No Country For Liber-tari-ans And Nobody’s Business But The Turks? Some Links

From Middle-East Perspectives: ‘What Are Erdogan’s Intentions After The Fall Of Afrin?

‘That said, it is interesting that Erdoğan keeps using the term “Ottoman” in much of his rhetoric – for decades the Turks have avoided the term, claiming that atrocities such as the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides were not done by Turks, but the Ottomans. It appears now that is a distinction without a difference. His displays of the 1920 “national oath” map are not accidental – it is there for a reason.’

Sorry for the title, but I’m still thinking the resurgent Islamism and authoritarian populism of Erdogan, combined with the fires burning across the Middle-East, along with the revanchism of Putin’s Russia, and the relative weakness of European leadership, bears watching.  It’s got me worried.

Via Stratfor via Twitter:


Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic: ”A Dissent Concerning Kevin Williamson

Written from inside the publication:

‘Individuals participating in the public sphere, and publications that aspire to cultivate a broad civic dialogue, ought never slip into indifference to injustice or abandon moral judgments. But neither should they mistake tolerance for moral collapse. Much can be worked out by objecting to the objectionable in ways that do not foreclose the possibility of all cooperation. As citizens, if not as employees of any particular company, we are inescapably bound. And it is incumbent on all of us, even in our inevitable moments of pained outrage, to model how to work together.’

When you write for money, you have to make some compromises on principle; you’re part of an organization.  You’ll have to plug other people’s work and placate the financial interests and readers of the magazine.  More broadly, all of us are, subtly, and often imperceptibly, influenced by the people and environments through which we move.

My two cents regarding the fracturing of the political Left: The Atlantic, The NY Times, The New Yorker etc. have long published and endorsed various forms of progressive and radical politics, especially since the 60’s.  Such politics traditionally came packaged with a commitment to the arts, the avant-garde, dissenting voices, liberal and sometimes even conservative establishmentarianism.  In the past, there was more of a functioning establishment to react against.

As I see the world, pegging highest ideals and deepest moral thinking to Civil Rights activism, social justice, and various reactionary and collectivist political movements has caught up with these publications.  There’s always someone more pure.

Just as there is a fractured and frustrated conservative movement and Republican party, there is a fractured liberal and activist Left and Democrat party.  The Atlantic is plugged into much of that populist Left sentiment (irrationally anti-Trump).

Don’t be surprised when it happens: Many individuals on the Left will continue to subsume their own experiences into group identity, feeling perfectly righteous and justified as part of a mob swarming dissenters on the path to the better, or perhaps, the perfect world to come (speaking and acting for what they believe to be ALL women and minorities within group indentity and endless protest).

Kevin Williamson, and for that matter, Fridersdorf if he’s not careful, can easily become dissenters.

Heretics, even.

Via The Future Of Capitalism: ‘The Politics Of The New Yorker’

Under A Green Moon-Ira Stoll At The New York Sun: ‘Comma in the New Yorker Opens Up Quite a Vista Of Liberal Parochialism’

From The New Yorker: ‘Writing Powered By Amtrak’

Kevin Williamson At The National Review: ‘Whose Liberalism?’ 

The Personal Ain’t Political-Holding The Line Against Rape Ideologues-Conor Friedersdorf On George Will

 

Old Dreams Die Hard, Comrade

Chavez always had a friend in Sean Penn:

======================

Kevin Williamson at The National Review:

No oil for blood!:

‘Lest anybody feel creeped out by running political errands for a brutal and repressive caudillo, Joseph Kennedy — son of Senator Robert Kennedy — proclaimed that refusing the strongman’s patronage would be “a crime against humanity.” Kennedy was at the time the director of Citizens Energy, which had a contract to help distribute that Venezuelan heating oil — Boss Hugo was a brute, but he understood American politics.
Sometimes radical chic is just radical chic, sometimes a Che shirt is just a Che shirt, and sometimes people are truly finding fascist, totalitarian political ideology worth extolling.
—————–
As previously posted:

Walter Russell Mead: ‘Lefty Meltdown Leads Latin Revival

One more revolution?:

‘Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina are languishing in differing shades of turmoil, steadily losing ground to regional underdogs. The Pacific Alliance, an historic trade agreement between Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Colombia (and coming soon: Costa Rica), has the potential to recolor Latin America’s economic map and introduce some new regional powerhouses to the world stage. As The Atlantic points out, not all the credit goes to the underdogs’

It’s way too early to make those kinds of predictions, mind you, but more trade, market liberalization and neo-liberal strains willing to stand up against further Left strains are good signs.  The Economist had a piece on Argentina’s troubles.

Some light humor:

Michael Moynihan reviewed Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko’ which praised the Cuban Health Care System.

Christopher Hitchens took a helicopter ride with Sean Penn, and that tracksuit-wearing strongman of the people, Hugo Chavez-Hugo Boss:

It’s a long way out of socialist and revolutionary solidarity, which continually occupies the South American mind. One more revolution: Adam Kirsch takes a look at Mario Vargas Llosa. The Dream Of The Peruvian.

How’s that Russian reset going?:

——————

What about value pluralism…positive and negative liberty?: The classical liberal tradition…looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”

Classical Liberalism Via Friesian.Com-’Exchange with Tomaz Castello Branco on John Gray’

The End Of History? –Update And Repost- From YouTube: Leo Strauss On The Meno-More On The Fact/Value Distinction?’

Related On This Site:  What Will De Blasio’s New York Look Like?-Some LinksSandinistas At The NY Times: ‘A Mayoral Hopeful Now, de Blasio Was Once a Young Leftist’Two Links On Diane Ravitch & School Reform

Kevin Williamson At The National Review: ‘Whose Liberalism?’

Link sent-in by a reader:

Original review in The Nation:

‘Before the 1930s, histories of liberalism told a different story. In his excellent Liberalism: The Life of an Idea, the journalist Edmund Fawcett, a former correspondent for The Economist, returns to this earlier telling. For Fawcett, liberalism is, at its simplest, about “improving people’s lives while treating them alike and shielding them from undue power.” To understand its history, “liberty is the wrong place to begin.” Liberalism wasn’t created in the seventeenth century but in the nineteenth, after a trio of revolutions—American, French and industrial—shattered the old order. Liberalism’s first job wasn’t simply to defend private individuals and limit the size of government, but to cope with the rise of capitalism and mass democracy amid the aftershocks of a postrevolutionary world.’

Reducing Locke’s influence thus would serve certain ends:

For Fawcett, all of these solutions count as liberal ones. His book is intended as a defense of liberal values, capaciously defined. The usual cast list of Mill, Tocqueville and Isaiah Berlin is expanded to include unfamiliar philosophers and household-name politicians on both the left and the right who wouldn’t normally make the cut: Roger Nash Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, stands alongside the German progressive Eugen Richter; Margaret Thatcher and Herbert Hoover are squeezed in alongside Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson; Marxist Jean-Paul Sartre rubs shoulders with Milton Friedman and conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott.’

To which Williamson responds:

‘Forrester, a lecturer in the history of political thought at Queen Mary University, London, begins with a strange assertion: that the idea of liberalism as a consent-oriented view rooted in the work of John Locke and based on “toleration, private property, and individualism” is in effect a propaganda coup, “a recent invention. It is, in fact, largely a product of the Cold War. . . . Before the 1930s, histories of liberalism told a different story.”

and:

‘This speaks to an ancient but fundamental disagreement over the nature of human beings and, consequently, over the nature of human society. Conservatives — those who seek to conserve the liberal national order formalized by the founding of the American republic — tend to be oriented toward process, toward a narrow reading not only of Constitution and statute but also of the meaning of rights (negative) and the role of the state (limited); in our view, rights are enjoyed by individuals rather than by collectives, even when those rights are exercised in aggregate. Forrester characterizes this habit as “polar thinking,” and against it opposes what she calls “practical thinking” and “practical compromise.”

The fight for the ‘pragmatic’ and the view from nowhere is always going on. Comments are worth a read.

Related On This Site:  Update And Repost- From YouTube: Leo Strauss On The Meno-More On The Fact/Value Distinction?’ Classical Liberalism Via Friesian.Com-’Exchange with Tomaz Castello Branco on John Gray’

Ed West At The Telegraph: ‘Conservatives, Depressing Everyone Since 500BC’Monday Quotation From Charles Kesler And A Few Thoughts on Conservatism

The classical liberal tradition…looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”… From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’…Looking to supplant religion as moral source for the laws: From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum.…  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

Roger Scruton In The American Spectator: The New Humanism…From Nigel Warburton’s Site: A Definition of Humanism?…

Repost-Two Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

Labor & Time-Kevin Williamson At The National Review: ‘Planes, Trains & The Internet’

Full piece here

Williamson suggests we should look to Helsinki, Finland, at least when it comes to technology and transportation:

‘Notably, the Helsinki model would end some transportation monopolies (the rail service would no longer have a monopoly on ticket sales, for instance) and would rely on competition among private providers to match resources with consumer demand.’

The larger principle he uses to get there:

‘American progressives love railroads and hate cars, and that is not without a political dimension: Railroads tell you where to go, which is very appealing if you see society as one big factory to be subjected to (your) expert management. And that’s really the basic question of liberalism in the better, classical sense of that word: Is the state here to tell you where to go, or is it here to help you get where you are going? And how to get there?

If you believe that you have a right to your own labor, and that your time is your labor, then why would you need a large, unresponsive, oft politicized monopoly deciding how much time you spend in transit now that technology is making other options available?

One appeal of the libertarian argument is simple: Don’t you want to pay less for a ride when you can?

Another appeal is also pretty simple if you believe in the above: Free citizens need to put the moral justification back onto the current laws, political players, and monopolies from time to time, forcing them to justify their involvement in our lives and in the markets. After all, beneath lofty ideals gather real interests seeking to bend the laws towards their own ends, and with a lot of self-interest besides.

Incentives matter, and while I’m guessing safety and public safety guide a lot of moral justification by local governments, and which a lot of citizens generally support, it’s necessary to do some house-cleaning now and again.

Airlines are partially de-regulated as Williamson points out (more responsive to consumer demand these days, so flying is much cheaper and more accessible and thus probably more like taking a Greyhound), but not all the way de-regulated.  Yet, where is the money going again exactly?  Who’s doing what and how much are they getting paid? Aren’t these regulations creating dead zones where technological innovation lags?

————————–

On that note, one of the main arguments behind the push to pass Obamacare was the idea that you don’t own a right to your own labor nor time enough to prevent the socialization of that labor when it comes to health-care:  It’s no mere commodity nor economic exchange. You will have a tax/penalty levied and part of your tax dollars will now go to a centralized, redistributionist, oft politicized set of experts and enforcers promising to make sure everyone gets health-care on some level (ignoring many of the structural problems at the VA and various other incentives that prevent responsiveness at other bureaucracies).

Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t exactly worked as advertised so far, with a lot more bumpy road likely to come.

The Scandinavian welfare-state was held-up as a model by many progressives for Obamacare, so Williamson does try and justify his use of Helsinki as a model for deregulation here in the U.S.:

‘Imagine trying to implement such a thing in New York City or California — imagine the union friction alone — and you’ll have a pretty good indicator of why European-style policies are unlikely to produce European-style results in the United States. It is not as though Helsinki is a free-market, limited-government utopia — far from it. But on the liberty–statism spectrum, it matters not only where you are but in which direction you are moving — and why.’

Intentions matter as much as actions?

On the statism/liberty axis, I’m guessing many progressives believe that we need more Statism in order to secure more liberty, but from the libertarian perspective, such a definition of liberty is so utopian and idealistic/ideological that it can never be reached, only promised and over-promised. Many progressives also likely believe their intentions are pure enough for government work and during the last two Presidential elections, it seems a fair number of Americans agreed with them for a time.

From PolicyMic: ‘This is What Budget Cuts Have Done to Detroit … And It’s Freaking Awesome’

Full piece here.

More on the failures of Detroit, and the impending bankruptcy of other municipalities across the country.

That title is a nod to Kevin Williamson, at the National Review, and his new book:  ‘The End Is Near, And It’s Going to Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave American Richer, Happier, and More Secure.’

The old Nozickian “night-watchman” State argument resurfaces, or so minimal a State that even law courts and law enforcement are handled privately:

‘The heroic Brown and TMC are a great example of how the market and civil society can and do provide services traditionally associated with the state far better, cheaper and more in tune to people’s wants and needs. I have always believed policing, protection and security are far too important to be run by the state — especially in age of militarized Stormtroopers — and Brown is helping show why.’

A kind of land-based seasteading experiment?  Libertarian utopia, or a voluntarily-chosen, bottom-up type of cooperation in the wake of Detroit’s failure?  A mini-New Hampshire?

As an economist, David Friedman has explored the idea of what transferring functions of the State to private agencies might look like.  In the video he presents an outline of his thinking about what would happen if the legislature, the courts, and the police (drafting, legislating, passing and enforcing laws) would all be handled by private agencies instead of government.  You would become a customer of a private enforcement agency amongst other agencies competing for your patronage in areas now covered by the criminal and civil law.  There would be no more State, or perhaps just minimal State overseeing the National Defense.

——————————————

Often times, this is too anarchic for most people.  I’m not sure I’m on board, but there are some deep arguments made.

One typical liberal argument runs that, contra Hayek, not all State involvement is coercive, but has the consent of the governed.  Libertarian principles aren’t first principles, and can be so contested (or why don’t you libertarians see that it’s not all coercion vs. liberty, and individuals vs. the State?).  There are other traditions.

Some libertarians and Enlightenment-reason libertarians see themselves in a bitter fight with progressives, who from the libertarian perspective, commit the fatal sin of basing Enlightenment reason in virtue and are wittingly or unwittingly rounding up individuals into collectivist municipal Ponzi schemes and unsustainable deficit spending with the force of the law and power of the State behind them.  Even if it is creative destruction that led to Detroit’s decline, it didn’t have to be this bad.  Eventually you run out of other people’s money and you force people to vote with their feet, the last option available.

I’m assuming that not all liberals are progressives, nor are they Marxists, Socialists (ends with a gun and a wall to keep you in), or Communists (starts with a gun and a wall to keep you in, like the Soviets).  Many liberals I’ve known are more consent rather than coercion types of people.  ‘Be free,’ they might say, but maintain your duties and live as morally and honestly as possible.  Responsible liberals argue ‘I,’ not ‘we,’ have a moral duty to help others.  Not all moral thinking is religious.  In this line of thought, broadened definitions of the public good are in all of our own moral and rational self-interest, and so thus are broadened roles for our institutions and increasing the size and scope of our government.

It’d be a little more convincing if liberal policy-makers could address the failures of places like Detroit with regard to how policies are going to work in practice, and how incentives work regarding human nature and our institutions.  Clearly, this is part of the problem in Detroit.

*Thanks also to Kevin Williamson’s ‘Politically Incorrect Guide To Socialism

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Related On This Site:  Repost-Youtube Via Libertarianism.Org-David Friedman: ‘The Machinery Of Freedom’

Nussbaum argues that religion shouldn’t be a source for the moral laws From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum…Rule-following punishers Repost-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’

Value-pluralism?:..A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty” …

People on the modern American right take issue with Rawls, but have they addressed his depth?:  From The American Conservative: Going Off The Rawls–David Gordon On John Rawls…Utilitarianism leads to problems.  Will the Rawlsian center-left hold up?:

Richard Rorty tried to tie postmodernism and leftist solidarity to liberalism, but wasn’t exactly classically liberal:  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

Peter Singer discusses Hegel and Marx

Walter Russell Mead seems to be envisioning a reinvigorated liberalism 5.0, arguing that 60′s progressivism and 40-50′s conservatism (American politics more generally) are behind the times.   There’s been a fundamental shift that we must adjust to, and it involves technology and globalization for starters.

Robert Nozick merged elements of Kant and Locke in a strong, libertarian defense of the individual A Few Thoughts On Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”From Slate: ‘The Liberty Scam-Why Even Robert Nozick, The Philosophical Father Of Libertarianism, Gave Up On The Movement He Inspired.’

Anarcho-capitalism:  Pro-market, anti-state, anti-war…paleo-libertarian: Link To Lew Rockwell Via A Reader…Anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian socialist and sometime blind supporter of lefty causes:  Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of KnowledgeTwo Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

Catholic libertarianism: Youtube Via Reason TV-Judge Napolitano ‘Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Government is Dangerous’

Link To An Ayn Rand Paper: The Objectivist Attack On Kant

From Reason’s Hit And Run: What Kind Of Libertarian Are You?