Letters to the Editor
-
Should Geography Become Destiny?
Libertarians are willing to forgo both in favor of a smaller federal government. In its stead we prefer state and local governments to exert more control over issues.
If we want equality of all citizens regardless of where they are born then we can't let each local area decide too much for themselves.
Should worker safety laws vary between states? Should we let states with huge coal/mining concerns (and millions of dollars of political influence) determine that there should be little to no worker safety laws in Kentucky whereas other states, like Nevada, should have high ones?
Should people have a massively different quality of life simply because they were born in a different state?
Should there really be 50 different abortion laws for each of our 50 different states?
What about on issues of Affirmative Action?
The classic libertarian answer to the problem of racism in the 1960’s would NOT be mandatory de-segregation and equal rights for African Americans in all 50 states – but to simply shrug their shoulders and allow the states to decide amongst themselves what they felt like doing.
Would that have been a solution that “worked” in any practical sense?
Wouldn't the South (which was basically the main problem to begin with) simply declare States Rights and enforce segregation and keep sending African Americas to the back of the bus?
The governments role is to ensure equality under the law for all citizens and to reasonably ensure equal access to resources – which means that Bill Gates can’t simply buy up all the water and keep everyone else from having access to it. Nor can any CEO or billionaire overtake any of the commons (like the forests or the air) and bar other citizens from accessing it.
This is were libertarianism simply misses the point. To simply declare that most government is evil and that all Corporations are saintly and good is to bee deeply misguided. We need protection from the government but more importantly we need to be protected from the evils and abuses of lawless corporations too!
-
Well, A Segregationist Would Probably Make The Same Arguement
Libertarians want less government not no government.
To be fair, basically no one ever claims they want "no government." Everyone always makes the claim that they just want government to "go away" on just "one particular issue."
In the 1960's the Dixiecrats never claimed they hated government or wanted it to go away altogether.
There was just one issue they cared about: segreation and civil rights.
"We just want less government when it comes to deciding this issue," they argued.
The same was said about Child Labor laws before that!
"We just want less government when it comes to just this one small issue," they argued.
The same was said about the right to ban unions and the right to shoot union leaders.
"We just want less government on this small issue. No big deal," they argued.
-
Freedom: Rights vs. Liberty
If no one tells me what I can and cannot eat -- as long as it's not someone else's property -- but I don't have any food, do I have the freedom to eat?
Libertarianism says yes. I have the freedom to eat. The central point of libertarianism is that as long as no one is telling me what to do, I have freedom.
Liberalism says that I'm not free to eat if I can't get any food. There's a distinction between freedom from- (commonly called liberty) and freedom to- (commonly called rights).
Liberties and rights are both good, but they frequently conflict with one another. The notion that the only freedom is freedom from the government does not strike me as a good way to build a society.
-
Empathy
The thing libertarians lack is empathy. If you want a real dose of that problem, try Megan McArdle's blog on the Atlantic website: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/
Her posts on health care drew hundreds of people arguing that single-payer was immoral because it would increase taxes, and use the money to pay for health care. When you read the comments through it became perfectly clear that the libertarians, the Randians, all thought that the problem with health care is the negligence of others.
Another great place to see this utter lack of empathy is http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/ This is great for some things, but when the guy starts in on the health care issue, he goes all Randian. He did a series on SCHIP, and his commenters were unable to see the point that health care insurance for kids meant that they would get paid for services that are either not being provided because the parents can't afford to pay, or were pro bono, or handled through the economically inefficient emergency room.
I think this is a common problem of engineers, not just computer geeks: no sense of the messiness of human life.
-
LEFT, RIGHT UNITE FOR RON PAUL'S NEW AFA BILL
THANK YOU for this article and for helping to inform others about Ron Paul's campaign. An example of how Paul is drawing support from the anti-war, pro-civil liberties left, as well as libertarians and the right, can be found in the enthusiastic reception for his new American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007, introduced in Congress recently. That bill would:
* Restore the right to habeas corpus by repealing the Military Commissions Act;
* Halt warrantless eavesdropping and spying on American citizens by requiring federal intelligence gathering to be conducted in accordance with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA);
* Give Congress the ability to challenge the President's monarchical use of "signing statements" to avoid executing the nation's laws;
* Bar the use of evidence obtained through torture;
* Prohibit torture and arbitrary kidnapping and secret imprisonment;
* Protect the First Amendment rights of journalists who expose wrongdoing by
the Federal government "unless the publication would cause direct, immediate,
and irreparable harm" to national security;
* Prohibit the use of secret evidence to label groups or individuals as terrorists for the purpose of criminal or civil sanctions.
The bill is generating excitement and endorsements from across the political spectrum.
Naomi Wolf said: "There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. ... A groundswell of millions of Americans of all parties rising up to insist on passage of the AFA legislation means that we are awake -- we get it -- and that we assert that an alert citizenry, not a whipped-dog Congress or a violently abusive executive, decides what happens in this nation still. ... I will move heaven and earth to support the passage of this lifesaving agenda."
If Paul's campaign can bring left and right together with libertarians to restore our personal liberties and embrace a foreign policy of peace, then it will be a glorious day for America.