From The Boston Review: ‘Libertarianism And Liberty: How Not To Argue For Limited Government And Lower Taxes’

November 14, 2011November 24, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Worth a read. Some commenters take our author, T. M. Scanlon, to task for not getting Hayek quite right.

Apart from the piece, it’s interesting that many folks feel that they have to defend big State liberalism and certain more positive definitions of liberty against libertarian thinkers at the moment. Most libertarians have trouble with liberal definitions of liberty and the Statism that results (liberaltarians like Will Wilkinson likely have less, though still some trouble with them). Yet, conservatives (especially religious conservatives) are having less trouble with libertarians at the moment (will they dump libertarians first chance they get if they win back the White House…do libertarians have it right when they argue that both parties are tied to a big-State machine that imposes upon the individual’s liberty?). If I recall correctly, Hayek was responding to conditions on the ground in Austria (where the socialists were the last line of liberty defense against fascism…and Austria and the Continent sunk again into war).

Often John Locke’s adaptation to Enlightenment developments is a welcome retreat, where life, liberty and property are secured by government, and much else is not. Yet the dangerous impulses of religious believers must also be overcome: Here’s a Locke quote from a previous post:

“7. What is meant by enthusiasm. This I take to be properly enthusiasm, which, though founded neither on reason nor divine revelation, but rising from the conceits of a warmed or overweening brain, works yet, where it once gets footing, more powerfully on the persuasions and actions of men than either of those two, or both together: men being most forwardly obedient to the impulses they receive from themselves; and the whole man is sure to act more vigorously where the whole man is carried by a natural motion. For strong conceit, like a new principle, carries all easily with it, when got above common sense, and freed from all restraint of reason and check of reflection, it is heightened into a divine authority, in concurrence with our own temper and inclination.”

Addition: As a reader points out, this is a state of mind not confined to religious belief, and which many groups, organizations and others, including religious ones will take advantage of to strengthen the group.

Robert Nozick merged elements of Kant and Locke into a strong, libertarian defense of the individual, and also responded to Rawls distributive justice: From Slate: ‘The Liberty Scam-Why Even Robert Nozick, The Philosophical Father Of Libertarianism, Gave Up On The Movement He Inspired.’…new liberty away from Hobbes?: From Public Reason: A Discussion Of Gerald Gaus’s Book ‘The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom And Morality In A Diverse And Bounded World’…

Can Kant do all that heavy lifting…what are some of the dangers of Kantian reason?: From Bryan Magee’s Talking Philosophy On Youtube: Geoffrey Warnock On Kant…A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty” …

Noam Chomsky also shares a view that the individual ought to be free to enter into voluntary cooperative action (community councils or faculties in universities), but believes that to be achieved by perhaps only anarchy (where he retreats) or anarcho syndicalism, or libertarian socialism. I don’t find anarchy to be tenable in protecting individual liberty. Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of Knowledge.

How does Natural Law Philosophy deal with these problems, and those of knowledge?

From Foreign Affairs: ‘Why Obama Should Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Program’

November 13, 2011November 14, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

An analysis of where Iran has been heading for the last few years…and to some extent, where the U.S may be heading as regards Iran?:

‘The closer Iran gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the fewer options will be available to stop its progress. At the same time, Iran’s incentives to back down will only decrease as it approaches the nuclear threshold. Given these trends, the United States faces the difficult decision of using military force soon to prevent Iran from going nuclear, or living with a nuclear Iran and the regional fallout’

Some of the logic is inherent in the situation, but I’m still skeptical of the idea (isolationism is strong at the moment) that we should involve our military for years to come and in unforeseen ways (we’re doing so now according to universalist, humanitarian principles ((addition: In Libya and Uganda))). We have been hoping that the current regime would fail from within.

Victor Davis Hanson says that Obama will have real incentive to take action given the dismal state of the economy and his record (many Republicans will approve and Democrats are in disarray). Is that too partisan or simply cool analysis?

What about WMD? Are the costs of military action now worth the potential risks down the road?

Repost-A Few Quotations: Leo Strauss On John Locke

November 12, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

A quick quotation. Leo Strauss On John Locke:

‘Hobbes identified the rational life with the life dominated by the fear of fear, by the fear which relieves us from fear. Moved by the same spirit, Locke identifies the rational life with the life dominated by the pain which relieves pain. Labor takes the place of the art which imitates nature; for labor is, in the words of Hegel, a negative attitude toward nature. The starting point of human efforts is misery: the state of nature is a state of wretchedness. The way toward happiness is a movement away from the state of nature, a movement away from nature: the negation of nature is the way toward happiness. And if the movement toward happiness is the actuality of freedom, freedom is negativity .’

Strauss, Leo. Natural Right And History. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1965. (Pg 250).

According to Strauss, the rational life for an individual, from Hobbes to Locke, is defined negatively, respectively as either a removal from fear or a removal from pain. And more broadly: Strauss has Locke remaking Hobbes’ more intrusive Leviathan into a smaller role for government: to secure them in their lives, liberty and estate (property). The key formulation of nature here, though, remains the same.

The Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy elaborates:

‘Leo Strauss, and many of his followers, take rights to be paramount, going so far as to portray Locke’s position as essentially similar to that of Hobbes. They point out that Locke defended a hedonist theory of human motivation (Essay 2.20) and claim that he must agree with Hobbes about the essentially self-interested nature of human beings. Locke, they claim, only recognizes natural law obligations in those situations where our own preservation is not in conflict, further emphasizing that our right to preserve ourselves trumps any duties we may have.

On the other end of the spectrum, more scholars have adopted the view of Dunn, Tully, and Ashcraft that it is natural law, not natural rights, that is primary. They hold that when Locke emphasized the right to life, liberty, and property he was primarily making a point about the duties we have toward other people: duties not to kill, enslave, or steal. Most scholars also argue that Locke recognized a general duty to assist with the preservation of mankind, including a duty of charity to those who have no other way to procure their subsistence (Two Treatises 1.42). These scholars regard duties as primary in Locke because rights exist to insure that we are able to fulfill our duties.’

And of course, there’s this problem:

‘Another point of contestation has to do with the extent to which Locke thought natural law could, in fact, be known by reason.’

So what does Strauss offer instead as a possibility for man and nature? Nature revealing itself to man without the use of his reason…or through his reason without a lot of Enlightenment metaphysics? Or through some return to Natural Right, or Platonic metaphysics? Through divine intervention or some unknown source? He’s a fine corrective against those (and they are many) who seek to use reason to institute secular authority, but where does his thinking lead as a positive doctrine?

Any thoughts and comments are welcome. Here’s another quote:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

From the Declaration Of Independence.

Addition: Link sent by a reader.

Also On This Site: Getting a better hold on Strauss. See the comments: Harry Jaffa At The Claremont Institute: ‘Leo Strauss, the Bible, and Political Philosophy’…Some Tuesday Quotations From Leo Strauss…From Peter Berkowitz At Harvard: ‘The Reason Of Revelation: The Jewish Thought Of Leo Strauss’…

Can Kant do all that heavy lifting…what are some of the dangers of Enlightenment project?: From Bryan Magee’s Talking Philosophy On Youtube: Geoffrey Warnock On Kant…A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty” …

Hilary Putnam On The Philosophy Of Science: Bryan Magee’s Talking Philosophy On YouTube

Veterans Day

November 11, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Thank you to all the servicemen, for what you have done and continue to do, for the rest of us and our freedoms.

From Grantland Via From Burke To Kirk And Beyond: ‘Growing Up Penn State’

November 11, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

As a Penn State alum, there doesn’t seem to be too much to say about these events. May the victims find relief from such injustice.

Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution Journal: ‘Three Cheers for Income Inequality’

November 8, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full piece here.

Epstein follows up on his 60 minutes interview:

“The clarion call for more income equality puts short-term transfers ahead of long-term growth. Notwithstanding the temper of the times, that siren call should be stoutly resisted. Enterprise and growth, not envy and stagnation, are the keys to economic revival”

As posted previously, a reader sent in two quotes from Henry Hazlitt, libertarian economist:

“The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”

and

“The first requisite of a sound monetary system is that it put the least possible power over the quantity or quality of money in the hands of the politicians.”

From The New England Journal Of Medicine Via CATO: ‘The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate’

November 7, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full video here. (~15:00 min)

Jack Balkin and Ilya Somin debate aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

Joel Kotkin Via Youtube: ‘Illinois Is In A Competition’

November 6, 2011November 6, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

As Kotkin highlights, there’s the service economy, and then there’s the high-end economy they’re serving, with less and less in-between. More taxation is an attractive option and the path of least resistance for many city politicians. He argues that working and/or middle management and/or middle income jobs are hard to find, and especially hard to find outside of public service and government. Once that economy goes away, so goes the heart and soul of your city (see Detroit). He argues that Chicago has got to get competitive for business again.

I suspect many libertarians and conservatives will argue that the liberal focus on the arts, culture, equality, education under the banner of rights-based liberty is being done post-mortem in many cases. It won’t bring back the jobs and opportunity that made the city hum, and beneath those liberal ideals, where the sausage is made, are politicians fighting for less and less pie, voting for higher property taxes, cronyism, unions, and union protectionism etc. Like New York nearly did in the 70’s, or like Harrisburg did recently, borrowing itself into bankruptcy, cities can end up in tough times. The liberal/progressive model doesn’t help.

The city that gave us the Chicago School is facing some real challenges as is most of the rust belt.

Of course, I think it’s fair to say that not everyone has the analytical/quantitative reasoning ability and corresponding education to succeed in the developing tech marketplace and explosion of biotech and the sciences either, even if the U.S. educational system is able to re-prioritize away from its old ways (both ideological and practical) and make us more competitive again.

Walter Russell Mead takes a look at the blue model from the ground up in NYC.

Related On This Site: The current administration can’t seem to imagine a problem that doesn’t involve a government solution: How Would Obama Respond To Milton Friedman’s Four Ways To Spend Money?…From Bloomberg.Com: Nancy Pelosi Says “Bankruptcy Is Not An Option”

Milton Friedman Via Youtube: ‘Responsibility To The Poor’…A Few Thoughts On Walter Russell Mead At The American Interest: “Why Blue Can’t Save The Inner Cities Part I”

How to end up in a conservative position Repost-Two Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’…when there is socialism vs authoritarianism and fascism all around you:A Few Quotations From F.A. Hayek’s: ‘Why I Am Not A Conservative’

Cities should be magnets for creativity and culture? –From The Atlantic: Richard Florida On The Decline Of The Blue-Collar Man…From Grist.Org Via The New Republic Via The A & L Daily: ‘Getting Past “Ruin Porn” In Detroit’…

From Foreign Affairs: ‘The Problem With Obama’s Decision To Leave Iraq’

November 5, 2011November 5, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

‘The ostensible reason for America’s withdrawal is that the two sides could not agree on the legal terms for an ongoing U.S. military presence — specifically, whether American troops would be subject to local laws. Indeed, Obama was right to make immunity for U.S. troops a deal-breaker. Yet this impasse was probably surmountable.’

Possibly, but it would have been a lot of work, and Obama would have had to break his campaign promise. He’s a politician, after all. Iran looms large, however, and many, many problems remain. Republicans haven’t been making a lot of good noise about foreign policy.

There’s this quoted statement from Obama’s speech on the White House Blog:

‘The United States is moving forward, from a position of strength. The long war in Iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. The transition in Afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home. As they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world. And as we welcome home our newest veterans, we’ll never stop working to give them and their families the care, the benefits, and the opportunities that they have earned.’

I give Obama credit for sticking to his plan, though it may have brokered away some other positions of strength. It’s been a long road and a difficult position to inherit. Politically, he clearly needs to appeal to any center he can, the troops, and of course, try to expand his base which seems to be anyone expecting the government to be an intermediary in most aspects of American life (though perhaps necessary in the case of the VA and benefits to soldiers). One of his best bumps occurred after taking out Bin Laden.

On this view, America would need to leverage the support of the people of the Middle East toward some shared ideals of freedom against the Al Assads, Gadhafis, and Mubaraks as well as other assorted nationalist autocrats of the region. As for the ideals, in Western circles they are often humanitarian, human rights based, Left democratic including the Anne Marie Slaughter vision…and for Obama perhaps some liberation theology thrown in…out with Churchill, in with MLK).

Of course, in the Middle-East this may all mean something quite different.

Feel free to highlight my ignorance.

From Reason’s Hit And Run Blog: ‘It’s Everybody Bomb Anybody Who Draws Mohammed Day in France!’

November 2, 2011November 2, 2011 / chr1 / Leave a comment

Full post here.

Not good news:

‘Reuters reports that a French publication has been bombed (and its website hacked) after it ran an issue that had been “guest-edited” by the prophet Mohammed.’

European leftists try and include Muslims and immigrants into their definition of liberty…to an extent (no wearing full burkas in the public square). But some Muslims brook no violation of their holy laws.

Of course liberty French leftism can lead to strange political bedfellows (socialists and Islamic absolutists under the banner of relativism).

Less strong economies, old hierarchies and anarchies, and European societies in which national identity and racial identity are more closely aligned (not just on the hard resurgent right) can lend to more immigration problems. That inclusive banner of French liberte has limits, and perhaps a sharp edge.

Addition: The American model of greater economic freedom and religious tolerance (resisting the Liberal urge not just to keep religion in the private sphere but to use the law to root out discrimination) may still work better to include immigrants, but there are still a few Muslims here willing to kill and spread terror. This a a longer term problem.

Related On This Site: Well, Henri-Levy has helped the cause of liberty, but to what effect…the West is still waiting to see: Bernhard Henri-Levy At The Daily Beast: ‘A Moral Tipping Point’…are we back to a clash of civilizations…or are there are other options: From The Atlantic: Samuel Huntington’s Death And Life’s Work

For anyone, but especially Leftists and recovering Leftists, it takes moral courage to stand up to the messianism, Islamic moral absolutism, and dark theocratic tendencies of the Middle East…liberty is key as well as moral responsibility to think in terms of the legitimacy of rule here at home: …From Beautiful Horizons: ‘Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan at the 92nd Street Y’…Via YouTube: ‘Christopher Hitchens Vs. Ahmed Younis On CNN (2005)’…From Michael Totten: ‘An Interview With Christopher Hitchens’

‘Mohammad Cartoonist Lars Vilks Headbutted During Lecture’……From The OC Jewish Experience: ‘UC Irvine Muslim Student Union Suspended’…From Volokh: ‘”South Park” Creators Warned (Threatened) Over Mohammed’

What kind of threats to free speech do the justice and rights crowd pose?: Repost-A Canadian Libertarian Making Noise: Ezra Levant

Do we try and invest in global institutions as flawed as they are…upon a Kantian raft?: Daniel Deudney On YouTube Responding to Robert Kagan: Liberal Democracy Vs. Autocracy

A British Muslim tells his story, suggesting that classical liberalism wouldn’t be a bad idea: From Kenanmalik.com: ‘Introduction: How Salman Rushdie Changed My Life’