dagblog - Comments for "Libertarianism: The "Human Centipede" of political ideologies"

No your stupid. (Love that

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:30:00 +0000

In reply to Libertarianism: The "Human Centipede" of political ideologies

No your stupid. (Love that argument, it works everytime.)

[Unlike your spell check, which apparently can't distinguish between your and you're. - d]

This is all true, but... It

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:24:39 +0000

In reply to The more paranoid side of me

This is all true, but...

It is generally the folks who want to push issues down to the state and local levels who are most in favor of a strong defense and have found ways to justify the things on your list.

And it was the states' rights folk who were most responsible for America's "original sin" and who are now the most militaristic in their outlook.

How does one square this circle?

This is NOT true of Paul, and I believe he's sincere. Yet, it's hard to judge the mettle of someone who votes his conscience with the knowledge that his vote won't change anything.

He holds up the Constitution as the rationale for his political thinking, as if that were enough to settle the issue. But it's not.

For example, is a woman's right to choose really an issue we should allow the states to decide individually? Or is it part of the general welfare?

The states' rights folks seem to want to harken back to a time when the states really were independent, even sovereign, entities who could kinda sorta decide how much they wanted to play with the other states.

But, IMO, this idea went away when we all agreed to bind ourselves to each other and become ONE country. A single entity.

It doesn't make sense to me, for example, that having an abortion should be legal in one state, but a criminal offense, punishable by law, in another (or others).

Yet Paul, who I believe is anti-choice himself, approves of this under the banner of the Constitution, even though his libertarian principles should push him in the opposite direction.

There are issues where being an Alabamian gives you unique expertise and experience and which it makes sense for Alabamians to decide for themselves. Issues where they are uniquely or disproportionately impacted (perhaps).

But there are a lot of issues (gay marriage and abortion come to mind) where regional or geographic differences are simply prejudices and out of step with where the country as a whole is moving.

Or to put it in a less partisan way: As a nation, we're mobile. We all think we have the right to move to any of the states and become citizens of those states. We don't need to show our passports at the borders. Our driver's licenses are recognized in any state. And we know there are differences in the laws of the states.

But do we want a marriage begun in one state to be outlawed in another state? Do we want people migrating from state to state to get abortions? A moment's thought shows how disruptive and divisive this sort of migration would be.

(Yes, we under-aged Connecticut kids used to drive to NY to get beer, but that was beer.)

I don't think these issues should be privileged by recourse to the Constitution or libertarian or even free market thinking.

No, it's the hookers,

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:54:58 +0000

In reply to Right on. I'm so tired of

No, it's the hookers, multiple wives and children who are being exploited.

Great piece, this. I think

Kudra — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:59:35 +0000

In reply to Libertarianism: The "Human Centipede" of political ideologies

Great piece, this. I think I'm a William K. Wolfrum fan.

I wasn't making the assertion

Elusive Trope — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:03:27 +0000

In reply to Bizarre - can you hear

I wasn't making the assertion that its the local government's fault. I was asserting that federal government is only capable of implementing the laundry list you wrote if it has the support of the local authorities. Which is another way of saying ultimately one cannot make the distinction between local and federal government - the lines become too blurred. It is a similar dynamic when one is talking about how the banking industry has done all these bad things - they couldn't have done it without the support of the government. It's a partnership kind of thing.

And claiming a state is failed has nothing to do with whether it is being successful in terms of meeting the needs of the people in a positive way. When the Soviet Union was putting its iron fist down on Eastern Europe, I wouldn't call the Soviet Union a failed state. So if you want to understand what "working authority" means - look at this part of world history to understand what I am talking about.

Power is derived from the People is an ideal, a nice one, and one a country should aspire to. A successful federal government from this perspective would facilitate local governments latching on to it. But this kind of success is not necessary for the "latching" outcome.

Smells like... smells like...

Qnonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:21:09 +0000

In reply to Yep - Obama's deported more

Smells like... smells like... business opportunity.

Bizarre - can you hear

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:21:54 +0000

In reply to Of course, in so much of what

Bizarre - can you hear yourself prattle?

It's the fault of local governments that federal government isn't effective or convincing?

Afghanistan is a failed state not because it doesn't have an effective state government, but because it doesn't have a "working authority" to make functional local governments listen? Aha, I guess we deport them to Siberia or bring in drones to make them listen. Or at least get a better internet so we can monitor them doing exercises to Big Brother in the morning.

Power is derived from the people. If the federal government makes itself useful, the local governments will latch on to the success. If it's just a big bullhorn telling them what to do, they'll wait for the militias to force them to follow (and unsurprisingly will fight back)

Yep - Obama's deported more

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:15:32 +0000

In reply to You've got a more paranoid

Yep - Obama's deported more Mexicans than Bush, and I think he's sending them to Kenya to set up strip malls and taco stands to win the hearts and minds of Africans - is that paranoid enough fer ya?

Of course, in so much of what

Elusive Trope — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:21:17 +0000

In reply to The more paranoid side of me

Of course, in so much of what is the power of the federal government to launch such things is possible only with the cooperation and support of localized government entities from city councils to regional law enforcement departments to state environmental agency reps. Whether it is embracing a manufacturing plant that produces drones or allowing for irresponsible drilling, strip mining, or not investigating corporate malfeasance, much of what occurs on American soil is done with at least the blessing if not the helping hand of the locals.

A key reason Afghanistan is a failed state isn't because it doesn't have a centralized (and very corrupt) federal government, but rather it doesn't have a working authority that reaches into the local regions of the country that seeks to align its agenda with that of the federal agenda.

I used to have a paranoid

Verified Atheist — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:59:38 +0000

In reply to You've got a more paranoid

I used to have a paranoid side, but it was out to get me, so I destroyed it.