Daniel, I've really enjoyed reading your blog over the past several months. I feel as if I've watched you undergo an amazing political transformation.
I really get your point about libertarianism being impractical. In fact, I had a friend years ago who said something like this to me: "In an ideal world, I'm a libertarian. But practically, I'm a Democrat."
I dunno . . . I guess I don't have much else to say. I'm still wired from the election, so I'm spending time reading blogs instead of sleeping.
Anyway, thanks for your candor, as always.
Derek
· 1 year ago
I've been saying this for several years now. Ideologically, I am libertarian. However, I feel practically that we are no where close to living in an America where everyone is born with the same opportunity to succeed which i think is required for libertarianism.
Scott
· 1 year ago
The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind reading your post. Rejecting your beliefs in libertarianism because you can't trust your fellow American is a dangerous road. You might as well put the training wheels on and require a test before voting to make sure only those that are smart enough can vote. You are bargaining freedom and liberty just so we can "get by" and head in the right direction. This is fundamentally a flawed way of thinking because we are human. You are setting up a circumstance where corruption will breed at the top of the scale. It won't be long before these efforts evolve into the mentality of "just pay your taxes and trust us...we know what's best for you stupid folks who shouldn't be voting or have a voice anyhow"... You sir, are playing with fire.
Daniel Miessler
· 1 year ago
Scott,
The problem with your argument is that things fail MORE when people are stupid, not less. And this is magnified in a libertarian society, where you'll have massive gaps between the weak and the strong. That's not good for society, no matter how "free" it is.
The goal of the liberal approach is to get everyone educated and intelligent so that they can participate in a libertarian society.
If you try and pull of libertarianism with a dull population it will fail horribly, and nothing but greed and the crushing of the weak will ensue. This, by the way, is what we've been witnessing.
So, to sum up--yes, you're right--we're playing with fire. But this is not nearly as bad as it sounds when you consider that we're already sitting inside of the sun.
What we're doing isn't working--plain and simple. Adding MORE freedom will only magnify the differences between the haves and have nots. This doesn't just hurt the have nots; it also destroys the ability of the haves to benefit from a healthy society.
Scott
· 1 year ago
Don't think of it completely as adding more freedom....that can be a gradual process. Think of it as moving the responsibility from the Federal level to the State level. This is the heart of the governing Libertarian approach. Break the problem down into pieces to be dealt with locally. That way there are multiple solutions to the same problems so that they can all be vetted and the best solution will bubble up to the top. I completely agree what we are doing now isn't working...continuing on this path won't work....surrendering ideals and returning to other paths already shown to fail won't work either. If you want an omelette you gotta break some eggs....
In the end...we need to hold people accountable and make them take personal responsibility. That's what has been missing for the last 20 years. Stop the bailouts, stop the handouts start using the laws that are already on the books.
Michael R. Farnum
· 1 year ago
So you expect politicians, who will gain IMMEASURABLE power in socialism, will freely give up power to move to libertarianism when we have "evolved"? Do you think the liberal / socialist politicians are more self-disciplined than the conservative ones? Good luck with that ideal.
shane
· 1 year ago
I agree with Scott, mostly.
Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn't synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google "milton friedman greed".
I don't buy the "road to good intentions ..." bit because I don't blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a "slippery slope". But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: "Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn't seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won't do that." And then eventually Georgia can look around and say "Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea". As long as constitutional rights aren't being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.
Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial "disaster". Libertarians say "let the market do its thing and it will work out" and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both "Socialism" and "Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed" is somewhat mitigated.
Daniel Miessler
· 1 year ago
Shane, the problem with letting people do what they want to do, unconditionally, is that this includes things like instituting Sharia law, or slavery. Are you going to infringe on their freedoms and stop them from doing these things? If so then you've judged them and made a move towards socialism.
This is no different than rejecting creationism as an alternative to science. In both cases it's one group (us) saying to another group (radical Islamists or creationists) that their system is not consistent with our values.
All I'm saying is that there are certain baselines for civil society, and that we shouldn't allow divergent cults to move off in separate directions for the sake of freedom.
Look, it's 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming--or whatever.
At what point does this become a bad idea?
Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy. That means not allowing Muhammadans to take over giant swaths of your country and start poisoning the minds of their children. Does this mean making judgements? Yes. So be it. And it's the same with creationism or any other harmful ideology.
Stopping them from going along their natural course is bad, but the alternative is far, far worse.
shane
· 1 year ago
There are many flavors of libertarianism, but the one I like is similar to the "night watchman state" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightwatchman<... ] The minimum interference by the federal government as possible while maintaining some X level of peace and protection. Well slavery is unconstitutional, so Prez Obama would have to intervene there. Sharia Law is a pretty complex political framework and incredibly religious but I imagine most of it could fly as long as it didn't involve obvious federal crimes like killing, slavery, rape, or other sexual/bodily harm. There would also have to be some protection of the bill of rights, in particular: freedom of religion. Otherwise, let them wear their burkas and teach Islam.
Look, it’s 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming–or whatever.
I was tempted to bring up Obama as a possible cultish figure but I don't think it would be relevant, just entertaining... to me. It sounds weird, but in that hypothetical scenario, if no constitutional laws are broken, I'd say go for it. (I think there is some law against seceding from the union)
Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy.
Who gets to define what is absurd? There are millions of Americans who think that gay marriage is absurd. If the south west really want to ban gay marriage so badly that they get a President (or VP :-) in power, why should they be able to dictate to states a thousand miles away? Why should Californians be able to dictate what flag the citizens of South Carolina want to fly over their capital? If the people of these regions are that fundamentally different, why try to make them the same? Why institute a single rule set to govern over everyone? It would be just as ridiculous as the CTO of Fortune 500 company X deciding that all 5000 employees nationwide must only use Internet Explorer 7.0 and all security updates must be routed through the company's centralized IT team before installation.
shane
· 1 year ago
On second thought my final example may not be extreme enough, but I think my point was clear.
All Comments
Daniel, I've really enjoyed reading your blog over the past several months. I feel as if I've watched you undergo an amazing political transformation.
I really get your point about libertarianism being impractical. In fact, I had a friend years ago who said something like this to me: "In an ideal world, I'm a libertarian. But practically, I'm a Democrat."
I dunno . . . I guess I don't have much else to say. I'm still wired from the election, so I'm spending time reading blogs instead of sleeping.
Anyway, thanks for your candor, as always.
I've been saying this for several years now. Ideologically, I am libertarian. However, I feel practically that we are no where close to living in an America where everyone is born with the same opportunity to succeed which i think is required for libertarianism.
The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind reading your post. Rejecting your beliefs in libertarianism because you can't trust your fellow American is a dangerous road. You might as well put the training wheels on and require a test before voting to make sure only those that are smart enough can vote. You are bargaining freedom and liberty just so we can "get by" and head in the right direction. This is fundamentally a flawed way of thinking because we are human. You are setting up a circumstance where corruption will breed at the top of the scale. It won't be long before these efforts evolve into the mentality of "just pay your taxes and trust us...we know what's best for you stupid folks who shouldn't be voting or have a voice anyhow"... You sir, are playing with fire.
Scott,
The problem with your argument is that things fail MORE when people are stupid, not less. And this is magnified in a libertarian society, where you'll have massive gaps between the weak and the strong. That's not good for society, no matter how "free" it is.
The goal of the liberal approach is to get everyone educated and intelligent so that they can participate in a libertarian society.
If you try and pull of libertarianism with a dull population it will fail horribly, and nothing but greed and the crushing of the weak will ensue. This, by the way, is what we've been witnessing.
So, to sum up--yes, you're right--we're playing with fire. But this is not nearly as bad as it sounds when you consider that we're already sitting inside of the sun.
What we're doing isn't working--plain and simple. Adding MORE freedom will only magnify the differences between the haves and have nots. This doesn't just hurt the have nots; it also destroys the ability of the haves to benefit from a healthy society.
Don't think of it completely as adding more freedom....that can be a gradual process. Think of it as moving the responsibility from the Federal level to the State level. This is the heart of the governing Libertarian approach. Break the problem down into pieces to be dealt with locally. That way there are multiple solutions to the same problems so that they can all be vetted and the best solution will bubble up to the top. I completely agree what we are doing now isn't working...continuing on this path won't work....surrendering ideals and returning to other paths already shown to fail won't work either. If you want an omelette you gotta break some eggs....
In the end...we need to hold people accountable and make them take personal responsibility. That's what has been missing for the last 20 years. Stop the bailouts, stop the handouts start using the laws that are already on the books.
So you expect politicians, who will gain IMMEASURABLE power in socialism, will freely give up power to move to libertarianism when we have "evolved"? Do you think the liberal / socialist politicians are more self-disciplined than the conservative ones? Good luck with that ideal.
I agree with Scott, mostly.
Daniel, what do you have against greed? My definition of greed is the ambition to get a better deal and life for yourself and your group/family/company. Greed isn't synonymous with corruption. Corruption is still horrible, but corruption is more often caused because of government intervention and regulation. If you would like a better description google "milton friedman greed".
I don't buy the "road to good intentions ..." bit because I don't blame a guy for trying to good and anything can be considered a "slippery slope". But it just seems like so many issues, family problems, business management conflicts, network security, and political debates involve situations where problems are best tackled at the lowest level possible (locally, or at least State level for example). Let Californians have gay marriages, abortions and let Georgia have creationism in the class room and the commandments on their buildings. Eventually the states in between can look at both sides and say: "Hmm abortions are working out fine for them, there doesn't seem to be any big problems there and it turns out the commandments had no effect on church-vs-state issues. But the creationism totally failed so we won't do that." And then eventually Georgia can look around and say "Hmm I guess the creationism thing ended up being a bad idea". As long as constitutional rights aren't being violated, the Fed should deal with their own problems.
Probably the biggest issue, though, is the financial "disaster". Libertarians say "let the market do its thing and it will work out" and everyone else disagrees. So let some states regulate their business and let some states ride it out. Some businesses will fail and some will move but at least the large scale risk from both "Socialism" and "Pure unadulterated Capitalistic Greed" is somewhat mitigated.
Shane, the problem with letting people do what they want to do, unconditionally, is that this includes things like instituting Sharia law, or slavery. Are you going to infringe on their freedoms and stop them from doing these things? If so then you've judged them and made a move towards socialism.
This is no different than rejecting creationism as an alternative to science. In both cases it's one group (us) saying to another group (radical Islamists or creationists) that their system is not consistent with our values.
All I'm saying is that there are certain baselines for civil society, and that we shouldn't allow divergent cults to move off in separate directions for the sake of freedom.
Look, it's 100% possible for a group of people, in 2008, to break off and begin worshiping a man as a God, and then for all the children to be raised to follow that person, and for that person to advocate secession from the union. Oh, and he wants an army, and now his followers are 2,000,000 in strength, and they own all of Wyoming--or whatever.
At what point does this become a bad idea?
Rejecting the absurd is a requisite step for any society growing out of its infancy. That means not allowing Muhammadans to take over giant swaths of your country and start poisoning the minds of their children. Does this mean making judgements? Yes. So be it. And it's the same with creationism or any other harmful ideology.
Stopping them from going along their natural course is bad, but the alternative is far, far worse.
There are many flavors of libertarianism, but the one I like is similar to the "night watchman state" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightwatchman<... ] The minimum interference by the federal government as possible while maintaining some X level of peace and protection. Well slavery is unconstitutional, so Prez Obama would have to intervene there. Sharia Law is a pretty complex political framework and incredibly religious but I imagine most of it could fly as long as it didn't involve obvious federal crimes like killing, slavery, rape, or other sexual/bodily harm. There would also have to be some protection of the bill of rights, in particular: freedom of religion. Otherwise, let them wear their burkas and teach Islam.
I was tempted to bring up Obama as a possible cultish figure but I don't think it would be relevant, just entertaining... to me. It sounds weird, but in that hypothetical scenario, if no constitutional laws are broken, I'd say go for it. (I think there is some law against seceding from the union)
Who gets to define what is absurd? There are millions of Americans who think that gay marriage is absurd. If the south west really want to ban gay marriage so badly that they get a President (or VP :-) in power, why should they be able to dictate to states a thousand miles away? Why should Californians be able to dictate what flag the citizens of South Carolina want to fly over their capital? If the people of these regions are that fundamentally different, why try to make them the same? Why institute a single rule set to govern over everyone? It would be just as ridiculous as the CTO of Fortune 500 company X deciding that all 5000 employees nationwide must only use Internet Explorer 7.0 and all security updates must be routed through the company's centralized IT team before installation.
On second thought my final example may not be extreme enough, but I think my point was clear.