[ExI] Strong libertarianism, societal good, & suffering (was: Cephalization, proles)

[Kelly Anderson]

2011/5/17 Amon Zero <amon at doctrinezero.com>:
> On 17 May 2011 07:43, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How can you say libertarianism has never been tried? It wasn't perfect
>> libertarianism, but it was a lot closer than it is today.
>
> Kelly, I think you've got a good point. The thing is, I'm far from
> anti-libertarian - catch me at the right moment and I might even describe
> myself as libertarian - it's just that Rafal's frankly extreme stance forced
> me to draw a line.

Fair enough.

> I think you're right that America past, particularly 19th Century, was more
> libertarian than today, and yes, I would agree there has clearly been net
> societal gain from the achievements made in that time. But, as you say,
> there was also of course suffering directly caused by the process.

Hard work involves a bit of suffering all by itself. What I don't
think is fully appreciated today is the amount of suffering that is
CAUSED by the paternal government. There is hardly room to argue that
the US government has kept the Native Americans irrelevant through
their 100+ years of paternalism. Government programs that give every
tribe member a new truck every year leads to alcoholism and ruination
of a great people. They are now doing the same thing to inner city
blacks and Hispanics. The terrible drug and gang problems of the inner
city can be traced directly back to the Great Society of LBJ, IMHO.
Were there problems before that? Yup. Were they anywhere like what we
have today? No way.

Government paternalism keeps men from being MEN. When enforcing drug
laws deprives so many young African Americans of their fathers, that's
just eroding society in a way that is going to be very hard to undo. I
speak as the father of four girls from Compton who's parents could not
take care of them due to their dependence on drugs. I am not a hard
hearted libertarian. I am a soft hearted libertarian. I just look at
the mess the government, in all it's wisdom and lack of prescience
about unintended consequences, has created, and I think there has to
be a better way. That way is private business and private charity,
IMHO.

I spent years as a Mormon, watching how they manage welfare. It is
very different than the government program, and it works a lot better.
People aren't on it for years. They get a hand up not a hand out.
Private works better than government.

> It seems quite clear that there's a trade-off between the innovation that
> results from economic freedom, and protection from suffering offered by
> legal safeguards.

But every protection provided has unintended consequences. Today on
the news I saw a local politician had presented a proposed law stating
that veterinarians MUST provide written prescriptions for pet
medications. The argument was that since some vets mark up drugs a
LOT, and don't provide prescriptions, that people were being gouged.
But with that law in place, I bet a visit to the vet will be twice as
expensive as it is now. Unintended consequences... legislative history
is filled with those. The only way to avoid them is to avoid passing
the laws in the first place. Allow more freedom and everyone floats up
together. Are some cheated occasionally? You bet. Caviat emptor. But
is it better that we allow a little injustice so that we can all be
free? Are we better off with airport security since 9/11? I don't
think so. Those who trade freedom for security don't deserve either.

> Imagine a continuum between extreme libertarianism (0) and extreme
> paternalism (1). Societies with values not significantly different from 0 or
> 1 are unlikely to be to my taste. Rafal is clearly arguing for 0. 19th
> Century America is somewhere a little south (i.e. closer to 0) of my
> preferred balance, but it was not the world Rafal advocates. Modern day
> China is probably closer to 0 than America has ever been, in its economic
> and business practices at least. In other respects, Chinese society looks
> alarmingly like a 1.

I'm not a big fan of Chinese social policy by any means. I rather
doubt it is economically as free as we are led to believe. Friendship
is the basis of Chinese business, and being friends with the right
communist leaders can be very helpful in getting rich there.

I think we could use a big bump towards 0, and would not be
uncomfortable if we were a lot closer. Right now, America feels like a
7 to me. YMMV of course, depending upon your personal interaction with
the government. I used to think America was freer than I now know it
to be. That is MY American Experience.

-Kelly