and local communities to find ways to improve education without rules or other "help" from the federal government. Individuals are the best problem-solvers, and voluntary agreements are more efficient than laws and taxes. To improve America's economic competitiveness, we must Downsize DC.

If you’ve ever been to the Mises Institute in person, you know that there’s no entrance from the main street; you have to turn onto a narrow one-way side street and then turn in to the entrance. And then when you leave, you have to continue down that one-way street and then turn on to another narrow side street that finally exits on to an entirely different street.

Now imagine what trying to get to the Mises Institute would be like if that one-way street were suddenly to become one-way in the other direction. If you were one of the thousands of people who visit the Institute every year, you’d be able to drive past the Institute, but there’d be no way to get in from the point where the Institute is actually visible. The only way to get to the Institute would be via a tiny side street on the other side of the block where nobody would ever think to look.

But don’t worry; only malice or blithering stupidity would lead city planners to do such a thing, right?

It is commonly said by statists that taxation is a payment for “services.” The natural reply, of course, is to point out that “services” do not need to be provided at the point of a gun, and that if these “services” are so great, then we should be left free to decide whether we want [...]

I finally found the time to read Chris Sciabarra's book Total Freedom. Here are some excerpts from an e-mail I just sent him:

In short, I thoroughly enjoyed every single page of the book! It ranks definitely among the most thought-provoking non-fiction I’ve read and I can already tell that it’s made a great impact on my thinking. On the one hand, each chapter, each train of thought radically challenged some of my deepest convictions but on the other hand also left me with the impression that a lot of its content puts into words what I’ve long thought to be the truth. Other works that were of a similar experience to me are Rothbard’s Power & Market and For a New Liberty, Roderick Long’s and Charles Johnson’s “Libertarian Feminism” and Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy. So if, today, I would have to name those works that have been the most influential to my – admittedly very short – intellectual development, your book would definitely rank among the top five, and I think that it will stay there for a long time. :)

I must point out, though, that I don’t think I’ve understood everything. In fact, I’m not even sure I’ve understood even the basic points. I will definitely have give the whole book at least a second read in order to be able to comment in a more detailed manner on it, and I think it will only be then that I will be able to judge whether I can really identify with the dialectical project that you call for. In the meantime, however, I would already like to address one reservation I have with your argument. On page 177, you claim that dialectics “does not succumb to . . . the ‘self-referential’ problem of relativism.” While I would love this to be true since I certainly have a gut feeling that dialectics is the right methodological orientation, I’m not sure I’ve really understood why the above is the case. I think you are right to dismiss strict atomism, dualism, monism and strict organicism as problematic ontological stances, and it seems correct to conclude from this and from your other arguments that a successful inquiry always needs to take into account the context, among other things. But, I say “it seems correct”, because I’m not sure if always trying to point out the contextuality of everything doesn’t make the introduction of the dialectical method as a general principle impossible. Doesn’t this lead to a contradiction? Doesn’t follow from this the self-stultifying conclusion that dialectics needs to subject itself to a kind of meta-dialectics which allows us to define those contexts where the dialectical method is appropriate and where it isn’t.

I hope my above thoughts make sense and I particularly hope that my reservations don’t stem from an unfair reading of your book. I would be very happy if you found the time to point out to me where I’m wrong.

But as I said, I will only be able to earnestly comment on the book once I’ve read it a second time. For example, I will definitely have to put more thought into your reservations about the possible inescapable constructivistic and dualistic character of anarchism, to which I still adhere. So far I think that Geoffrey Allan Plauche is right when he remarks on his blog that anarchism isn’t inherently dualistic but that Rothbard definitely needs some fine tuning on some of his essential points. I’m not sure when that will be though, since, just today, I ordered the other two books of your “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy” and I will also try to get my hands on some of the works by Rasmussen and Den Uyl (since I can no longer adhere to the Habermasian-Hoppean discourse ethics after reading footnote 10 on page 368 in your book ;) ), the hermeneutical Austrians and Ollman, plus I just started reading Human Action, plus I actually have to get some work done which will give me some actual credit points, not “just” mental stimulation. ;)

But anyway, do you have any particular suggestions which books by the hermeneutical Austrians and Ollman would serve as a good introduction to their philosophies? I find a hermeneutical approach to economics very interesting but I don’t know if I will end up finding Mises’ praxeology more convincing. While I see grave problems with, say, Cartesian rationalism, I’m not sure that a dialectical critique of rationalism fully applies to praxeology as well. And after reading the passages about the hermeneutical Austrians in your book, I tend to think that hermeneutics could be somehow integrated into praxeology. But that’s just my first hunch.

Oh by the way, reading these passages about the hermeneutic Austrians made me recall an interesting discussion I had with a friend of mine about hermeneutics and economics a while ago. Back then he was a great admirer of Gadamer’s works (right now he’s more into Derrida…) and since I didn’t know anything about Gadamer he tried to explain to me some of the main points of his hermeneutics. Later, the discussion shifted to economics and I tried to explain to him the Austrian critique of neoclassical economics. I talked about the futility of treating economics in the same way as the natural sciences are treated. After I lined out the main Austrian arguments, my friend remarked: “Gadamer would absolutely agree with those Austrians.” Back then, I found this comment funny, in both meanings of the word, but now I know that there seemingly is something to that. :)

In short: Go buy the book!

Tags: sciabarra, dialectics, libertarianism, dialectical libertarianism

The second LibertarianLists survey of libertarian attitudes on the 2008 presidential election has wrapped up. Posts with numbers from Steve Gordon at:

- GordonUnleashed
- Last Free Voice
- The Free Liberal

I’m not sure how much of this data we can take to the bank. It’s a smaller sample, and at least two and probably three or more campaigns attempted to “slam” the poll. It went down like this:

The Kubby campaign did let its supporters know, in low-key fashion, about the results of the first survey and the existence of the second. We didn’t do “action alert” type stuff … until the last day of the survey, when I received a forward of an email sent out to supporters of Wayne Allyn Root, urging them to vote for Root in the survey.

Having seen that it was going to go down this way instead of relatively free of “hyping influence,” I popped out a “go thou and do likewise” email to the Kubby newsletter list. That makes two campaigns. I’m told, but have not yet been able to confirm, that the campaign of George Phillies reacted in a similar fashion.

So, take the numbers with however many grains of salt you think that’s all worth.

If the numbers are accurate, they’re reasonably interesting:

- Of the Libertarian Party candidates, Wayne Root wins among all survey participants (i.e. not just LP members, but Republicans, independents and members of other parties). Since the nomination is the first big hurdle, I’m not wigging out over that. But it does look like Root, for the moment at least, continues to rate placement in the “top tier” (if a group of candidates all clustered at the sub-5% level can be called “top tier” with a straight face).

- Among self-identified LP members, the three “pack leaders” were all clustered within five votes of each other: Phillies with 20 votes, Kubby with 17, Root with 16. The whole spread between Phillies and Root is 0.8%, so I don’t see that any useful information can be divined there.

- Now it starts to get interesting: The votes from self-identified definite or likely delegates to next May’s 2008 Libertarian Party national convention. Phillies picked up 10.37% of this group; Root, 8.89%, Kubby 6.67%. The sample is exceedingly small, making for a higher margin of error (the percentages I just gave you come to a total of 35 votes), but nobody wants to hear that his candidate is last in delegate count.

So, why are my toes tapping? Well, I happen to know that George Phillies has done at least two direct mail pieces, and I have good reason to believe that the recipients of those mailings are mostly former (and likely future) LP convention delegates. So far as I know, Root hasn’t done mailings to that target group yet, and I know to an absolute certainty that Kubby hasn’t.

If Phillies really is at 10% +/- with likely delegates after hitting them twice by direct mail, and if two opponents who haven’t even dipped into that spring yet are within 4% of him … well … he’s done, folks.

- The next questions are broken out in Gordon’s tables to reflect the sentiments of LP members (not necessarily convention delegates, but members), and to measure “the Paul impact.”

The first question assumes that as of the LP’s national convention, Ron Paul is no longer a factor (i.e. he isn’t going to win the GOP nomination and he isn’t seeking the LP’s nomination). On that question, the big winner is “undecided” with 54.69%, followed by Kubby (11.18%), Phillies (8.78%) and Root (6.19%).

The second question assumes that Paul is still very much a competitor for the GOP presidential nomination (chances are that by May Paul will either be obviously the nominee or obviously not, so for all practical purposes this is the “Ron Paul is the GOP nominee” question). Once again, Kubby bests his LP opponents, but it’s that damn 1.x% muddle again: Kubby 5.59%, Phillies 4.79%, Root 4.19%. NOTA polls between Root and Phillies, and “undecided” pulls 23.35%. Here’s the winner, with 50.5%:

Would try to change the bylaws in order for Ron Paul to receive the Libertarian Party nomination or become engaged in some sort of effort to draft Ron Paul as the Libertarian presidential nominee

… which, though it be ashes in my mouth, I must admit seems to confirm the strategic wisdom of Kubby’s recent decision to endorse Paul. He’s (pardon the pun) the elephant in the room.

Of course as mentioned I’m not especially sold on the validity of this survey. I’m reasonably comfortable that “the Paul factor” as represented is somewhere in the range represented; and as with the last, I think that Steve tried to get as unskewed a picture as possible of the real numbers; but the “slamming contest” may have affected things on the LP side, and at least two other developments (Kubby endorsing Paul and Root slagging Paul as “soft” on “Islamo-fascism”) would have played in the survey, if at all, toward its tail end.

It’s the possible “slamming factor” that keeps me from finally writing Christine Smith out of the “serious candidates” circle. She polled well behind Kubby, Phillies and Root again this time, and behind Barry Hess (no campaign site that I know of, no announcement that I know of … but he keeps turning up like a bad penny) as well. But I don’t have any information that she played the “slam” game, so it’s entirely possible that absent the impact of that she would have polled in the same range as the current “top three.”

Thanks to Gordon and the folks at LibertarianLists for continuing to try to get real data on what’s happening in the LP’s 2008 nomination race. Whether ultimately successful or not, the effort is worth making.

"It's not about race, it's about black street culture." Okay, so Neal Boortz didn't actually use those words, but that's how it comes across in his column on Michael Vick and dogfighting." In the same piece, Boortz both denies that dogfighting it's a "black thing" and suggests that it is.

I don't know if African-Americans are disproportionately involved with dogfighting or not. But leaving aside the question whether or not dogfighting should be banned, I know one thing: the argument that anti-dogfighting laws are racist, or that Vick is being prosecuted only because he's black, will not fly with anyone who isn't into dogfighting. It will, in fact, provoke a reverse reaction. False charges of racism actually provoke more racial hostility than had previously existed.

Boortz raises another interesting point, about "innocent until proven guilty":

A person who kills a girlfriend because she merely wants out of the relationship is a murderer as soon as his victim's heart stops beating .. you don't have to wait for a jury to come in with a verdict.

So, where does this "innocent until proven guilty" stuff come in? The presumption of innocence is, in my view, a limitation that is primarily place on government. Generally speaking, only government can use force – deadly force – to deprive you of your property, your liberty or your life. If the government is going to do so as punishment for the commission of a crime, then the government must afford you your constitutional rights and prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the government, then, that must consider you to be innocent until otherwise proven. After the act, the rapist is only innocent in the eyes of government. The victim views him quite differently.[emphasis added]

I don't disagree. The only people who must presume Vick is innocent is the jury of his peers. Everyone else, including employers and others in an economic relationship with the accused, has the right to come to their own conclusions and proceed accordingly, even if the State's verdict isn't in yet.

Unless Vick has a convincing case that he knew nothing about the dogfighting "camp" on on his property, I doubt he will ever play a down of football again. His pariah status will be more of a liability than his athletic skills an asset for a franchise.

I have a comment on a point of libertarian theory in connection with the new Harry Potter book, but it is a SPOILER, so I’ve placed it in the comments section.

Naturally, the libertarians who supported the war in Iraq are disappointed, though hardly shocked, that it was so badly executed. The Bush administration might be faulted, not so much for its initial errors which occur in any war against a determined foe who adjusts creatively to any preconceived central “plan,” but for its dogged refusal to alter its approach–and promptly replace its military commanders as President Lincoln did repeatedly–when it became clear that its tactics were not working.

So, according to Randy Barnett, a supposed pro-war libertarian, the Bush administration should be faulted for being incompetent, unresponsive to the real situation, and making faulty decisions with bad information - in other words, for displaying the qualities of government.

But, isn’t that why libertarians oppose government, it’s programs, and especially it’s war programs, in the first place? Isn’t that necessary opposition what makes libertarians libertarian? Like Wally Conger writes, libertarians can actually get a lot of guidance on foreign policy issues from “libertarian first principles”, if they’re willing to think them through.

… but it wouldn’t be true.

For a long time, I was pretty sure I had met Drew Carey once. The first time I watched The Drew Carey Show, I had one of those “I know this guy from somewhere” things going — and when I found out he’d served in the Marine Corps Reserve, I connected that to a recollection (maybe true, maybe false) that my regiment (24th Marines) and his (23rd Marines) had been at the Marine Corps Base near 29 Palms, California at the same time, and in turn to a memory of a chubby jarhead cracking jokes in the chow line.

Turns out, the memory is entirely false, at least insofar as it concerns Carey. His tenure in the Corps was 1980-86, mine was 1984-95. Yes, there are two years of overlap there, but the 29 Palms incident would have taken place in 1989, and during the period of overlap I was in one of three places Corps-wise: Boot camp, Infantry Training School, or drilling with my own unit in Missouri. I doubt that Carey was in any of those places at the same time I was. And if the Marine Corps snapshot in his Wikipedia entry is any indication, he wasn’t a food blister (not that there’s anything wrong with that anyway — I could stand to lose 50 pounds — but in the Marine Corps, the fat kid tends to stand out).

So I don’t know the guy, never knew the guy, never even met the guy. Bummer. Thinking I had met him did add a little something … I dunno, frisson? … something like that … to my enjoyment of two already-great shows, The Drew Carey Show and Whose Line Is It Anyway?, though.

All of which is neither here nor there, except that if I’m going to blog about Drew Carey, I want to it to be longer than “Drew Carey is so f**king cool, and he just got picked to host The Price is Right.” Some people do one-sentence blog posts. Me, I’m one of those War and Peace types.

Now, to the bullet points:

- Drew Carey is so f**king cool, and he just got picked to host The Price is Right!

- In another article about Drew Carey being so f**king cool and getting picked to host The Price is Right, Carey notes that he just finished filming some documentaries “for the Reason Foundation’s upcoming web site.” I don’t know about you, but I think that’s pretty f**king cool.

- I may not know Drew Carey, but my 5th grade teacher claimed to have dated Bob Barker in college. How f**king cool is that?