These few posts are more important, but while I’m sitting here watching the Patriots kick the crap out of the Broncos (grr), I might as well.
Right then. I know my political views are hardly popular. And you can blame all the evils of the world on Libertarians (monolith) or, Ayn Rand, pointing only at economics (and very right leaning Lib economics at that)…but let me tell you something.
I’m a libertarian. For a few reasons. One, yeah, me and everyone I know? We fucking work for a living. Nothing, and I mean nothing, has just been handed to me in life. I’ve had a job of some sort or another, from mowing lawns to what I do now, since I was 14. I’m still paying off fucking student loans ffs, because yeah, I had nothing as it were. And no, I’m not against programs designed to help people who need it (image that?) But do I think the fucking war on drugs, or any other war on vice is something my tax dollars (or those of my friends and family) need to be going to? Fuck no. Do I think we should be dumping money into social programs that don’t fucking work or are so outdated, slagged, and ineffectual rather than scrap them and start over? No. Do I think my tax dollars should be wasted on locking up people who have commited non-violent crimes for stupidly long periods of time? No. Do I think my fucking tax dollars should go for making sure violent criminals have cable fucking television in prison? No I don’t. Do I think my tax dollars need to go for a shit ton of crap they go for? No. I don’t. I know a shit load of people who work damn hard for their money, and would like to see more of it. I’m one of them.
Further more, libertarians don’t give a fuck what I do in my bedroom or who I do it with. Nor are they looking to fuck with the way I make my living.
And oddly enough, I know a lot of people like me, so yeah, don’t party too hard at the wake yet.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Great post. This is a good description of where I am on that spectrum.
It's much easier to be a fiscal liberal if you haven't had the experience of being completely on your own financially as a teenager, or in massive debt with not only no relatives to help, but with relatives who need help. (Not to say that there are no folks with these experiences who are fiscally liberal).
So then, you get to a place after five or six unsuccessful takes where you are earning good money, only guess what, the net worth still sucks. "Wealth" still evades you. But somehow, it's been decided that you're rich and privileged because of income level, and so even if you're giving away a higher percentage of your income to the needy than the politicians who want more of it, tough shit. And even if you're paying a four-times-higher (and the politicians say it should be five or six) tax percentage than your non-working friends who have more in the bank because of well-off parents, tough shit.
I think many socially liberal libertarians believe wholeheartedly in what you term "programs designed to help people who need it." Are the social gains from the government doing that via a heavily progressive tax greater than the gains to individuals of all backgrounds from a moderately progressive tax targeted to help those who need it, plus entrepreneurial incentives? I don't think those who hope to attend that wake know the answer.
You know, I'm sure someone will want to shoot me for this, but I think Ayn Rand is really interesting, and worth reading and thinking about. And I'm a big ol' leftist in a whole bunch of ways, thanks.
I also think that most Objectivists are about as intelligent as tapioca, though, so take that as you will.
And that Rand's own personal yen for sexual submission is kind of... irksome, because it's the same old "no women can be tops" all over again, except that now it's "Rape me, Howard Roark."
But as far as what she meant? Yeah, I think it's worth hearing and considering, though I do believe it should ultimately be rejected.
Hey hey. Here's my possibly irrelevant 2c: bear in mind that I don't actually have a clue what "Libertarian" actually means and can't be bothered researching it. I live in New Zealand, we have Labour and National rather than Democrat and Republican.
We have socialised medicine, a prison system pretty much the opposite to yours in that I honestly think our sentences are often too light and I'm anti punishment as a system of social reform, we have a pathetically small military, good unemployment/sickness benefits, prostitution is not illegal and we don't have a "war on drugs" (though some people want us to...).
BUT anyway I do not believe in tax cuts. Really? While you're (general populace of NZ here) bitching about crap public transport and hospital waiting lists you still somehow want tax cuts? Is it worth that $50/month? :|
Taxes being used responsibly? HELL yes and I want more transparency. Rearranging the tax structure so people earning $60k don't pay almost as much (%) as people earning $200k? Uh, yes please. I've never understood percentages going up with income anyway, isn't that why it's a percentage? I mean sure if you're earning fuck all it should be lower but otherwise: huh?
That was all. Oh and I'm Dana I just joined the Google thingy so I could post on soyouthoughtIwassweet. :)
AGREED.
There's nothing else to say apart from AGREED. Or WORD. Or something else of that nature.
fenriswolf: "I've never understood percentages going up with income anyway, isn't that why it's a percentage? I mean sure if you're earning fuck all it should be lower but otherwise: huh?"
Word.
Fenriswolf, Octogalore - taxing high earners at greater rates than middle earners makes good economic sense because the middle earners are more likely to spend the money. Give high earners a tax break, and they'll just put it in the bank because they have enough already. Give middle earners a tax break, and they quickly run out and replace an ailing car, or buy something that their family really wanted or needed but couldn't stretch to before - putting the money straight back into the economy.
Trin, check out Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's books (they both wrote their OWN accounts) of Ayn Rand's life. She was fascinating. But it should be remembered that she was socially formed as a Jew in the Soviet Union and what that very harsh, impersonal experience was like. People in the modern USA often don't get it.
Interesting post, Octo, now start blogging again, okay!?
Ren, I love the common sense attitude the libertarians have, but many here in the south lean to the right and do not count abortion rights in their libertarianism, which I think is odd. (Most DO count drugs, porn and guns) For instance, candidate Ron Paul did not...
ooh, and I just read this...now, I'm sure the headline numbers are all smoke, and because there's never been a Libertarian presidency there's no telling how a truly Libertarian economic policy would compare to a Democratic one, but there is good evidence that Democratic economic leadership trumps Republican economic leadership. Maybe because the Republican's most treasured economic plan is Socialism For The Rich.
Have you noticed how bizarre it is that the Lib candidate for president this year -- Bob Barr -- DOES care about what happens in your bedroom and womb and seems so seriously opposing to the party platform? Haven't yet figured out what the deal is with that.
Sounds like I might need to post on this. The flaw in the argument, actually, is that they assume that by "Small Government" people think Libertarians mean "No Government". Um...No. That's the view of the Anarchists.
In my opinion the failure in the system can be laid square and feet of Barney Frank. He's the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, the part of the government directly responsible for the oversight of the credit industry.
The failures were not in the deregulation but in the lack of oversight.
Anonymous; Barr is not all libertarians, and not liked by many, there ARE reasons many of us are voting for Obama or McCain.
Yeah! What ya'll said!
And oddly enough, I know a lot of people like me, so yeah, don't party too hard at the wake yet.
Heh.
Also, what Octo said.
I'm not a Libertarian, but I know a lot of my views aren't exactly popular in certain segments of the feminist blogosphere either. All the "you've gotta be anti-capitalist," like that's the only way to be, pisses me off and strikes of 1) a certain nasty flavor of The P-word (yes, privilege!!) and 2) projection.
Yes, I know what it's like to feel pissed off at people who appear more financially well-off than you are. BELIEVE ME, I KNOW. But I also know that the anger and assumptions I often made about them were completely unfair and came from a place of my own insecurity, and anger at A SYSTEM, manifested as anger at A PERSON. This is why I HATE HATE HATE when people make assumptions about "so and so is well-off" or "so and so lives a comfortable middle class existence" when in reality they NO NOTHING ABOUT THEM.
See, this is making me use all caps!
Ren, I love the common sense attitude the libertarians have, but many here in the south lean to the right and do not count abortion rights in their libertarianism, which I think is odd. (Most DO count drugs, porn and guns)
Most of the Libertarians I know (who are involved w/ the Libertarian Party of Georgia) do support abortion rights, as long as the state does not have to pay for it.
This is one of the many problems I have with Libertarians, but that's another story.
I went to a breakfast meet-and-greet thing the Libertarian Party of Georgia recently had for bloggers, where there were several candidates present (including those running for PSC, which is actually a very important office but no one [including me, until recently] knows WTF they do). On some issues I felt like raising my fist in solidarity with them - e.g., consumer rights - but then they would veer toward (from my perspective) "crazy" territory - e.g., abolishing the department of education - and I just couldn't take them seriously.
Howdy. Amber left a trail of bread crumbs that I followed.
I'm a small l libertarian who has voted big L in many elections.
The primary principle of libertarianism is the "harm principle". Essentially it means as long as I'm not harming another person the government shouldn't restrict what I'm doing.
That may sound like common sense with private consensual acts but the difference is libertarians apply it across the board including fiscal areas where the reasoning can get a little strange.
But one crucial factor as Ren pointed out is Libertarians (just like Republicans and Democrats)cover a wide spectrum of beliefs of how the core principle should be applied.
Some lean more towards the social issues. Some lean more towards the fiscal issues. Some are hardcore idealogues (i.e. the ones who trend towards anarchists) and some are what I call the realistic libertarians (i.e. those who want the smallest government possible but understand why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a pretty good idea).
There's room for many ideas and the arguments are always fun.
P.S. I find that most who worship (politically) at the altar of Ayn Rand to be Republicans who want to sound cool by calling themselves Libertarians.
"those who want the smallest government possible but understand why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a pretty good idea"
exactly
I think one of the reasons so many people react viscerally to the word "libertarian" is that the word is pretty much linked to Randians here.
What you're describing Ren doesn't sound much like that.
Trinity, I am currently reading The Fountainhead to see if the original sources are interesting. So far, it's painfully bad writing. Maybe I should just go to something that is just her philosophy.
Octagalore, I'd love to see a wealth tax instead of an income tax, I'm just not sure how to implement one. At least income is (mostly) trackable.
Thene: "Fenriswolf, Octogalore - taxing high earners at greater rates than middle earners makes good economic sense because the middle earners are more likely to spend the money. Give high earners a tax break, and they'll just put it in the bank because they have enough already. Give middle earners a tax break, and they quickly run out and replace an ailing car, or buy something that their family really wanted or needed but couldn't stretch to before - putting the money straight back into the economy."
I completely disagree.
1) A straight percentage doesn't have to hurt the middle.
2) Why do you assume high earners have a lot in the bank? Income doesn't necessarily mean wealth. The income of small businesspeople (from whom derive 2/3 of the jobs in this country) often gets plowed back into the company (which is good for the economy), into expansion (which is good for jobs) or into enhanced employee salaries. And, the employees often ARE the little guy/gal -- whose jobs get cut when the employer's taxes rise.
2) what exactly do you think "put it in the bank" means? If you mean: invest it in Apple, Google, Clean Tech, American companies -- that kind of bank? You don't think that's good for the economy?
3) When you tax cigarettes, one result is to disincentivize smoking. When you tax productivity, what do you think you are disincentivizing?
4) Do you think small businesses making under 250K (which is four employees making 40-50K with modest profit on top of that) create as many jobs as small business making over that?
Thene: don't assume fiscal conservatives want different things from what you want. We just disagree about the means. And I know we can both find gold plated economists to bolster our respective positions (I think I can find more on my side, of course). So, allow me to disagree that things are quite so simple as what you've laid out.
Income doesn't necessarily mean wealth.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Really, I don't think this can be said enough.
It just IRRITATES me. Someone's gross income doesn't tell the whole story, by a longshot. What if they have a ton of debt from putting themselves through school? What if most of their income goes toward taking care of a sick parent or child who needs medication, medical devices, nursing care, etc.? At the same time, the "artist" who makes (based on their W2, anyway) $20k a year might be living off inheritance or a trust fund, or mom and dad's money in some other way. My point is, you just never know, and it's not okay to assume.
@ Amber: "At the same time, the "artist" who makes (based on their W2, anyway) $20k a year might be living off inheritance or a trust fund, or mom and dad's money in some other way."
Good point. I do believe Warren Buffett's granddaughter falls in this category. Though she and his other descendants aren't in his Will (or something like that) I think they all have sizable trust funds of sorts. Anyway, she's not the typical 'starving artist'.
Well..being a working class Black man, I tend to see Libertarianism with a totally different perspective.
There is a lot about the social side of libertarianism that I can support: the idea of people being mostly left to themselves to make up their own decisions; the freedom to do mostly what they wish with their own bodies; the notion of live and let live and accept the diversity of others....in the way that libertarianism supports what some would call classic social liberalism, then I am in total agreement.
Unfortunately, it's the more economically conservative part of "libertarianism" that ultimately drives me up the wall and ultimately leads me to reject it personally. In my view, libertarianism ultimately dissolves into an "I've got mine, Jack, and screw you" mentality that tends to defend massive social and political inequality. It's so much easier to be a libertarian if you have the resources to live your life to the fullest; and it's much easier to resort to right-wing defenses of inequality against those who may not have what you have.
Thusly, I'm not so surprised that you find most libertarians to have kind of a bipolar attitude regarding freedom; "I'm all for everyone doing what they wish, as long as it doesn't take away my economic privilege." Once a real threat comes to challenge that assumed privilege, however, that socially "liberal" libertarian can become as brutal and aggressive in using the state to put down his challengers as any more conventional conservative or right-winger.
As for Octogalore's point about many socially liberal libertarians favoring some form of government programs: well, I would say that most of the folk who call themselves libertarians would probably not go that far; even the most moderate means of redistribution of wealth would be attacked as too "socialistic" and opposed to the "silent hand" of the "free market".
This isn't to say that being rich is innately the equivalent of being right-wing, or that all who happen to be libertarians are simply privileged buttholes just wanting to justify their profits. I just happen to believe that only an affirmative government presence can effectively counterbalances the role of private power, big business, and the traditional institutions of power, held accountable to the people through a vigorous popular democratic process and the usual checks and balances.
And in some limited cases, such as in the role of health care or infrastructure or education, the basic concept of equality simply cannot be achieved through only a privately-owned, just-for-profit system; in that case, it may be better to have a publically run but democratically accountable, system that distributes resources according to need rather than profit.
So...I guess that that makes me a "libertarian socialist", ehhh?? Maybe an oxymoron....but it's MY oxymoron.
Anthony
Now...I should say that for all that I say about libertarianism, I do tend to be a staunch critic of capitalism in that I don't feel that it allows for the equitable distribution of wealth and resources in a just manner.
Nothing against business owners or rich people per se, but I do think that a lot of our social issues could be resolved if people had a bit more financial and social resources to allow for greater autonomy of self.
That can only come through affirmative government regulation, if not some degree of government control, rather than relying on the faith of the "free market". (Institutions such as trade guilds and unions also matter greatly, too...but even they could use the support of the state to provide them with the fraction of power that business has to begin with.)
So...you can see why, all respect to Ren and the like for being such an independent badass due, why I'm not quite yet ready to don the Libertarian label.
Give me a million dollar salary, though, and I might be willing to think it differently. ;-)
Anthony
There are things that I think government, even a Libertarian government should be responsible for, IE National Defense. This is because it is either in the constitution or we as a society have said, "this is something we want our state government to handle" IE schools. We need cops, because who else is going to make sure someone else isn't all up in my biz? We decided that the government should create and take care of the roads.
I think there are some things that we should change. I'd like to see some constitutional amendments on some things. The Army for example, is not technically covered under our current constitution. Any entitlement program we want to keep, put it in the constitution. It would make it a lot harder for congress to screw with.
Unfortunately, our federal government found it was easier to screw with crap if it isn't in the constitution.
Some other notes:
Bob Barr's nomination was a travesty foisted onto the party by National Committee in Washington where they've become part of the problem. They're just as much of the system now as the Republicans and Democrats.
Question for Amber: Why should I have to pay for *ANYONE'S* elective medical procedure, be it an abortion or a gastric bypass?
Question for AK: Why should it be the government's decision not only to decide who to give money to, but who to take it from and how much? I'm am not saying, I've got mine and screw you. I think left alone, wealth redistribution happens naturally.
Andrew Carnegie gave us nearly 2000 public accessible libraries with his wealth. I think people today tend to take them too much for granted. Carnegie believed in giving to the "industrious and ambitious; not those who need everything done for them, but those who, being most anxious and able to help themselves, deserve and will be benefited by help from others."
I think this is the best form of Philanthropy. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an excellent modern example.
Why would the government do any of this better?
DJ: I'm wary of the term "elective procedure" and I'm *really* wary of questions phrased the way you phrased yours. That is the type of Libertarianism I want nothing to do with. I am interested in social libertarianism (small l, note!), the type that puts consumer rights at the forefront and keeps big business in check (e.g., corporations should not be treated the same as people).
Basically, I've voted Democrat all my life and will continue to do so - except I did vote for a Libertarian in the local PSC race, because he was running against a Republican and I met him at a "bloggers' breakfast" and he didn't seem crazy. But I'll never get behind the libertarians that lean toward "I'll go live in a shack in the woods and build up my personal arms stash." We live in a SOCIETY. That means we all contribute toward paying for things that we ALL benefit from. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc.
Anthony: again, "rich" is a reductive term that removes all nuance and complexity. One can never know another's situation, and as I said, income does not tell the entire story. To make assumptions based on income alone appears quite nasty, prejudiced, and narrow-minded to me.
Amber: I understand my question sounded leading, but I also think you misunderstand my stance. I also believe that we live in a society, and that as a society we have decided we need our government to do things. I think where I lost you is where I think that government control needs to reside.
What I believe to be the efficient and most effective government needs to be as local to its constituents as possible. That means I think that if we as a society decide we need our government to do something, it should be at the city, county or state level at most.
It seems to me any time the federal government decides we need a new program it gets misused. I'm not saying there aren't some programs that aren't best handled at the federal level like things involving standards, general puropse oversight or interstate law enforcement (FCC, FDA, FBI, etc.) but when it involves something that effects folks on a personal level the closer you put that oversite to where the person that needs it lives, the less likely it's going to get abused.
At no time did I say cooperations should be treated the same as people. Just as I believe that pure Socialism in practice would be a flawed system, so do I think pure Capitalism, left unchecked is just as dangerous.
Gordon Gekko is not someone you want to leave alone with Wall St. (Sorry E, but it's true.)
Back to my question. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have government provided health care. I think the question is, what kind and who should oversee it. I believe it needs be as local as reasonable. I also think it doesn't need to be the Cadillac of health plans either. My question to you was more of how much "coverage" do you think you are "entitled" too.
Because here's the thing, my ex-wife works for the state. I've been covered by that "Cadillac" of a health plan. It was sweet, but when push came to shove, there was no way I wanted to pay for it after the divorce. If we start offering that plan to everyone in the state, if I couldn't afford to cover myself, how in the hell can I afford the taxes to cover everyone?
Even at the state level things tend to get abused. I live in Oregon, where we have a state wide health plan. It's is by no means perfect, and I think, personally, it needs better oversight. The problem is that politicians at just about every level seem to think that the answer to any problem is to throw money at it rather than figure out how to make something more efficient.
I think we'd find that most people would believe that we all need access to basic health care. I think the argument starts when we try to define what basic health care is and the best way to pay for it.
Well from a purely pragmatic sense, would you rather pay for an abortion or 18 years of welfare checks?
I'd rather the child be put up for adoption.
Let's try to avoid turning this into a discussion about abortion. I thought we were discussing our views on libertarian ideas.
Actually, I really don't feel like "discussing [my] views on libertarian ideas." There are other things I'd rather focus my time and energy on. As for putting the child up for adoption well that's a nice wish, but that doesn't make it a reality.
Post a Comment