wayyyy down thread wrote, before the libertarian/liberal border war (which, while fascinating, is completely OT):

"If Murdoch gets the Wall Street Journal I can't imagine what is going to happen to this country."

Actually I would say it's a good thing since the editorial page will finally match its reporting.... :)

jayackroyd:

The underlying reliance on Rousseau and Locke's state of nature hypothesis leaves libertarians in the lurch. There was no "state of nature." It's a factually false claim.

One key difference between Locke and Rousseau is that Locke appears to have recognized this, while Rousseau did not. Locke's social contract was not bad anthropology. Rather, it was a logical argument (akin to Rawl's "veil of ignorance" in his Theory of Justice), addressing the question of what are the logical foundations on which one can justify the existence of the state. Previously, the divine right of kings justified it via a top-down theocratic logic. Locke justified it via a bottom-up democratic logic.

You are certainly correct to note:

People have always organized themselves into groups. Being human involves interaction with other people--always has, always will. The social contract didn't come in being, replacing some idyllic or nasty state of individualism.

Which is why the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers were overall more subtle and sophisticated than Locke, as well as more reality-based. But, still, Locke performed a valuable service in countering the divine rights tradition so cogently.

Did we let the market decide that we had to go to war in Iraq? Haliburton LOVES letting the market decide.

Did we drastically lower tax rates on the wealthy and borrow money that everyone will have to make up in future income to allow incredible short term windfalls with no wider benefit to the everyone in the economy? Whoo hoo!! The top 1% LOVES letting the market decide.

Moving jobs overseas? Let the market decide!

Illegal immigration? Let the market decide!

Dumping poisons into the ocean? Let the market decide!

Harvesting organs for profit? LTMD! Hey, look! By abbreviating that sentence, I increased my productivity 325%!

Abdicating all responsibility for anything? LTMD!

Aren't we lucky people?

Here I side with Mona. The protection offered to the individual by collective action should never come at the price of unnecessary and self-righteous intervention in our lives by others, except in those cases where there's a clearly demonstrated benefit which outweighs our interest in personal liberty.

Murder may be prohibited, in other words, but smoking may not, even if it does raise the cost of health care to all. (Adjustment of risk pools, i.e., higher premiums for smokers, would seem perfectly reasonable to me, however, and -- full disclosure -- I'm a smoker. If we do that, though, we'd then have to have a table of increased risk, from trans-fats to skydiving, from a genetic pre-disposition to diabetes, to travel in the Middle East. Do we really want to go that route?)

Well, here's where the difference between little-l libertarian and big-L Libertarian is. We should of course minimize state intervention in personal lives. Banning smoking would be stupid and intrusive. Banning cigarette advertisement is not. Having a sin tax on cigarettes is not. The goal is to balance the needs of the collective with individual freedom.

But just making believe that there is no collective? That's just insane, and a tool of delusion. By drawing a bright line between de jure government organizations and all other corporate bodies, big L Libertarians are in effect sacralizing these other corporate body - investing a particular form of government with an exemption from being a government body.

No, of course not. We have some regulations, we have some procedures, we don't have others. But it really isn't the case that a person can make an informed and competent choice about everything, all of the time.

There's a world of difference between saying that society should tell a diabetic what to eat (although I do believe someone should try to persuade them about a few things for their own good), and letting someone prescribe their own antidepressants.

And public health is a concern. If a woman comes up to me and says "my child has a splitting headache", do I have the right to ask the child to touch her chin to her chest? Even if the mother thinks it is irrelevant? Suppose the mother thinks that seems incompetent or is a conspiracy to cause some syndrome she read about on the internet?

Except, of course, the market didn't decide to invade Iraq; the government did. The market didn't decide to make irresponsible public budgeting decisions; the government did. See a pattern?

Except, of course, the market didn't decide to invade Iraq; the government did. The market didn't decide to make irresponsible public budgeting decisions; the government did. See a pattern?

Except that you don't consider lobbyists, millions of dollars in campaign contributions, a candidate running as the proxy for big business with the support of corporate media as a part of the market, and I do.

Because it usually causes everyone to examine their core assumptions. During the Viet Nam era, I was too young to be subject to the draft, but it certainly profoundly affected my attitude toward the coercive power of the state. When you peel away all the pretty words, what remains are people with blue uniforms and guns who reserve the right to shoot you if you don't come quietly. The rest is simply arguing over who deserves to be on the receiving end of such treatment.

If you tuned in Olbermann in the middle of a "give em hell" rant, and then you tuned into OReilly at just about any old time, *and* if you knew very, very little about current affairs and history, then you might walk away thinking there's no real difference.

The MSM considers their audience to be generally ignorant and uninterested, and for the most part that's correct. It's the real problem, and just pointing out MSM lies and hypocrisy won't really help much. ( as much as I like Glenn's work. )

" a Republic madam, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin.