The Rainbow Connection
Matt Welch | June 21, 2005, 8:15pm
Something I stumbled across that I thought I should share -- President Bush, speaking at a March 9 joint press conference with Romanian President Traian Basescu:
President Bush. [...] I'll never forget my trip to Bucharest--it was the rainbow speech. [Laughter] It was a mystical experience for me. It was one of the most amazing moments of my Presidency, to be speaking in the square, the very square where Ceausescu gave his last speech. And the rainbow that I saw in the midst of the rainstorm ended right behind the balcony, from my point of view. It's a clear signal that, as far as I was concerned, that freedom is powerful and----
President Basescu. It meant the signal of destiny, Mr. President.
President Bush. Well, we'll see.
Stevo Darkly | June 22, 2005, 3:03pm | #
I think libertarians recognize, or ought to, that the government gets in the way of social responsibility. When coercion is used too often to
force people to do the right thing -- to deny them even the option of doing otherwise -- it erodes people's own inner sense of social responsibility.
In
Our Enemy, the State, Alfred J. Nock described how growing "State power" was eroding and displacing spontaneous, uncoerced "social power." Writing during the reign of FDR, he said:
---------
It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable and gets itself accepted. When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it.
Every positive intervention that the State makes upon industry and commerce has a similar effect. When the State intervenes to fix wages or prices, or to prescribe the conditions of competition, it virtually tells the enterpriser that he is not exercising social power in the right way, and therefore it proposes to confiscate his power and exercise it according to the State's own judgment of what is best. Hence the enterpriser's instinct is to let the State look after the consequences. As a simple illustration of this, a manufacturer of a highly specialized type of textiles was saying to me the other day that he had kept his mill going at a loss for five years because he did not want to turn his workpeople on the street in such hard times, but now that the State had stepped in to tell him how he must run his business, the State might jolly well take the responsibility.
-------------
(
Our Enemy, the State is a long essay/short book, and it can be found in its entirety in several places on the WWW.)
rob | June 22, 2005, 5:16pm | #
This has to be one of the most fascinating threads I've read on HNR in quite a while. And to think it all started off with a throw-away line about "Bush Sees A Rainbow."
On the subject of Bush is an idealist separated from reality, I think his response of "Well, we'll see" makes him look pretty firmly ensconced in reality. Noting that he saw a rainbow while speaking (as US President) from the vantage of former bastion of tyranny doesn't strike me as a strange thing to say. It's almost Reagan-esque.
As for the opposite, which is that he's the opposite of an idealist, a mendacious scumbag who is only out for his buddies in the oil biz... I don't think this is true. But I've also given up on trying to pigeon-hole the guy. He's all over the board on policy. But I do think that he believes he's doing what's best for the country and that this does not equate to corruption and cronyism. (Just my opinion - which includes the caveat that I think there are plenty of bone-headed decisions to complain about in the administration of every President to date.)
On the subject of what this thread has come to be about - the core of libertarianism - it strikes me that there aren't a lot of people here who are wholeheartedly libertarian. Not that this is a bad thing, it just surprises me that there don't seem to be any purists scoffing at the middle-roaders here.
I also think that I'd like to sit down and discuss (over a beer, of course!) Western Civ with GM, and state and theology with thoreau.
I might not agree with them all the time, but the conversation would be fasinating. (Ok, maybe not for them, but I'd enjoy it which is what's important to me...)
the reason for disagreement is that I tend to be bullish on the future of the U.S., while just about everyone else seems to think that it's going to Hell in a handbasket. I frankly see no proof in this theory, but reading the posts here makes up for the drought of intelligent conversation I've been facing recently.
Ken Shultz | June 22, 2005, 10:35pm | #
"it is a choice made by the individual to interact in a way his/her moral view deems "right", along lines and limitations of his/her choosing."
Why isn't the limitation that an individual cannot infringe on another person's rights sufficient?
Perhaps I'm starting to see where we part company? I'm concerned about society's institutions because I see them as an extremely important relay by which values are taught and transmitted. You seem to share that with me, but what seems to drive your concern is the belief that society's institutions should enforce as well as teach what is right--do I have that correct?
Recently there was a thread dominated by someone who argued, essentially, that there is no rational distinction between an aggressive or defensive war. Indeed, he stated that there was no rational argument against the Iraq war, as if morality and reason were somehow incompatible.
Perhaps you consider such people a symptom of the corruption of our institutions as I do? Shouldn't the fear that not enough individuals will choose what is right be the very source of our concern for society's institutions?
"the rise of state power is a paradoxical manifestation of individualism."
Please elaborate.
Is it not the case that, when governments have tried to use society's institutions to enforce, rather than simply teach, morality, that they have failed to do either? East Germany before the fall of the wall was no beacon of decency. Is China, even now, a place where the poor can depend on justice?
I referenced "The Grand Inquisitor" in another thread today. In it, as I recall, the Inquisitor explains to Christ that people will throw their freedom away for greed and apparent protection. Is this the paradox to which you're referring?
...Because among the more important values I see our institutions teaching and transmitting is the idea that,
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." It's the idea that as an individual, I can escape the sliding scale between greed and fear; it's the idea that as an individual, I can live by my own choices.
CAT_Violations | June 22, 2005, 10:45pm | #
Wellfellow-
What is the value of good deeds if only done at gunpoint? I would think that it would breed nothing but resentment.
A great point that ought to be bronzed. And it is both a correct and relevant argument. Especially since on many occasions the person holding the gun has more than the person being robbed. In that case it is oppression and theft, since the person holding the gun could be doing the charity himself, with money that he actually earned. Such "charity" serves several purposes - it (a) maintains the economic dominance of the person doing the stealing and their compatriots - against the actual economic good of the community (limited investment, competition, choice, innovation); (b) it keeps the people he is stealing from dependent and busy trying to pick up the pieces; (c) serves to settle scores with anyone he doesn't like; and (d) provides good PR (for those who don't realize the truth) and supports his inner fantasies that he's a "good" guy.
This is similar to Hilary Clinton's "we're going to take something from you for the common good" while she's making $6 million in speaking engagements. I wonder if she thinks your "needs" are the same as her "needs". (Swank house, NYC apartment, 7-figure income, etc.)
And note that this kind of tyranny isn't limited to the "haves". What if a town full of postal workers decide that no one "needs" more than what they make and the surplus should be given to charity? How much growth and innovation is going to occur? How much incentive is there? What makes them so "special" as to decide for everyone?
Gaius-
I wanted to ask you a couple things about your views.
You seem to have a very negative view of individualism, viewing it as a "society corroder". But what happens when "society" is wrong - oppressive, racist, ignorant, greedy, wasteful, prejudiced, hypocritical, etc.? When is individualism justified? At what point should it be expressed?
You seem to have a lot of regard for being a "good" person, how does this square with your remarks about slaves "loving their bonds" (paraphrased)? Are you saying that everyone is entitled to a subsistence living from society, even if a substantial portion are being used as slaves of the rest?
Also, you seem to be an advocate of a certain amount of societally mandated charitable works. But at the same time I think in the past you have said that reliance on societal charity allows the individual to shirk their societal responsibilities. (My apologies if I have this confused, if so please clarifiy.) How do you square the two?
CAT_Violations | June 24, 2005, 12:41am | #
what it is, however, in excess, is a deal-breaker. a civilization is built on a consensus -- regardless of what the consensus is. the osmanlis administrated the ottoman empire as a slave-society for five hundred years; the mamluks did the same in egypt from the mongol invasions to the 16th c and even the 19th. we, in our obsession with emancipation, find that impossible -- but the consensus does not have to be what we would call moral to be effective and durable.
This seems like a search for consensus, any consensus, as long as it is "effective and durable". This doesn't seem very far from simple "might makes right", "majority makes right". This is where the spectres of lynching, slavery, oppression, witch burning, inquisitions, etc. begin to arise. I don't see where desiring equity, equality, fairness, autonomy, freedom, etc. becomes an "obsession with emancipation".
if almost no one in the society agrees with you, or if almost everyone agrees with you, that's really rather a sign of a healthy social consensus of which you are a part and therefore a healthy society. but such consensus can only be forged on common unquestioned understandings of what certain thoughts and actions mean.
You admitted above that what you refer to as a "healthy social consensus" can be immoral. I would add unhealthy, unfair, destabilizing, unsustainable, and the other adjectives I mentioned earlier. I think you meant "healthy social consensus" in the sense that a majority agreed with it, but you admitted that this does not prevent it from being immoral. This includes any consensus that can be arrived at - including the "common unquestioned understandings of what certain thoughts and actions mean". In the context of slavery in the Western world you have admitted that immorality was unacceptable, but yet you still seem to seek consensus, as long as it is stable and durable. What about forms of immorality, unfairness, and inequity that fall short of overt slavery? Should minorities in objection to the consensus have mechanisms for protection, like the Judicial branch used to be?
What would be wrong with a different consensus? In other words, a consensus that was more likely to be moral because fundamental rights - human, civil, private property rights, etc. - were carved out as inviolable. This would seem more likely to be durable and sustainable, especially in a society that is becoming more multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious, etc. It seems that reliance on the old traditions and consensus would be more destabilizing in a changing society like that than crafting a new one that emphasized fundamental rights. Why would a libertarian consensus, which would be more compatible with a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, etc. society, be more destabilizing than the "old" consensus that emphasized the old traditions, institutions, etc.?
but as they once existed, such mechanisms did much to reinforce the consensus morality and make one feel a part of the whole. i don't think that can be said of state handouts.
I don't know, gaius, you seem to be a big fan of coercion, even if it is passive-agressive coercion. Is the "Scarlett Letter" your favorite book?
for the recipient, i think personal charity is vastly superior to its faceless counterpart. it obligates you to a kind person. for a social creature, that is a powerful thing. again, however, with the advance of the securely individual mindset, that effect is lessened -- recipients can even show disdain for the intrusion on their person.
Well sort of. But this could be dangerous and immoral as well. I have no problem with honest charity. But what if it degenerates to trading people between benefactors? What if the charity comes with strings or bonds? What if the charitable parties participated in creating conditions that produced vulnerable people that required their charity? (And hence a supply of people that weren't much more than slaves.)
