Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- Greg N.
- Greg Newburn
- Greg Newburn
- Greg Newburn
- Greg Newburn
- Greg N.
- Greg
- Greg N.
- Greg N
- Greg Newburn
- Greg
Greg N.
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 week ago
in Is Poverty a Violation of Human Rights? on Will Wilkinson
We don't think a society is completely unjust when rights are violated every once in a while, as long as the institutions are designed to protect rights, and respect for rights is the norm, we tend to think that - at least with respect to rights claims - society is doing its job. We expect everyone to "chip in" to pay for the institutions that protect rights and keep us out of Hobbesian anarchy, and, at least in theory, we do our best to minimize rights violations with due process, etc. When rights violations become routine, or when the institutions are perverted and no longer respect rights, then we say the society is unjust and call for a change. But the point is we judge a society by its institutions and its approach to rights, including whether that society has set up the right institutions and pursues the right policies that will most likely result in the respect for rights, not whether every person's rights are respected 100% of the time (I think this was Jefferson's point with the "long train of abuses" line).
Perhaps wealth can be thought of the same way. Instead of arguing that every person has a right to a particular amount of money, perhaps we can say that every person has a right to the set of institutions that will most likely create the conditions under which wealth can be created, and wherein any given person will likely find herself above the poverty line at any given time.
Negative rights aren't protected in a Hobbesian anarchy. They require a particular set of institutions for their meaningful realization, and most libertarians are ok with small rights "violations" (e.g., taxation) to create the set of institutions most likely to protect their liberty generally. In other words, even libertarians don't think of rights in absolute terms. We think of them as a useful term for the condition under which government doesn't meaningfully interfere with an individual's pursuit of the good, or substitute its own ends for the individual's.
So, if we think of rights not as this thing and that thing in need of protection like the Magna Carta at the Archives, but rather a general condition of liberty, then there's no reason NOT to include wealth, because all that means is that people have a right to institutions that create the conditions under which the opportunities to create wealth are maximized (e.g., free trade), in the same way that they have a right to the set of conditions that maximizes their ability to pursue their own ends (e.g., due process).
That probably made no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps wealth can be thought of the same way. Instead of arguing that every person has a right to a particular amount of money, perhaps we can say that every person has a right to the set of institutions that will most likely create the conditions under which wealth can be created, and wherein any given person will likely find herself above the poverty line at any given time.
Negative rights aren't protected in a Hobbesian anarchy. They require a particular set of institutions for their meaningful realization, and most libertarians are ok with small rights "violations" (e.g., taxation) to create the set of institutions most likely to protect their liberty generally. In other words, even libertarians don't think of rights in absolute terms. We think of them as a useful term for the condition under which government doesn't meaningfully interfere with an individual's pursuit of the good, or substitute its own ends for the individual's.
So, if we think of rights not as this thing and that thing in need of protection like the Magna Carta at the Archives, but rather a general condition of liberty, then there's no reason NOT to include wealth, because all that means is that people have a right to institutions that create the conditions under which the opportunities to create wealth are maximized (e.g., free trade), in the same way that they have a right to the set of conditions that maximizes their ability to pursue their own ends (e.g., due process).
That probably made no sense whatsoever.
2 replies
Tracy W
But we don't know what are the institutions that create the conditions under which opportunities to create wealth are maximised. It strikes me as entirely possible that even the richest country in the world has not achieved institutions that can maximise wealth.
Furthermore, the institutions that appear to create wealth quite plausibly vary from culture to culture, eg history in some countries might mean that a political settlement can only be stable under institutions that are just not needed in countries with a different history. For example, Northern Ireland apparently has undergone streneous efforts to keep the police force balanced between Protestants and Catholics, a matter which the rest of the Anglo-speaking world doesn't appear to worry about. But how do we know? Balancing the police force may impose costs relative to those in societies that don't have to worry about it, but still be necessary to avoid another round of wealth-destroying terrorism in Northern Ireland - in other words the benefits might outweigh the costs in the case of Northern Ireland. So we can't look to cross-country comparisons to tell us what institutions generate wealth in any particular case. So reasonable people could easily disagree about what institutions are required in a culture to generate wealth, let alone what insitutions are required to maximise it.
And if we can't agree on how to implement a right, what's the point of declaring it a right? What's the point in declaring that I, or a government, has a moral obligation to do something if there's no broad social consensus on what that something is, and no remotely objective way to say whether or not someone is actually meeting their moral obligation to provide such a right?
Negative rights do generate hard cases where it's not clear where the obligations lie (eg people who want to exercise their freedom of speech to disrupt funerals), but positive rights seem to me to be all hard cases.
Furthermore, the institutions that appear to create wealth quite plausibly vary from culture to culture, eg history in some countries might mean that a political settlement can only be stable under institutions that are just not needed in countries with a different history. For example, Northern Ireland apparently has undergone streneous efforts to keep the police force balanced between Protestants and Catholics, a matter which the rest of the Anglo-speaking world doesn't appear to worry about. But how do we know? Balancing the police force may impose costs relative to those in societies that don't have to worry about it, but still be necessary to avoid another round of wealth-destroying terrorism in Northern Ireland - in other words the benefits might outweigh the costs in the case of Northern Ireland. So we can't look to cross-country comparisons to tell us what institutions generate wealth in any particular case. So reasonable people could easily disagree about what institutions are required in a culture to generate wealth, let alone what insitutions are required to maximise it.
And if we can't agree on how to implement a right, what's the point of declaring it a right? What's the point in declaring that I, or a government, has a moral obligation to do something if there's no broad social consensus on what that something is, and no remotely objective way to say whether or not someone is actually meeting their moral obligation to provide such a right?
Negative rights do generate hard cases where it's not clear where the obligations lie (eg people who want to exercise their freedom of speech to disrupt funerals), but positive rights seem to me to be all hard cases.
3 weeks ago
in Chris Preble and “The Power Problem” on FR33 AGENTS
On net, and to the U.S. For instance, the U.S. military "caused harm" to the Nazis. But in doing so, it reduced the harm to millions of others, and deterred the Nazi threat to Europe and the Allies. Most reasonable people (perhaps you dissent here) think that U.S. military action in WWII was justified and, on net, reduced total harm and protected U.S. interests. Most people think military action against the British in the Revolutionary War was justified. Most people think the Civil War was justified, etc.
The point I was trying to make here is that some people think the U.S. military is per se harmful, that whatever it does makes everyone worse off, etc., and that Preble (rightly) rejects that view. Again, this isn't to say that the military can't make things worse off, just that they can make things better off, too. For everyone? No. For everyone minus legitimate U.S. enemies? Yes.
The point I was trying to make here is that some people think the U.S. military is per se harmful, that whatever it does makes everyone worse off, etc., and that Preble (rightly) rejects that view. Again, this isn't to say that the military can't make things worse off, just that they can make things better off, too. For everyone? No. For everyone minus legitimate U.S. enemies? Yes.
1 reply
NickytheHeel
Militaries are harmful to other militaries. Militaries are harmful to the civilian populations of the warlord states that they are warring with. Militaries are harmful to their domestic civilian populations as they are supported with funds stolen from those civilian populations.
The common thread here is that militaries, as protectors of and conquering agents for warlord states, are harmful.
And I'm not trying to say that the German military (of WWII and any other time) is not harmful. It clearly is.
The common thread here is that militaries, as protectors of and conquering agents for warlord states, are harmful.
And I'm not trying to say that the German military (of WWII and any other time) is not harmful. It clearly is.
3 weeks ago
in Chris Preble and “The Power Problem” on FR33 AGENTS
Sorry, *makes life better.
1 reply
NickytheHeel
The "appropriate" use of a military is to either cause harm or deter other militaries from causing harm through the threat harm. So how can you say that militaries are not harmful?
3 weeks ago
in Chris Preble and “The Power Problem” on FR33 AGENTS
The point isn't that the military CAN'T BE USED in harmful ways, but rather that the military isn't per se harmful. If I said, "gasoline isn't harmful," for instance, of course that would mean that it isn't harmful when used properly. If you drink it, or pour it all over yourself and then light it, of course it will cause harm.
1 reply
NickytheHeel
Militaries are designed to kill and destroy. Gasoline is designed to power internal-combustion engines.
3 weeks ago
in Chris Preble and “The Power Problem” on FR33 AGENTS
I don't get it.
1 reply
NickytheHeel
I don't get how you can say the military is harmless or, at least, not harmful.
1 month ago
in New Documentary on 9/11 Truthers, New World Order Wackos on FR33 AGENTS
Great question, Alan. I don't have much in common with that particular stripe of so-called "libertarian." There's definitely something in the message of the Ron Paul/Paleo-libertarian message that attracts these weirdos. Fortunately, that's not my libertarian movement.
1 reply
CDM
Maybe it's because the Ron Paul Revolution is, by its very nature, an inclusive movement, rather than exclusive. What happened when White supremacists gave RP donations last year? More or less, he said, thanks for the donation, but I'm not a white supremacist, your money will be used for promoting liberty. That movement is tolerant of diverse opinions and beliefs.
1 month ago
in Let’s help get Judge Andrew Napolitano a spot at Fox on FR33 AGENTS
Sometimes "consistent libertarian" means "wacko who thinks parents should be able to deny their kids medicine," or something similar. Also, it should matter to you whether you hang around with racists and people who think aliens run the world.
1 reply
CDM
Yes, sometimes it means that. But should we toss out libertarianism whenever we don't like an outcome? After all, libertarianism as a way of governance has more rules dictating means rather than ends. As long as no rights are violated, there's nothing immoral about it.
I'll still contend that libertarians should be more concerned about being themselves libertarian in all ways, rather than worrying about the company they keep. This ain't a social club. Want a political social club? There's the Ds and Rs.
I'll still contend that libertarians should be more concerned about being themselves libertarian in all ways, rather than worrying about the company they keep. This ain't a social club. Want a political social club? There's the Ds and Rs.
1 month ago
in Let’s help get Judge Andrew Napolitano a spot at Fox on FR33 AGENTS
No, big tent libertarianism! Huge tent! Big enough for everyone! Except kooks and racists and nuts and wackos ... Which of those latter groups would you welcome to our movement, and why?
1 reply
CDM
As long as they are libertarian, all of them! Often times those "kooks" are more consistent libertarians than bonafide mainstream-approved libertarians. I don't care if they're racist, think aliens run the world, etc as long as they espouse libertarian values when it comes to governance.
1 month ago
in So long, Mark. I hardly knew ya. on FR33 AGENTS
My point, again, is that creationism isn't just like any other "personal belief." Rejecting Darwinism isn't the same thing as preferring the Lakers to the Celtics (bad example; that may be worse). It isn't like preferring the Gators to the Seminoles. It's a rejection of reality, of evidence and reason, and it represents a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with my own.
Do you want astrology, alchemy, flat earth theory and holocaust denial taught in schools? Should parents be allowed to teach these things to their kids and call it "education"? If so, what shouldn't they be allowed to teach? Is there no limit to what parents may subject their kids to? At what point does "education" become "brainwashing"? Can the state intervene once parents have crossed that threshold, however you define it?
Do you want astrology, alchemy, flat earth theory and holocaust denial taught in schools? Should parents be allowed to teach these things to their kids and call it "education"? If so, what shouldn't they be allowed to teach? Is there no limit to what parents may subject their kids to? At what point does "education" become "brainwashing"? Can the state intervene once parents have crossed that threshold, however you define it?
1 reply
CDM
It's not a question of whether these subjects ought to be taught, rather could they be taught. Sanford simply indicated they could be taught, not necessarily that they ought to be taught.
The libertarian and anarchist answer is the state should *never* intervene. Doesn't your position put you at odds with libertarian ideals? Isn't it like modern day prohibition? Where some drugs are legal (alcohol, tobacco) and others are not? Simply because some people don't mind the former and dislike the latter.
The answer is to let people have freedom. And now we're way off the Sanford topic...
The libertarian and anarchist answer is the state should *never* intervene. Doesn't your position put you at odds with libertarian ideals? Isn't it like modern day prohibition? Where some drugs are legal (alcohol, tobacco) and others are not? Simply because some people don't mind the former and dislike the latter.
The answer is to let people have freedom. And now we're way off the Sanford topic...
1 month ago
in So long, Mark. I hardly knew ya. on FR33 AGENTS
Proper recognition of the truths about our world is not a "rabid anti-religious" idea. And yes, there are some views that are so wrong that schools shouldn't be allowed to teach them. Geology class shouldn't entertain the flat earth hypothesis; astronomy shouldn't discuss astrology; chemistry shouldn't waste its time with alchemy; history shouldn't bother with holocaust deniers; and, of course, biology shouldn't bother with creationism.
It has nothing to do with whether I "agree with it" or not. But some things are true and others aren't, and schools shouldn't be free to teach things that are obviously, uncontroversially untrue.
It has nothing to do with whether I "agree with it" or not. But some things are true and others aren't, and schools shouldn't be free to teach things that are obviously, uncontroversially untrue.
1 reply
CDM
When you allow something like creationism to taint a political opinion of someone, you've let it become rabid anti-religious idea. Discounting Standford for a personally belief is asinine.
I don't think religion should be taught in science class, but I don't have nor do I want the power to force people to be taught one thing or another. That's a a libertarian principle.
I don't think religion should be taught in science class, but I don't have nor do I want the power to force people to be taught one thing or another. That's a a libertarian principle.
1 month ago
in So long, Mark. I hardly knew ya. on FR33 AGENTS
Presidents appoint federal judges. Federal judges decide whether things like creationism are "science" or not. Therefore, just on that basis alone, a politician's ignorant rantings about Darwinism are relevant. Refusing to recognize reality is not a "personal belief"; it is a sign of deep ignorance, mind-numbing stupidity or insanity. Which of those three characteristics would you like in your president?
Is it so unreasonable to want a mainstream politician who understands both basic economics and basic biology? Is that so far out there as to not even merit hope?
Where am I not being honest? I won't support Sanford because, apparently, he's a creationist lunatic. The National Science Foundation budget is over $6 billion. I don't want any creationist to have any influence on that budget or any other.
Evidence should matter in politics. There's a lot at stake when a president makes decisions, and I want a president whose personal philosophy is grounded in evidence and logic, not gut feelings or faith. Clearly, Sanford is of the latter variety. When a president tells me he's sending troops to some country because there's evidence of terrorist activity there, I want to be confident that when he says "evidence," he doesn't mean the vision he received while fasting and praying the night before.
Finally, sometimes parents and teachers shouldn't have control over what they're allowed to teach children. It would be wrong to teach children that 2+2=5, or that triangles have four even sides, and schools shouldn't be allowed to teach children that nonsense. Nor should parents. Government has a legitimate interest in seeing an educated populace, and if it means limiting the ideas to which children are exposed, then so be it.
If a parent wants to teach his or her child that they need to wash themselves in blood to free themselves of sin, then I guess there's nothing we can do about that unfortunate set of circumstances. But parents shouldn't be free to teach their kids that Earth is 6,000 years old any more than they should be free to prevent their kid from receiving life-saving chemotherapy.
Is it so unreasonable to want a mainstream politician who understands both basic economics and basic biology? Is that so far out there as to not even merit hope?
Where am I not being honest? I won't support Sanford because, apparently, he's a creationist lunatic. The National Science Foundation budget is over $6 billion. I don't want any creationist to have any influence on that budget or any other.
Evidence should matter in politics. There's a lot at stake when a president makes decisions, and I want a president whose personal philosophy is grounded in evidence and logic, not gut feelings or faith. Clearly, Sanford is of the latter variety. When a president tells me he's sending troops to some country because there's evidence of terrorist activity there, I want to be confident that when he says "evidence," he doesn't mean the vision he received while fasting and praying the night before.
Finally, sometimes parents and teachers shouldn't have control over what they're allowed to teach children. It would be wrong to teach children that 2+2=5, or that triangles have four even sides, and schools shouldn't be allowed to teach children that nonsense. Nor should parents. Government has a legitimate interest in seeing an educated populace, and if it means limiting the ideas to which children are exposed, then so be it.
If a parent wants to teach his or her child that they need to wash themselves in blood to free themselves of sin, then I guess there's nothing we can do about that unfortunate set of circumstances. But parents shouldn't be free to teach their kids that Earth is 6,000 years old any more than they should be free to prevent their kid from receiving life-saving chemotherapy.
2 replies
CDM
I see how it is: It comes down to liberty, only if you agree with it.
It is, however, intellectually dishonest to claim he's for forcing creationism to be taught in schools. On the topic of teaching alternatives he said "I have no problem with it." Not 'We must teach alternatives' or something similar. Who cares what one's person religious beliefs are? What matters is what he'd do in government. What you've posted shows indication that he'd be forcing curriculum through mandate.
Don't let rabid anti-religious ideas get in the way of libertarianism.
It is, however, intellectually dishonest to claim he's for forcing creationism to be taught in schools. On the topic of teaching alternatives he said "I have no problem with it." Not 'We must teach alternatives' or something similar. Who cares what one's person religious beliefs are? What matters is what he'd do in government. What you've posted shows indication that he'd be forcing curriculum through mandate.
Don't let rabid anti-religious ideas get in the way of libertarianism.
JustusBryce
This is the most amazing thing about the libertarian movement: the occasional insane bursts of intolerant statism intended to protect a belief in some sort of greater good. It's the top of the slippery slope we all watch for and protect ourselves against. Your statements basically just stated that you'd vote for Obama over Sanford because of religious beliefs. It's an illogical standpoint, and not at all a libertarian one.
Put Sanford in perspective first, and then rethink your position. He is for small federal government, and opposed to most of the federal organizations over which he would have influence as President. Your argument assumes a LOT about his character, namely that he would claim to have visions that motivate him to do extremely non-libertarian things, and that he would act on them. He would sooner push to eliminate the NSF than use its money "irrationally."
Also, as CDM said, Stanford is supportive of it being taught next to evolution as two differing theories, not replacing it on some federal level. He didn't even say he would push for it, just that if each individual state or district wanted it, they could teach it. The government does have an interest in and educated populace, but I don't think this comes ahead of each state's right to educate their populace in the way they see fit. Federal mandate of education is pretty statist, a favorite tool of Nazis, Soviets, and modern European nations. If South Carolina were to teach only creation, and North Carolina taught only evolution, then by all means, move your ass to NC, or another state with policies you support. That's the idea of a limited federal republic with constitutional protections and freedom of movement.
Once you look past this one particular issue, you then encounter something the rest of us like to call "the economy." A few "nuts" who believe in creationism are far less damaging to a society than a bunch of Obamunists who support outdated and failed Keynesian economics, progressive policies, and government programs and regulation funded through increasing taxation. A libertarian President who believes in creation in no way could harm the nation as a whole like socialist ones can. I suppose you could look for a libertarian candidate that didn't support creation theories, but as we've seen, Barr is next to useless, and we can't hope for anyone from mainstream GOP or Democratic organizations to be anything better.
I think it was Edmund Burke (could be mistaken) that wrote about how it was great that we have different states, because then we can experiment with different social and economic policies in different areas without seriously compromising the whole country. Sanford would in no way give the federal government more power, and so the states would retain their decisions for themselves. Teaching creation doesn't affect anyone's negative rights, so it shouldn't be that big of a problem. As for judges deciding what is and isn't science... comon, are you serious? Where does it make sense that someone with a liberal arts education and a lifetime of litigation studies becomes qualified to make scientific decisions about subatomic particles and molecular compounds? It's as silly as saying the Catholic church had the last word on the Earth being the center of the universe.
Sanford is a great candidate with whom you find a flaw, but it's hardly a damning one. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes. I'm not saying Sanford is the best candidate for President; he's not my first choice, but I would certainly vote for him over any of the nominees we have had since maybe Goldwater. If your attitude, as well as that of many other libertarians I have encountered, does not change, you're going to wake up in a socialist "utopia" with a well used copy of The Descent of Man given to every child.
Note: I'm a creationist nut, but when it comes to politics I'm definitely a libertarian first. I would LOVE to have a domestically impotent federal government that allows me my beliefs and traditions, and I would also love to give you the right to practice your beliefs whatever they may be, in whatever way you see fit. Also, I don't believe in government schools, the free market could do a much better job, but if I'm having to pay for educating my kids, I want them to have an education I can agree with, even if that means moving to or from states that teach different things. I think our proverbial grass would be greener in different areas, but that's the great thing about a nation of states: there's something for everybody.
Put Sanford in perspective first, and then rethink your position. He is for small federal government, and opposed to most of the federal organizations over which he would have influence as President. Your argument assumes a LOT about his character, namely that he would claim to have visions that motivate him to do extremely non-libertarian things, and that he would act on them. He would sooner push to eliminate the NSF than use its money "irrationally."
Also, as CDM said, Stanford is supportive of it being taught next to evolution as two differing theories, not replacing it on some federal level. He didn't even say he would push for it, just that if each individual state or district wanted it, they could teach it. The government does have an interest in and educated populace, but I don't think this comes ahead of each state's right to educate their populace in the way they see fit. Federal mandate of education is pretty statist, a favorite tool of Nazis, Soviets, and modern European nations. If South Carolina were to teach only creation, and North Carolina taught only evolution, then by all means, move your ass to NC, or another state with policies you support. That's the idea of a limited federal republic with constitutional protections and freedom of movement.
Once you look past this one particular issue, you then encounter something the rest of us like to call "the economy." A few "nuts" who believe in creationism are far less damaging to a society than a bunch of Obamunists who support outdated and failed Keynesian economics, progressive policies, and government programs and regulation funded through increasing taxation. A libertarian President who believes in creation in no way could harm the nation as a whole like socialist ones can. I suppose you could look for a libertarian candidate that didn't support creation theories, but as we've seen, Barr is next to useless, and we can't hope for anyone from mainstream GOP or Democratic organizations to be anything better.
I think it was Edmund Burke (could be mistaken) that wrote about how it was great that we have different states, because then we can experiment with different social and economic policies in different areas without seriously compromising the whole country. Sanford would in no way give the federal government more power, and so the states would retain their decisions for themselves. Teaching creation doesn't affect anyone's negative rights, so it shouldn't be that big of a problem. As for judges deciding what is and isn't science... comon, are you serious? Where does it make sense that someone with a liberal arts education and a lifetime of litigation studies becomes qualified to make scientific decisions about subatomic particles and molecular compounds? It's as silly as saying the Catholic church had the last word on the Earth being the center of the universe.
Sanford is a great candidate with whom you find a flaw, but it's hardly a damning one. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes. I'm not saying Sanford is the best candidate for President; he's not my first choice, but I would certainly vote for him over any of the nominees we have had since maybe Goldwater. If your attitude, as well as that of many other libertarians I have encountered, does not change, you're going to wake up in a socialist "utopia" with a well used copy of The Descent of Man given to every child.
Note: I'm a creationist nut, but when it comes to politics I'm definitely a libertarian first. I would LOVE to have a domestically impotent federal government that allows me my beliefs and traditions, and I would also love to give you the right to practice your beliefs whatever they may be, in whatever way you see fit. Also, I don't believe in government schools, the free market could do a much better job, but if I'm having to pay for educating my kids, I want them to have an education I can agree with, even if that means moving to or from states that teach different things. I think our proverbial grass would be greener in different areas, but that's the great thing about a nation of states: there's something for everybody.
That's pretty much what I was getting at. I really need to read the whole post before I comment.