The Means and the Ends of Liberty

For those not familiar with Reddit, I can't recommend it enough. It is a social news website where users can post links to items on the web. All of the other users can vote the item up or down and comment on it. The discussions and content can become offensive at times, but for the most part, Redditors are very funny, very intellectual people.

There are many "subreddits" or sections where items are posted on only a certain topic. Naturally, I subscribe to the Libertarian subreddit (reddit.com/r/Libertarian) where I get my daily affirmation of my political beliefs. After following this subreddit for about a year, I have noticed a trend. A large percentage of the posts have this format: "How would x work in a libertarian society?"

I suppose it's only natural. In a society that has an almost infantile reliance on government, people simply cannot imagine how we could possibly get by without it. Who would provide the roads, the utilities, the common defense? Who would regulate food and drugs? Who would protect us from Wall Street and credit card companies and predatory lenders? Who would provide welfare and health care and retirement funds?

People in general aren't going to argue that freedom is bad. People know freedom is a good thing. As a libertarian, I never have to argue from a deontological standpoint. That's not the problem. The problem is that people just don't know how freedom would work. Without government, chaos would ensue, right? So, I always get this statement from opponents: "Liberty is all well and good, but...." Suddenly they become consequentialists!

I always think of Nineteen Eighty-Four when encountering such statements. In George Orwell's dystopian future, "doublethink" is defined as "[t]he power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...." You ask people if they agree with the statement "the ends justify the means" and most people will not. In fact, most people feel a sort of moral repugnance for such a notion; however, in the very next breath, you can get them to admit that they think it's okay to infringe someone's liberty as long as some benefit is derived from it. Doublethink.

So, I have found myself scouring world history for successful examples of freedom working pragmatically. I discovered the "golden age" of American liberty in the 1800s, the successful anarchy of Iceland from the 10th to the 13th centuries, the stateless "Free Territory" of Ukraine in the early 1900s--I've actually compiled quite a list. And you know what? None of it convinced anyone. It was as if an atheist demanded to see God, so God showed up and said, "Here I am." Will the atheist suddenly believe? No, he will demand magic tricks to prove that this person is indeed God. And if God successfully completes the magic tricks, the atheist will explain them as mere illusions that any magician could perform. You just can't win.

Never mind that economic freedom has been proven to reduce poverty and promote wage equality. Never mind that drug legalization has been proven to reduce drug use and violent crime. Never mind that eliminating speed limits actually decreases the number of fatal accidents. Never mind that free societies are historically responsible for incredible economic and technological advancement while communist countries inevitably crumble to pieces.

But let's say that liberty didn't work, that allowing the individual to be free was found to result mostly in negative results. Would I abandon it then? No! As noted philosopher Karl Popper said, "It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it."

Will freedom yield a perfect, utopian society? No! When human beings co-exist, there will always be problems. It is natural. It is to be expected. However, as Thomas Jefferson declared, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

Thankfully, as a libertarian, I have an excellent position to argue from. From a deontological standpoint, liberty is always the right thing to do, even if it has negative results; and, from a consequentialist standpoint, liberty has been shown to be the most successful economic and social system the world has ever known. I think I can sleep well tonight.

What is the role of government?

I don't mean to mitigate Devin's post on immigration by posting so soon afterwards, but since Nic's first comment I have been thinking a lot about the role of government, and what it should be. Mostly this post is in response to this comment by Nic "As with most issues, I believe that problems can be solved best by getting government out of the picture and leaning toward liberty." I am not attacking Nic, merely this comment has caused me to think about what role government should play, so Nic, you should more take this is a compliment. I had a simple response in the next comment that I made; " I think we just differ philosophically on the role of government so we probably won't ever totally agree on anything, which is fine." Since then I've spent a lot of time thinking about what the world would be like with less government "intrusion," and it's caused me to ponder where the best balance might lie. Please respond with your disagreements, I'm sure they'll be many.

1. Foremost in my mind is the issue of slavery. Now I know Nic believes in liberty, freedom, so obviously I'm assuming he doesn't believe in slavery. But without government intrusion under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, would we not still theoretically have slavery in the South? Therefore I believe it is the role of government to protect the God-given, inalienable rights promised by the constitution, that the minority may not have power to protect itself. So my question to Nic (and anyone else), is it the role of government to ensure freedom for all citizens is maximized, or are we to govern ourselves?

2. I believe in government regulation. For example, the food you eat has come from strict standards enforced by the FDA to ensure maximum quality and safety. The water you drink has been treated under safety parameters, set out by the government, to make sure you and your families don't drink water infected with pathogens. Would these systems be better based purely on competing companies with no government regulation? Would our food and water be safe to eat and drink? Based on my experience in Peru, where there seems to be less regulation, the answer is no.

I had a few more to list but I think you get my point. I believe government exists to ensure fairness, equality (including equal opportunities), create and enforce law by popular consent, provide for the defense of our country, and to regulate consumer products and services to ensure quality, fairness, safety, and effectiveness. I agree that government often oversteps their bounds with misguided spending (mainly deficit spending) and occasionally creates laws that don't necessarily reflect the values of the constitution. But overall I think the government does a pretty good job at the things I mentioned. I am interested to hear what you think the role of government is, or is not. I am open to changing my viewpoints.

Undecided on Immigration

Since amnesty looks like the next big push by the Obama administration, and in the wake of Arizona's new law strengthening immigration enforcement (Rich, your unique perspective as a current AZ resident would be much appreciated here), I thought it would be an appropriate time for this blog's first discussion about immigration. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I haven't formed any hard and fast opinions on this topic. I want those of you who have strong opinions about it to convince me that you're right.On the one hand, I'll admit to having a soft spot in my normally icy cold, stony, conservative heart (that one's for you, Creighton) for those who are willing to leave everything they have behind and come to a land of promise - a land that rewards those who break a sweat, work hard, and improve their lots. At some point in time, this is what our ancestors did. After living in Argentina for 2 years, I can't blame or fault anyone that would rather come here for the chance at a better life as long as they're willing to work for it. Speaking of working, I've worked alongside some "undocumented immigrants" or "illegal aliens" and some on work visas at Custom Fence, and I've found that in general, they are very hard working, family-oriented individuals who sent the majority of their earnings back home to provide for their families, and made concerted efforts at learning english (although I also know there are plenty who are not hardworking or law abiding once they're here).

On the other hand, I know many people from Argentina who have waited years and years, and for whatever reason have not been successful at entering the U.S. legally. Liberals like the word "fairness." How "fair" is it to those countless immigrants who have respected our laws, waited in line, tried to come here the right way, to have so many leap frog them by crossing the border illegally? I'd be very upset if I tried to get here legally, couldn't, to then see a blanket sweep of amnesty. I'd be thinking, "man, I'm an idiot! Why didn't I just hop the fence?" Wouldn't the mere talk of amnesty, then, increase the incentives and encourage people to break the law? I believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and thus, am sympathetic towards those who try to come here the right way. But this brings us back to square one: is the current law a good one? Should it be changed? If so, how? Should we take the path chosen by the people of Arizona toward stricter enforcement? Or should we go down the road the Obama administration wants toward amnesty?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading what ya'll have to say.

I Vote Democrat because . . .

With Nic's permission, I'm posting something I saw on his blog that I knew that Creighton would get a kick out of :) I'm fully expecting a top 10 list for voting Republican in response ... this should be fun.
I Vote Democrat because ...

10. I believe oil companies' 4% profits on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

9. I believe the government would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

8. I believe Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

7. I'm too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don't start driving a Prius.

5. I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies as long as we keep all the death row inmates alive.

4. I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

3. I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as Democrats see fit.

2. I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

1. My head is planted so firmly up my a$$ that it's unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.

Here's the link to the source.

America the Beautiful

After spending 10 days outside of the United States for the first time in my life in Peru, there's a few things I've taken for granted that I think is appropriate for this blog.

1. I think we have a pretty good balance of private sector / public or government funded programs here that make the quality of life better for more people. I spent several days in villages outside of Cuzco high in the Andes mountains. These people did not pay taxes, and also didn't receieve anything from the government. The villages surrounding Cuzco and even Cuzco itself had little organization, poor infrastructure, and very little government regulation. There was some public education but it seemed to me to be more under the control of local people and certainly didn't have access to funding like we do here in the U.S. It made me appreciate my own public education, the flat, organized, paved roads I can drive on, and the libraries and schools I can go to.

2. There was very little government regulation in Peru especially in regards to food and water safety that made it dangerous to eat and drink anything. Half our expedition came down with food poisoning, and lots of children out in the villages had parasites, even Hepatitis A that came from eating and drinking contaminated sources. While we do have some of those issues here, it certainly is a lot less. It's comforting to know there are company, industry, and government standards for food safety that make most of our food and water disease-free and safe to consume. That was a luxury not enjoyed in Peru.

3. Oddly enough I gained an appreciation for social security and medicare while there. I do hospice work and the people I take care of all are on Medicare and Social Security. There are no programs like that in Peru, and people really suffer for it. We saw lots of elderly people who suffered severe arthritis who were still working just because they had no choice. They had no access to health care (other than us), and no such thing as retirement. They retired when they died. So while these programs may be in trouble here in the U.S., I still think they are good, and provide a safety net for people to fall on.

In conclusion I just have to say that I love the United States and I'm not sure why I'm lucky enough to be a citizen here and have the opportunities I do. It makes me feel like I have those opportunities specifically to help others that might not. I think we all do. For those of you that have spent time out of the country, what did you feel?

Is it me or Obamacare?

There have been a few things happening worth talking about, but no new activity for a while. So here is a question regarding Obamacare: What are the chances that the taxes, etc. that will be collected over the next four years to help pay for Obamacare will be saved up and available to actually help pay for the costs of Obamacare once the four years are up? I believe that whatever gets collected will be spent, and not on Obamacare. Since the Government has no discipline to dedicate and segregate money collected for a specific purpose (see Social Security), we can add those misappropriated dollars (for at least four years) to the cost of the Obamacare bill. What say you?

Health Tort Reform - Conservative?

This is my attempt to catch up to the 29 comments that were on the last post. Rich asked for comments from Devin and me on tort reform. There was some good discussion.

Tort reform is one area where party politics takes, perhaps, a different path than political philosophy.

Republicans like the idea of tort reform. Democrats don't. The plaintiff bar is squarely on the side of Democrats as evidenced by the money they contribute to that party. The defense industry is in the Republican camp. Plaintiff's lawyers and malpractice insurers need each other in order to keep dragging in the huge fees and monster premiums that each side keeps as a reward and shares with the political party that favors them in the never-ending game.

But what about conservatives and liberals? What about libertarianism in the tort-reform debate? For instance, one of the more popular methods of tort reform (and one that has been in place in Utah for several years) is a cap on awards, coupled with a sharing of the spoils with the State. Over a certain level, punitive damages go half to the State, then all to the State after another ceiling is reached. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Should a doctor be held individually to account, monetarily, for the damage that doctor does to a patient when the standard of care is breached (sounds conservative / libertarian to me), or should a fixed dollar amount be handed out to anyone who can show themselves injured by any healthcare provider in the system?

It is amazing how quickly philosophical consistency is tossed to the side when a short-term opportunity to score points or defend the ball presents itself in the party ballgame. I would be interested to hear how y'all perceive tort reform on a philosophical spectrum, and whether you think philosophical consistency should, in this case, be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. (Can you tell how I feel by the way I asked the question?)

The Beauties of Health Savings Accounts

In the context of the ongoing debate about how to fix America's health care system, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, wrote an excellent, timely piece today in the Wall Street Journal that was eye-opening for me. He first highlights the benefits of health savings accounts not with partisan talking points, but with independently cited facts, figures, and good ole' common sense. Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091600470293066.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

After citing many compelling statistics, he concludes:

"The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us: A system built on "cost-plus" reimbursement (i.e., the more a physician does, the more he or she gets paid) coupled with "free" to the purchaser consumption, is a machine perfectly designed to overconsume and overspend. It will never be controlled by top-down balloon-squeezing by insurance companies or the government. There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right."

For my part, I don't think HSA's are the end-all solution for our broken health care system (tort reform and portability across state lines are necessary as well), but they would certainly go a long way towards controlling and decreasing spiraling costs, as Mitch Daniels has illustrated with Indiana's experience. I recommend that everyone read the article and comment.

When the Shoe is on the other Foot: Reconciliation

There's a lot of talk out there that congressional democrats in the Senate want to use the process known as "reconciliation" to ram the White House's new health care bill through because they lack the 60 votes necessary to end the debate and filibuster. Reconciliation, created in 1974, was originally meant to be a legislative measure aimed at passing proposed presidential budgets through congress without a threat of a filibuster, and it only requires 51 votes instead of 60 to avoid a filibuster and end debate.

Anyway, I came across this video on Breitbart.tv that shows how democratic senators reacted when a republican majority threatened to use reconciliation in 2005, or "the nuclear option," to end a democratic filibuster. It's interesting to see the 180 degree about-face when the shoe is on the democratic foot only 5 years later. I thought Joe Biden's quote from the video was interesting: "I pray God when the democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."



Bottom line: I don't like reconciliation. I don't like it whether it be republicans or democrats who threaten to use it. The filibuster is one of the greatest checks to unbridled tyranny of the majority that this country has, no matter what party controls. What do you guys think?

Thoughts On TARP, or the 'Bailouts'

I am trying to form my opinion on the bailouts that cost the tax payers, so far, over a trillion dollars. When Geithner, Poulson (I'm a huge fan of his), Bush, Bernanke, and all the other people decided to let Lehman fail, the world almost came to an end. If memory serves, AIG would have been the next to go since they now had to pay out on all of the Lehman bonds they insured. Before Lehman declared bankruptcy we helped out, or nationalized, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie. Apparently the government didn't think Lehman was interconnected enough, or the moral hazard was too high. Either way, after Lehman they changed their mind and paid out billions to companies that did, and some that did not, want the money.

I think the problems were with us and the banks. Some people say it's the banks fault for letting us get loans on homes double what they're worth, so they should have to repay the mortgage. I know this will be a sensitive subject to some, but how could either side see it coming? For the same reason that everyone and their dog wanted to buy a house, because it was gonna make everyone tons of money when they flipped it, the banks didn't anticipate homes losing as much money as they did. Likewise, it is our fault for thinking we could pay a mortgage with payments which increase over time, because we thought we'd be making more money or it would work itself out. People with sub-600 credit scores were getting loans, and though it was still that individual's decision to make the purchase, the banks and loan officers were getting too greedy. Plenty of blame can be thrown either way, but I don't think anyone can argue that it was just our fault, or just the bank's fault. Is it only fair that we now help the banks?

2 questions:

1. Should we have bailed out these companies? There is no question in my mind that the bailouts helped us today. I think our financial markets would have been absolutely destroyed today if it hadn't happened. My biggest reason for asking: did we just delay the inevitable and make our day of reckoning worse?

2. GM has a horrible corporate structure, and few companies can be profitable with pensions like the ones they offer. Especially in these markets. Unions need to be done with...forever. Do you think GM or Chrysler deserved the bailout?

Like I said, I'm just trying to educate myself with everyone else's point of view and knowledge. Throw all the facts and links at me that you can.