:: walterindenver ::

:: Saturday, October 19, 2002 ::

ILTE of the Day

From today's Rocky Mountain News, posted here in its entirety:

The bottom line
Real men wage peace. No war on Iraq.
Mike Phalen
Denver

I'd really like to see intelligent debate on the war question. If it turns out that war in Iraq is a bad idea I'd like someone to make a cogent argument to that effect. Instead we get this.
And I suppose 60 years ago while American soldiers overran Europe the real men were back home 'waging peace.'

:: Walter 8:24 AM [+] ::
...

Ouch

The Houston Chronicle reports a local hunter shot and killed a car thief... with a bow and arrow. Any of you who are familiar with broad-tip hunting arrows might agree whan I say I'd much rather get shot with a conventional bullet.
Anyhow, congrats to the hunter. That'll look great over the fireplace.

:: Walter 8:17 PM [+] ::
...

Lileks Today
" I’ll leave you with this prediction: it is not a matter of if, but when someone blames North Korea’s pullout of the agreement on the Bush Administration’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Just you wait. Fisk? Scheer? Pilger? MoDo? Gentlepersons of the press: start your Yugos."

:: Walter 6:22 PM [+] ::
...

Another Drug War Victim

One Jaime Chavez has just been released after serving two years in prison on a drug dealing conviction based on false testimony. Seems that police informants planted fake drugs as evidence against dozens of people, most of whom have already had their cases thrown out.

The Dallas Morning News reports: (registration required)

The informant, Enrique Martinez Alonso, in an affidavit filed as part of Mr. Chavez's appeal, said that he lied when he testified that Mr. Chavez displayed a large plastic trash bag of methamphetamine while three other men negotiated a drug buy.

To wit:

"The testimony I gave concerning Jaime Chavez's action and his knowledge of the fact that there was methamphetamine in the black plastic bag was false," the document signed by Mr. Alonso read. "I have no independent recollection of Jaime Chavez's participation in the drug transaction.
"I identified Jaime Chavez as the person who showed me the drugs because I was told that it was necessary to obtain a conviction, and I was in the process of working off my own narcotics case to avoid a 15-year prison sentence."

The reduced sentences in exchange for testimony ploy is common practice in drug prosecution around the country. Considering that many of these drug dealers are not the most savory characters, it's not suprising that some of them would finger innocent people in an effort to save their own hides. I'd like to think this case in Dallas is unusual, but I suspect most of these false testimonies go undetected.

Jaime's lucky he lost only two years of his life to the drug war. It could have been many more.

:: Walter 7:32 AM [+] ::
...

More Zompist Deconstruction...

...from Perry de Havilland, writing
on Samizdata yesterday. That's the same article referenced here on Monday. Advantage: You know who.

And thanks to Lucas Wiman who posted in the comments section at Samizdata mentioning my post. He sent me this e-mail:

Walter,
That critique of libertarianism is astounding. I don't think I've ever
seen so many fallacies in one place. Incredible.
Her arguments start out with basically the following: a lot of
republicans has certain similar ideas to libertarians, and the
republicans are bad, and therefore the libertarians are bad. I don't
even know where to start on that one. The LP also usually agrees with
the ACLU. Would she be opposed to the ACLU by similar logic?
Then there are a number of complete misrepresentations of libertarian
views (like that libertarians are opposed to governmental regulation of
any kind). Then the baffling "Sins of the Market", including "People in
the inner city pay more for food and pay surprisingly high rent," "The
entire near west side of Chicago, just east of where I live, doesn't
have a single movie theater," and "Services the middle class takes for
granted, like cashing their paychecks for free, are expensive for the
poor."
So the only possible explanation that life is more expensive in a city
is that the market doesn't work. Never mind that taxes are higher in
big cities, real estate prices are higher due to higher demand, and
transaction costs are higher. The markets failed.
Perhaps the reason there are no movie theaters is that too few people go
to movies. Finally, every bank I've ever heard of gives you free
check-cashing if you have an account. Poor people can't get a bank
account? My bank has a no-minimum balance checking account with a $50
minimum starting deposit. Even the very poor could swing that on payday.
"If you press the point, libertarians will generally cotton to being
against corporate welfare and for legalizing drugs. The Libertarian
Party website makes as much of social liberty as it does economic
liberty. However, I've never seen the libertarian elements among the
Republicans do a thing about these theoretical ideals"
If this is true, then why did the Connecticut LP refuse to allow Ann
Coulter to run for the house on the Libertarian ticket? They seemed to
care about personal freedom there.
Then there's the fact that "libertarians benefit like the rest of us
from government services: defense, public safety, universal education,
consumer protection, a court system, highways and airports, Social
Security. I can't respect a philosophy that enjoys services it objects
to paying for."
How, exactly, would she suggest not using highways? Not getting social
security*? Not enjoying national defense? Not using airports**? This
is ludicrous. In any case, libertarians have to pay taxes, and may as
well get something for their money, even if it is an inefficient
governmental something.
I agree with many of the Libertarian party's views, and could write a
better critique of libertarianism than this. Sheesh.
-Lucas
* I wonder in what way you "benefit" from social security. Even if the
program functions exactly as it should, then you only get back
inflation-adjusted money you "put in" to social security. It's like a
crappy bank account.
** Wouldn't she be opposed to this kind of corporate welfare?

I think that 'she' was a he, but accuracy isn't crucial over at Zompist, so what the hey.

:: Walter 7:55 PM [+] ::
...

Home Grown Terrorism
From this morning's Rocky Mountain News:

" A group claiming to be the Earth Liberation Front has threatened to destroy the town of Winter Park's water storage, officials verified Monday.
"The warning was received Oct. 2 in a letter sent to the Denver Water Board by the alleged eco-terrorists, who took credit for burning the Two Elk Lodge atop Vail Mountain in 1998."

:: Walter 5:52 AM [+] ::
...

What's Wrong With Libertarianism

I was browsing through comments on Dawn Olsen's site when I found a critique of libertarianism. Occasionally someone does put out a thoughtful and well written critique of the movement, but this is not one of those times. It's found on Zompist.com. Let's go straight to the action with a few choice passages and my responses.

Libertarianism reads like someone (let's call her "Ayn Rand") sat down to create the Un-Communism.

Hyporbole. The roots of libertarianism go back long before communists were a factor. Libertarians were called 'liberals' a few centuries ago, before leftists hijacked the word.

Libertarianism (=) property is sacred.

Untrue. Individual rights are sacred, within sharply defined boundaries, of course.

(Libertarianism = ) any government is bad.

Simply false. Libertarians recognize many legitimate roles for government.

(Libertarianism = ) Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes

Hyperbole. Capitalists are just people.

(Libertarianism = ) Workers have no particular rights.

Wrong. Workers share very specific personal rights with everyone else.

(Libertarianism = ) The oppressed deserve their oppression.

A lie. Libertarians believe in punishment for oppressors and restitution for the oppressed.

The communist of 1910 couldn't point to a single real-world instance of his utopia; neither can the present-day libertarian. Yet they're unshakeable in their conviction that it can and must happen.
This disdain for reality manifests itself in other ways. Libertarians love abtract, fact-free arguments. Thanks to my essay on taxes, I routinely get mail featuring impassioned harangues which never once mention a real-world fact; or if they do, the statistic is simply made up.
This sort of balls-out aggressivity probably wins points at parties, where no one is going to take down an almanac and check their figures; but to me it's a cardinal sin. If someone has an answer for everything, advocates changes which have never been tried, and presents dishonest evidence, he's a crackpot. If a man has no doubts, it's because his hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Great, so some 'crackpot' makes a poor argument, and that's evidence of the invalidity of an entire school of thought? Have you never heard of the Cato Institute, or any other libertarian think tank? If you want to argue statistics, it can be done.
As for the 'real world instance of Utopia,' that's an old argument, and a tired one. Libertarians are decidedly anti-utopian. No pure libertarian government has ever existed, and probably none ever will. However, the more a government is able to secure individual right for its populace, the more likely that government and nation is likely to prosper. This was true of the classical empires, and of more recent successful nations. There were some exceptions, free(er) countries that failed and brutal regimes that did well, usually in the absence of more open societies to offer competition.

Crackpots are usually harmless; but I consider libertarianism to be quite dangerous. The "Libertarian Party" is a joke; but an unattractive subset of libertarian ideas has become mainstream in American politics. The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, took most of his program from libertarianism

Newt Gingrich's program? Did I miss the parts about eliminating the income tax, decriminalizing drugs, and reducing U.S. military presence overseas? Any overlap between Gingrich's program and libertarianism is strictly utilitarian, he borrowed some arguments from libertarians where it was convenient to do so. Gingrich as a libertarian is the ultimate straw-man debate tactic.

If you press the point, libertarians will generally cotton to being against corporate welfare and for legalizing drugs. The Libertarian Party website makes as much of social liberty as it does economic liberty. However, I've never seen the libertarian elements among the Republicans do a thing about these theoretical ideals; on the contrary, they're happy to ally themselves with Ashcrofts willing to trash judicial rights, Starrs poking into politicans' sex lives, Bushes mocking the protection of civil rights, and theocrats wanting the government to control movies, university courses, and women's wombs.

That's why there is an LP. Libertarianism represents a diverse range of opinions, but there are some constants. Support of free speech, free trade, medical feedom, and freedom of religion are basic, one who doesn't support those concepts can scarcely be called a libertarian. If some in the conservative side of the Republican party want to call themselves 'libertarian' they are usurping the term, much like leftists stole the word 'liberal.' I won't readily allow them to take the label.

In practice, then, libertarianism has nothing to do with social liberty, and everything to do with removing all restrictions on business. So what's wrong with that?

Well, you're incorrect on the first point, and I'll bet you'll tell us what's wrong with the second.

We tried it, and it failed
We used to have a government which was within spitting distance of the libertarian ideal.

But you said above... oh, never mind.

Business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.

Blaming management thugs, racial oppression, and gunboat diplomacy on libertarianism. Kind of like blaming doctors for the existence of disease. For a short discussion on the myth of the Robber Barons, try this. Longer (book length) discussions are out there, too.

Libertarianism is essentially the morality of a thug. It's a worship of the already successful, privileging money and property above everything else-- love, humanity, justice. And let's not forget that lurid fascination with firepower.

More junk. Libertarianism is the first political philosophy to successfully bring morality into the political process. You remember the golden rule and all that? Every other 'ism' is based on the use of force, using the power of the state to force society to do whatever it is you think society should be doing.
The kicker is at the end. The author lists what he would like from politics:

I have my own articles of faith. For instance, I think a political philosophy should
-benefit the entire population, not an elite of whatever flavor
-offer a positive vision, not just hatred for another philosophy
-rest on the best science and history can teach us, rather than science fiction
-be modified in the light of what works and what doesn't
-produce greater freedom and prosperity the closer a nation comes to it.


And how, exactly, do you propose to establish this, err, utopia? The Nazi's thought they offered the best from science and history. And that last point sounds rather libertarian.

All right, it's not really fair to pick on this critique, since there are better ones out there, including Mike Huben's. And my rebuttal isn't as good as David Friedman's response to Huben's. I suppose one rises to the level of the competition.

:: Walter 8:06 AM [+] ::
...