[Ash Faulkner]

Erm, Eran...

But I am actually more sympathetic than that. Caplan makes the (common libertarian) mistake of only acknowledging government (or force initiation) as a barrier to freedom. But imagine a society in which social norms (but not the law) require that women stay and work at home. Employers, while legally free to employ women, tend not to. Universities similarly tend not to accept women, etc.

In a world like that, while women are technically "free", they are, in practice, less free than they are in our world. To the extent that that represents 19th century America, I find myself disagreeing with Caplan on this point.

Are you aware of the implications of what you just said? I think you should re-read that very carefully. I can't quite believe you've just said this...and I can't believe everybody else missed it...

[Rei Murasame]

I was going to give a response to Eran's previous post but now that Ash Faulkner has highlighted that part of Eran's earliest post on the subject, and I re-read it, I will hold off on my response and wait for him to respond to Ash.

This is because it looks like you kicked the foundations out from under your whole argument at the very beginning, Eran, and we missed it. Once you've written a paragraph like the one Ash has highlighted above, it's essentially an admission to something that no libertarian is usually prepared to admit to. Even though I quoted it earlier, I actually didn't ask the question that I should have asked upon seeing it.

[Sceptic]

Lulz I had read that before but decided not to point it out, less I be damned as a pedant.

In all fairness to Eran, I don't know that Libertarianism needs to specifically reject positive liberty. More to the point, it needs to recognise that the only sure route to 'freedom to' is through recognise rights in the sense of negative liberty. Also, sometimes we have to use certain language in a way we wouldn't normally in order to voice our opinions in a way that is more comprehensive. It would have required much effort to first distinguish between the two forms of liberty and then to have argued that one is 'not really' a form of liberty, per se.

For example, I don't believe in altruism but simply can't be bothered to describe it as a phenomena that is iin fact perfectly compatible with psychological egoism.

[Wolfman]

In all fairness to Eran, I don't know that Libertarianism needs to specifically reject positive liberty.

I've heard a few Libertarians actually describe their ideology simply as the rejection of positive liberty.

[Sceptic]

I've heard a few Libertarians actually describe their ideology simply as the rejection of positive liberty.

Well, that could be true. It depends in the sense of which we mean positive liberty. If we mean it in the sense that it is actually a genuine form of liberty, I would imagine Libertarians (all deontological Libertarians, perhaps not the consequentialists) would be required to reject it. But on the grounds that 'freedom to' is desirable, no political ideology could seriously reject that phenomena...unless they were moral sceptics like myself, of course. Even then, I would only reject it on Hobbesian grounds that we all have detrimentally conflicting desires and interests - none of which are right or wrong but require arbitration on the grounds of attaining harmony and social cohesion.

[Eran]

Are you aware of the implications of what you just said? I think you should re-read that very carefully. I can't quite believe you've just said this...and I can't believe everybody else missed it...

At your urging, I reread my previous statement, and I find myself still agreeing with myself :-)

A clarification is obviously called for. So here goes.

The degree of freedom people enjoy within a society is a function of both formal legal/political structures, and "soft" cultural aspects within society. The latter, not being written down in books, are often ignored or underplayed. They are, however, absolutely critical.

For a given set of cultural ideas, prejudices, priorities and values, the free market and the absence of government coercion (ideally the absence of government period) is the best freedom-maximizing legal structure.

A society without government is not necessarily perfectly free. But it is freer (and with faster and stronger pressures towards further freedom) than one in which government is added to the mix. The reason is straightforward. To the extent that prejudices within society causes weaker "minorities" (quotation marks to allow for the numeric majority of women) to be less free, such prejudices are hardened, ossified and become semi-permanent through the use of government coercion, with government (as always) being dominated by the stronger (not necessarily more numerous) layers in society.

Free markets penalize people for converting their prejudice to outright discrimination, whereas governments routinely codify such prejudices into law, greatly reducing (though not eliminating) the cost of engaging in discrimination.

It is folly to think that government can free us. It never could. By the time the forces of freedom are strong enough to dominate government, government action is no longer necessary.

[Rich]

It is folly to think that government can free us.

Tell that to the survivors of Auschwitz. Try defeating the The third Reich through private charity and voluntary associations.

[Eran]

There would have been far fewer people in Auschwitz if immigration policies of the US and other governments didn't restrict the flight of Jews from Germany in the earlier years of the Third Reich.

Arguably there would never have even been a Third Reich if it wasn't for the involvement of the US in WW I (which ensured an untenable "peace", the precurser to the rise of Nazism).

[Rich]

Arguably there would never have even been a Third Reich if it wasn't for the involvement of the US in WW I (which ensured an untenable "peace", the precurser to the rise of Nazism).

Well there wouldn't have been a united States at all if the British government hadn't intervened in North America and left it to the "free market". But so what! are you suggesting that the Third Reich could have been brought down by arguing historical counterfactuals?

[Daktoria]

Jose Piñera was Secretary of Labor and Social Security, and Secretary of Mining, in the military government of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.



If a community democratically decides to promote positive freedoms, then there is a logical connection between democracy or self-government and freedom. The CATO beef is that communities actually do this.

Thanks Potemkin.

Speaking of negative versus positive liberty, can you show a connection between Piñera's pension privatization and Pinochet's violence?

[Potemkin]

Speaking of negative versus positive liberty, can you show a connection between Piñera's pension privatization and Pinochet's violence?

The one made the other possible.

[Eran]

Well there wouldn't have been a united States at all if the British government hadn't intervened in North America and left it to the "free market".

Wrong.

North America could have easily been inhabited by free market advocates. Several colonies persisted for decades without engaging in wars with Indians, but rather by cooperation, trade and, as necessary, voluntary purchase of land.

Are you suggesting that the Third Reich could have been brought down by arguing historical counterfactuals?

No, it is you who is arguing counterfactuals (e.g. without governments we would all be taken over by Nazis).

History shows again and again what a powerful force free people who pursue their own interests can be. Fighting Nazism would have been no exception.

But your arguments sounds a lot like the Mafia who first set a store on fire, and then demand protection money to forestall future arsons. As the store is burning, the Mafia representatives is say "Are you suggesting that fires can be put out by arguing historical counterfactuals?

[Meta777]

Not to be "That Guy/Gal", but you're both arguing historical counterfactuals.

[Phred]

This may be of interest to the Chile thread-derailment gang -

As you can see, Chile used to be the poorest of the three countries and now it is comparatively rich. Argentina has enjoyed a bit of growth. Venezuela, by contrast, used to be the richest of the three nations but has stagnated and now is in last place.



So what accounts for these remarkable changes in relative prosperity? The answer, at least in part, is the difference between free markets and statism. Simply stated, Chile has reduced the burden of government a lot in the past three decades, Argentina has reduced the burden of government a little, and Venezuela has gone in the wrong direction and increased the burden of government.

The following numbers come from the Economic Freedom of the World, which looks at all facets of economic policy, including regulation, trade policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, rule of law, and property rights.

* Chile’s score jumped from 5.6 in 1980 to 8.0 in 2008, and the country now ranks as the world’s 4th-freest economy (ahead of the United States!).

* Argentina’s ranking has improved a bit, rising from 4.4 to 6.0 between 1980 and 2008, but that still only puts them in 94th-place in the world rankings.

* Venezuela, by contrast, is embarrassingly bad. The nation’s score has dropped from 6.3 to 4.4, and its ranking has plunged from 22nd-place in 1980 to 121st-place in 2006.

The simple lesson is that nations have the ability to create prosperity, but they have to follow a simple recipe. Adam Smith is reported to have written several hundred years ago that, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.”

Since Adam Smith probably never imagined a world filled with things such as OSHA, the Department of Energy, the IRS, agriculture subsidies, and fiat money, his recipe might be a bit dated, but the general idea still holds.

Phred

[Potemkin]

And all it took was the elimination of democracy and the institution of a terror-state. A price well worth paying, eh Phred?

Looks like the Cato Institute was right after all.

[Rei Murasame]

If the libertarians refuse to play by the 'be nice and do not kill lots of people' rule, even rhetorically, how audacious is it that they continually ask the rest of us to renounce the initiation of force?

It never ceases to amaze me.

[Daktoria]

And all it took was the elimination of democracy and the institution of a terror-state. A price well worth paying, eh Phred? :)

Looks like the Cato Institute was right after all. :up:

Foucault would agree, no?

[Kman]

If the libertarians refuse to play by the 'be nice and do not kill lots of people' rule, even rhetorically, how audacious is it that they continually ask the rest of us to renounce the initiation of force?

It never ceases to amaze me.

What?

[Potemkin]

Foucault would agree, no?

Probably. What matters in a given society at a given time are the power relations in that society, not the nature of any putative 'consensus'. Habermas seems to be unable to think beyond the intellectual horizon of the power-sharing consensus of post-War Germany. By contrast, the power relations in Chile in the late 1970s and 1980s were such that a neo-liberal economic policy became possible, and was indeed instituted by the new ruling elite of the military terror-state. What Chile's working-class thought of it all was irrelevant.

[Rei Murasame]

What?

Well, you know what actually went on in Chile under Pinochet, right?