Arnold Kling compares the Obama and Bush administrations to gangs of thugs raiding his home. James Wolcott accuses him of racism.
I know Arnold, and I've never met someone more mild-mannered and
circumspect. His idea of an excited polemic is about what I use to
order my morning coffee. I find it awfully hard to believe that he's trying to play on racist stereotypes to make a point. It's hyperbolic, of course, but libertarians often refer to the government as thieves, thugs, and so on. Indeed, when the topic turns to things like drug enforcement, liberals often join us. Libertarians do not like coercion. The government is coercive. This invites invidious comparison between politicians and other professionals who use force to bend the "customers" to their will.
Now, of course, we have a black president, and James Wolcott stands ready to police any reference to him for signs of racism. This is a charge so serious that it shuts down any possible discourse, and is thus much loved by people who do not care to be disagreed with. Would it be racist of me to note that Mr. Wolcott's accusations seem vaguely redolent of the tactics of one Senator Joseph McCarthy?
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Oddly enough, that's the second anti-Kling (get it?) think I've read today. I'm not a fan of the open borders libertarian loon, but posts like this don't solve the problem. Simply denying you have cooties will only cause the other kids to chant louder. The thing to do is to discredit Wolcott about something else, such as by catching him in a lie.
P.S. If anyone's against the stimulus, see my name's link for the plan to stop it you won't hear from anyone else.
This is the kind of thing you'd expect from Wolcott. And anyway the boy has cried wolf way, way too many times.
Not ALL libertarians are being hyperbolic when we call the government thieves and thugs. Most anarchocapitalists really believe it. Thare are actually quite a few of us out there, although admittedly few from the Beltway or Upper West Side.
If it's common coin in libertarian discourse to call taxation thuggery and goonery, then libertarians should be sent to their rooms without supper like anarchists. While it's a sound defense to say you're not a racist, you're merely obnoxious, it's not much of a net gain except maybe with your black friends.
Indeed, Rich. Little difference between racism and anarchism. Not sure why they don't just go using the words interchangeably.
Unfortunately Megan, the need is even greater now for libertarians to keep making their points.
Are adjectives like thugs and thieves hyperbolic? No. Nothing is entirely good or bad, ofcourse, but Government has been thuggish and indulged in thievery enough times to merit the accusation. A crisis is the perfect pretext for more usurpation of powers by the Government, and history suggests it won't be coy about doing so. Shutting up, therefore, isn't an option.
As for Wolcott's accusation: Unfair.
If you use the term reparations in relation to the proposal of the United States' first African-American President you are you just begging to be called a racist or you are an idiot.
Now, of course, we have a black president, and James Wolcott stands ready to police any reference to him for signs of racism. This is a charge so serious that it shuts down any possible discourse
I'm quite content to not have any discourse with James Wolcott for the next four years. So I don't see the problem. I like the knee-jerk cries of "racism!". It lets me know who not to bother paying any attention to.
If it's common coin in libertarian discourse to call taxation thuggery and goonery
The more commonly used word for the government's collection of taxes is "extort". The dictionary defines this as "to wrest or wring [money] from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority". I.e., "give us a large portion of your earnings or we will lock you in prison for years". The standard threat/consequence we all face yearly.
then libertarians should be sent to their rooms without supper like anarchists
Anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of taxation. The most strict libertarians favor government funded by voluntary contributions. The moral theory is that a government which can't survive on what people are voluntarily willing to give it must not be a worthwhile government. To paraphrase Joe Biden, the patriots will pay taxes.
More sensible (or at least cynical) libertarians believe that the government has to extort SOME money from people in order to operate. But it is important to remember that it is still extortion, and that the government is taking something it needs but not something it rightfully owns.
The one thing I don't understand is why Kling chose to call either the Bush or Obama thugs, when the real thugs are in Congress and bridge both administrations.
Hm...someone help me.
Individual with a gun points it at me and takes my money to spend on things I don't want or need = thief/thug
Group of people gets together and hires men with guns to point them at me and take my money to spend on things I don't want or need = public service?
By what demented logic is anarchism racist? It's completely race neutral, unless you want to argue that minorities can't compete in a free market with a level playing field. I don't believe that for a second, and if you do, then who's the damn racist?
If you are worried about minorities ganging up on minorities, then why the hell would you support democracy? That's almost the textbook definition of democracy.
majorities ganging up on minorities. damn. I need to start using that editor.
No, Libertarians don't need to shut up for 4 years, but they shouldn't use stupid, racially-coded metaphors to make their points.
He's not a racist, but he could have just said "The stimulus bill will cause generation-crushing runaway inflation" and the effect would be similar. Not that I think it will.
If you use the term reparations in relation to the proposal of the United States' first African-American President you are you just begging to be called a racist by an idiot.
There was a slight error in your comment, Chris. I've taken the liberty of correcting it.
Here is what Kling said:
I think the answer is that it is a reparations bill, not a stimulus bill. People who pay income taxes tend to vote Republican. People who live off taxes tend to vote Democratic. To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I. Now, they are demanding reparations, with hundreds of billions of dollars to be paid into teachers unions and other members of the coalition that won the election.
If that sounds like a reference to reparations for slavery then I can only hope the DEA doesn't find out about whatever you've been smokin'.
But look at the bright side. It could be worse. Kling could have complained that the $100 billion in tax cuts in the new spending bill was too niggardly. Then he'd REALLY be in big trouble with the Left.
"racially-coded metaphors"???? I guess thin skin comes in all colors. Gimme a break. I hoped after the election we wouldn't have to listen to crap like this anymore. Race-baiters and conspiracy theorists have this in common: they have a built-in excuse for being losers. The man is keeping them down.
I guess my hope just a little too audacious.
Great. Now that the ground rules are set, I guess no one has any objections to me calling libertarians willfully dishonest, resentful low-IQ types, or determinedly ignorant wretches who will never, ever admit that they are wrong. In short, obnoxious little gits who poison public discourse, and deliberately do so in most cases.
Since libertarians have set the ground rules and all. Fair's fair, right? Nothing personal, of course.
Yeah, "racially-coded metaphors". Read Wolcott's post. I agree, he's over-interpreting Kling's comments.
Megan's right that accusing someone of racism shuts down conversations, but why even open a chink in your armor to such accusations in the first place?
I have no problems at all with that, ScentOfViolets. We need comic relief. Keep it up.
In fact, I do admit it when I'm wrong. I used to think that government was a necessary evil. I was wrong. It isn't necessary.
Taxation is a form of coercion. If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes and see what happens. What makes government useful though (and where I split with anarchists) is government and taxes, when small enough and used for things such as general security and well being (as opposed to special interests' security and well being), are a net gain over the "survival of the strongest" uncivilized state of nature we would have without government.
There is a balance. Right now, the costs of government are too high (especially if you include both taxes and debt) and government favors special interests too much, but we're still better off than if a government didn't exist at all.
Now that the ground rules are set, I guess no one has any objections to me calling libertarians willfully dishonest, resentful low-IQ types, or determinedly ignorant wretches who will never, ever admit that they are wrong.
You do that anyway. What's going to change?
KC, I don't claim that there weren't said metaphors. I am arguing that it shouldn't matter. If anything, they would make his arguments LESS persuasive to the vast majority of readers, which he surely knows. At best it would derail the discussion, as it has here. This is why he likely wouldn't intentionally talk in code to his secret racist minions. Nobody wants to be Kirchicked.
You are so right. That's why I - as usual - went ahead and let these libertarian types shoot themselves in the foot first. I repeat - as usual.
How about libertarians simply stop with the obnoxious buffoonery, the hyperbolic accusations 'which aren't really all that hyperbolic'? Or is this simply a rather more blatant than usual case of hypocritical libertarians who want to be free with the name-calling, but who strenuously object to mud coming their way?
And libertarians wonder why they have such a bad rep for personal behaviour.
Libertarianism is interesting to me; I'm sympathetic to this point of view on some issues, but I've never seen a libertarian theory of the economy that's plausible in a country as large as the US. I think things like voluntary payments in lieu of taxation might work in a community of, say, 100 homogenous people (for example 100 electrical engineers).
At this point, I'd settle for libertarians simply being civil and feeling a certain amount shame of when they aren't and are called on it.
I believe that Arnold Kling had no ill intentions, but it's a bit negligent on his part to not consider how his words might be used against him, particularly when speaking at an event co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation (i.e. an organization associated with Republicans who, rightly or wrongly, are associated with intolerance and hatred). There are certain words and metaphors that, rightly or wrongly, can and will be construed by some as race-baiting. One such word to avoid: niggardly.
SOV
You should probably frequent other sites, then. The Unqualified Offerings website has some good libertarian commentary, as an example. There are things to be learned from the libertarian point of view, as long as you can tune out the off - the - wall views on economics.
Awww... ScentOfViolets still sounds pissy after getting called on her absurd claim that NBA teams pay their players based strictly on some objective stat-based formula.
By the way, sweetie, still waiting for you to either substantiate your argument, or to have the decency to admit you had no idea what you were talking about and retract it.
Kiss my ass Wolcott. You thug.
Use of the word "racism" is a verbal tic epidemic in the left-wing subpopulation. It should not be mistaken for a substantive statement of fact.
I don't know if what Kling said was racist or crypto-racist. There's a racism denial business in this country, of course, and business is always booming. But who knows. I do know that what Kling said was embarrassing, and you'd better make your own point if you admitted that.
Chuckle. You just keep right on linking to that, Y. Or whoever you are.
Bob, how about I stay right here, and simply ridicule these types who are wont to be uncivil when they are? The uncouth types can always migrate off to Powerline, or Cafe Hayek, or wherever. I myself used to be much more favorably disposed towards libertarianism - in 1975. Then the philosophy, or at least the outward forms, got co-opted by the corporatist-style think tanks.
I think that if libertarians actually were, you know, libertarian, returned to their roots and all that, people would be far more apt to give them a sympathetic hearing. Instead, we get this drivel about 'taxes are theft', and 'thuggish government', often from the same people who have no problem with real violations of civil liberties. If they don't want to be ridiculed, let them stop with the childish name-calling. And start policing those of their ranks who do.
Welcome to the world I've been living in for the last 2 years.
"Asking questions [about Obama's plans or policies] means you're racist."
Wolcott's not quite there yet, but you can see where he's headed ...
That's the problem with these types of libertarians. Kling says something vicious and stupid, and that's okay, or at any rate, doesn't bear remarking upon. Let someone make a derogatory comment about Kling's remarks, and that's Not Okay. And of course, no one on Kling's side of the divide will admit to any hypocrisy, that's also the usual state of affairs.
I am on Chris's side here. Reparations is a loaded word. Yes it has other meanings, and those other meanings were probably Kling's intent. But that word has such a loaded history of other intentions that its use here is at best an unfortunate oversight and at worst an intentional allusion to something indeed racist.
It's not really that different than, say, referencin g the confederate flag in a different way. Sure, it stood for state's rights, and aristocracy, and all sorts of other things that some people might feel ok defending. But if you invoke it in the presence of a class of people who were literally held in bondage and treated as cattle in its name, then you are being at best inconsiderate.
No one is saying Kling cannot make whatever arguments he wants to make. But no argument requires any one particular word. Anyone with half a brain could have made that argument without invoking such a racially insensitive term.
Parts of Kling's post were silly, the part about opposition to the Bush tax cuts and German violation of Belgian nuetrality comes to mind.
But the real idiocy of course is comparing the stimulus plan to thugs ransacking his children's fortune given that Kling himself apparently advocated much the same thing for Bush back around 2000 when Kling was predicting that Bush might take office in the face of a dramatic economic slowdown.
Kling says he's since changed his mind, which is fine. But when a former booze-hound starts calling everyone who still likes take a drink a degenerate wino, well you better expect some blowback. Or maybe Kling is simply plumping to be the next David Horiwitz.
And Megan, you whine a lot when people criticize libertarians. Geez, for a group that likes to present itself as sturdy iconoclasts not afraid to sail against prevailing winds, y'all seem awfully thin-skinned.
"I've never seen a libertarian theory of the economy that's plausible in a country as large as the US. I think things like voluntary payments in lieu of taxation might work in a community of, say, 100 homogenous people."
Bob, what makes you think the current system is plausible? It should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention that the American system of government has broken down. The checks and balances of the three branches of government have failed to check and balance and the growth of state power has not only continued, but accelerated. Government spending has increased as a percentage of national economic activity to the point where the risk of default or hyperinflation approaches a mathematical certainty. Supreme Court Justices and legislators are biased toward increasing presidential power because, among other reasonst they draw their paychecks from the Executive Branch Department of the Treasury. Personal freedom has diminished to the point where we actually celebrate the ability to choose between despot A and despot B the way a condemned prisoner might be grateful to choose between death by hanging or firing squad.
The reason why I am so concerned about the usurpation of power by the Executive (and to a lesser extent the Judicial) branch is that the effect is a transfer of power from the citizenry to the government as a whole. Only Congressmen and senators are directly elected by majority vote. The president is selected by the Electoral College and the justices and judges of the federal courts are nominated by the president. The legislature is the branch of government most accountable to the people and it is the branch that has yielded it's authority to the other branches. Among other things, it has lost much of its authority to make war, negotiate treaties, and control spending.
Many patriotic Americans will argue that, although the system is imperfect, it is still better than many alternatives. I actually agree with that claim, but that doesn't mean that the current state of affairs is acceptable. A failure is a failure, regardless of the degree to which it is preferable over worse failures. Having herpes is wonderful compared to having AIDS. House arrest is better than prison, but the domicile we are confined to is starting to look more and more like a penitentiary every day as the cage's gilding loses its luster. Considering the rate at which our less-than-ideal situation is deteriorating, the "it could be worse" defense is particularly unconvincing.
The central weakness with constitutional government is the government's ability to use its rule-making power to modify the rules that limit its power. This is accomplished through constitutional amendments, presidential signing statements, judicial review, judicial activism, selective law enforcement, and other legislative tricks. In the U.S., this has meant that, in just over two hundred years, the government has morphed from a relatively benign force of minor inconvenience into a near-omnipresent leviathan that interferes with almost everything we do. It may not be totalitarian yet, but it is clearly headed in that direction. In order to arrest and reverse this descent into servitude, alternatives should be considered.
I propose that, instead of three branches of government, we adopt three (or more) completely independent and non-territorial governments. I make this proposal because it is not the concept of checks and balances that has failed, but the inadequacy of the particular system in place that is the source of our problems. I know this is a radical proposal, but no more radical than the constitutional republic that we live under now was when it was first proposed. A radical solution is called for because, in my opinion, attempts at incremental reforms have been no more effective than efforts to liberalize the mafia or the Ku Klux Klan would be. It is simply not in the nature of a territorial or monopoly state to relinquish its power or operate in a non-coercive fashion.
Considering how unusual non-territorial competing governments are, several objections spring to mind. I will address a few of them here.
1. Isn't a known but flawed system preferable to an untried solution?
In fact, a system similar to that which I propose lasted for 300 years in Saga-era Iceland, which is longer than our current experiment in democratic republicanism has been running. Actually, as drastic as my solution admittedly is, when looked at another way, it is not so radical. People have the option of changing governments today by moving. I am merely suggesting we extend that same option to those who choose not to relocate. By increasing the ease at which we could switch governments, they would be forced to become more responsive or risk losing their subjects (and tax revenue).
2. Wouldn't a lack of a strong central Government invite invasion?
It's true that a group of non-territorial governments would be less able to protect us from foreign and domestic threats, but the upside of that limitation is that the governments themselves would be less threatening both domestically and abroad. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and the World Trade center killed thousands, but not nearly as many as the Washington policies of slavery, the draft, Indian eradication, and Jim Crowe. Protection from government is at least as important as protection by government, and a decreased ability to prevent attacks is a decreased ability to aggress against other nations and consequently a decreased likelihood of provoking attacks against us.
3. What's to keep anyone from just choosing no government and stop paying taxes altogether?
Most people would still prefer to choose a government for the same reason most people now prefer to buy food rather than growing or raising their own. In economics, the phenomenon is known as Specialization. Nothing would absolutely prevent anyone from opting out of collective government altogether, but the benefits of specialization would encourage most to retain the services of a government at the same time such an arrangement would ensure that the governments would provide services equal to or exceeding the tax revenue they collect (otherwise, they would go out of business).
4. Wouldn't having several competing governments be less efficient?
Some economies of scale would be lost by having several redundant governments, but the benefits of competition outweigh the benefits of monopoly. If governments were run more like private businesses, the incentives would be reversed. Currently, a state agency that does a poor job asks for and receives more funding, which effectively rewards poor performance. Alternately, private companies usually lose revenue or go out of business altogether when they perform poorly and they profit when they do well.
These objections are by no means comprehensive, nor are my responses to them. The purpose of this proposal is not to end discussion but to start it. Real world constraints require practical, not utopian, solutions. As time progresses and the failure of democratic republicanism becomes more apparent, this discussion will assume greater importance and the need for some kind of alternative will be obvious. In my pursuit of a solution to the separation of powers problem, I have drawn on the ideas of many others. I don't claim to have developed this idea on my own and in fact very little of it is original. My goal is not to challenge the ideals of the American Revolution, but to advance them beyond their current implementation. Liberty is a noble objective in itself, but it is also the surest path toward future prosperity.
SOV says
"I think that if libertarians actually were, you know, libertarian, returned to their roots and all that, people would be far more apt to give them a sympathetic hearing."
Well, sure. But the word "libertarian" is used to describe people like Kerry Howley, Jim Henley, and Rodney Balko (who are critical of the excesses of the drug war, for example) and McArdle (who had some interesting views on war protestors, 2 by 4s, and the spatial relationship between these two things, and vociferously supported the bank bailout). These people just aren't in the same category. Which do you call libertarian?
I was just thinking today that I was pleasantly surprised to realize that with all the rather heated debate over the stimulus bill, no one had thrown the "racist" accusation at people opposing the President. I guess I was premature.
What makes government useful though (and where I split with anarchists) is government and taxes, when small enough and used for things such as general security and well being ..., are a net gain over the "survival of the strongest" uncivilized state of nature we would have without government.
I used to go with this, until I realized that there is no uncivilized state of nature we would have without government. Simply because there is no such thing as No Government.
If government vanished this second, if aliens used transporter beams to vanish every single member of government, from the cop on the beat to the Supreme Court, we would have a new government by tonight.
The block I work in would be under the government of Optus Wire and Cable, possibly in a coalition with Macquarie University. The suburbs to the south would be under the government of the Gambino family (or equivalent). Those to the East would be under the government of the Kum Phook family and Associates. Those to the west under the Epping club. Some parts of the city would be run by the banditos motorcycle gang, and don't live on the border between the banditos and commanchero bike gang territories, it would be a bad move.
This is easily seen in places like Somalia or the Congo. Somalia lost it's government, and got a thousand new, smaller ones, within hours.
There is no choice between government and no government, there is just the choice between big government, small government, and good government/bad government.
At least with our current system, everyone has some sort of say.
JWill, did you read the entire quote above? Including the part that used the word "reparations" explicitly to refer to the payments the Allies imposed on Germany after WW I. That last clause sounds a bit stilted because the usual term for those payments is "reparations". Perhaps next you and Wolcott can start a campaign against Wikipedia for using the r-word in the linked article title.
Is your argument that since you or Wolcott can't be bothered to read a quote in context, Kling shouldn't use the word because otherwise idiots might call him a racist?
"There is no choice between government and no government, there is just the choice between big government, small government, and good government/bad government."
DrPat, there is a choice between a state and no state. It's MONOPOLY government that's the problem. Voluntary, competing governments of varying sizes with no permanent exclusive territorial areas of operation would work, just like the providers of every other kind of service works this way.
"At least with our current system, everyone has some sort of say."
Really? Which election was decided by your one vote? Assuming there was ever a 1 vote victory, do you honestly think that it would stand or would it get thrown into court? Voting is worse than a waste of time. It lends legitimacy to a thoroughly corrupt system.
B Spock says
"...Washington policies of slavery, the draft, Indian eradication, and Jim Crowe."
You'll get no argument from me that the federal government has enacted racist, and even genocidal, policies in the past. Probably, if things go really awry, it will do so again. The US is like any other nation in this respect.
Its also instructive to recall that federal troops were responsible for enforcing integration, which was wildly unpopular in the South.
Who knew Kling hated Indians?
doctorpat,
Yes, you are clearly correct. I should have said what we have now is better than what will arise from the vacuum if it ceased to exist. I place 3rd world countries with several brutal factions fighting and killing each other into the "survival of the strongest" uncivilized category, but technically it is a form of government.
"Enforcing integration"? How has that worked out? Is destroying freedom of association a valid remedy for past sins? I was taught a long time ago that two wrongs do not make a right. Slavery never would have existed without the help of government. Running a prison farm just isn't profitable without subsidies. Slavery, especial the American form of slavery was unquestionable evil, but so is the state. If you think that's too radical, then you think of me what almost everyone thought of the abolitionist in 1840.
Kling's comments about reparations and thugs ransacking homes may not mean anything. But see the link below for excerpts from Kling in 2000.
Given that he was recommending expansionary deficit spending to combat what he believed was an impending receission, I think it's fair to say that
(1) the guy is a pretty lousy prognosticator,
(2) he's a hypocrite given the similarity to what he ws proposing 8 years ago (it's okay thouhg it was for a Republican)
(3) he's a loser who calls people thugs and then cries when they call names back.
http://patriotsquill.blogspot.com/2009/02/stunning-shamlessness-of-right.html
"Arguing in My Spare Time" No. 3.28
by Arnold Kling December 20, 2000
"what we have now is better than what will arise from the vacuum if it ceased to exist."
Nelson, I respectfully disagree. That's like saying that slavery is better than the economic chaos that would arise if it didn't exist. We live under an evil institution. I will not engage in the debate over which slave-owner policies are better.
Why is it so hard to grasp that all we need is a simple replacement of involuntary relationships with voluntary ones? Why all this special pleading for the state?
Megan wrote:
"Libertarians do not like coercion. The government is coercive. This invites invidious comparison between politicians and other professionals who use force to bend the 'customers' to their will."
That is absolutely correct. What I don't understand is why the cosmotards don't carry this argument to it's logical conclusion. It should be obvious by now that limited governments never stay limited because they always use their rule-making power to alter the rules that limit their power.
Taxation is a form of coercion. If you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
You get an appointment in Obama's cabinet?
I couldn’t disagree more, the charge of “racism” has been so overused and abused as a crutch for weak arguments that it no longer merits any serious consideration any more than a three-year old child whining “you’re a meanie!” when they don’t get their way.
If any libertarian here would like to experience thievery and thuggery in concrete, real-world form, I would be more than happy to oblige.
So. Who wants to play a funny game? You will need a pet and a child to participate.
My God, Wolcott is *such* an asshole.
Oh! I almost forgot: You will also need a spouse.
Voluntary, competing governments of varying sizes with no permanent exclusive territorial areas of operation would work, just like the providers of every other kind of service works this way.
What's to keep those competing governments from going to war with each other, or enforcing territory by force? If you were a part of one government, wouldn't you want to go to war and enslave another government's people to make yourself richer? What's to keep one government from coercing and enslaving the other? Any examples of where this type of government structure exists and works?
These type of arrangements exist in African countries and are enforced by brutal tribal leaders and their followers. That's working out so well for them.
"What's to keep those competing governments from going to war with each other, or enforcing territory by force? "
Good question! Nothing would absolutely prevent it, but it would be severely discouraged by the laws of economics. War is simply too expensive without coercive taxation. If two governments fought, the third one that stayed out of it would benefit more than even the victor.
You seem to be stuck in the people-as-property of the state paradigm. These governments would act like businesses that fight to win and keep customers, not slave-owners fighting over resources. For such a system to work, the Non-Aggression Principle would have to be a strong social value, with no special exceptions for governments.
What I suspect you are really asking is how we can keep the strong from exploiting/enslaving the week, but it's only fair to point out that we're doing a pretty crappy job of preventing that now. We concentrate power in the state in order to prevent concentrations of power elsewhere with the result being less freedom and the same amount of abuse, but from a different source.
I am proposing an improvement, not a utopia. You have to make fair comparisons. Somalia actually improved in the lifespan, standard of living and infant mortality categories under anarchy, but it's still a bad place to live. I think we would do better stateless than now also.
So this fella is "mild-mannered and circumspect" but is "hyperbolic" in his use of words such as "thugs" and "thieves" (words other libertarians also routinely use).
This post makes on sense. Is he mild-mannered and circumspect or does he engage in the routine hyperbole of calling lawful people "thugs" because he disagrees with the laws they enforce? If he's so circumspect, why would he call the first spending bill of Barack Obama 'reparations for Democrats' without seeing how that is a racial tinderbox? (I don't see racism in his comments, no, but his choice of words is not very circumspect, since it predictably made the discussion less about stimulus and more about race.)
Wolcott provokes and antagonizes, but he'd never put up a post as silly as this one. A mild-mannered guy who just happens to engage in hyperbole, and belongs to a group of people who regularly use that hyperbole. (But he's circumspect!)
Did you read the entire quote above? Including the part that used the word "reparations" explicitly to refer to the payments the Allies imposed on Germany after WW I. That last clause sounds a bit stilted because the usual term for those payments is "reparations".
Kling didn't make the connection between thugs and blacks, blacks and Obama. Wolcott did. anyway, Barack O'Bama's Irish, don't ya know?
man, libertarians are so insecure. no one is trying to stiffle you, and sorry you don't have a party.
maybe libertarians should have made more noise when the true McCarthyites were banging the drum. seems a little late to the party now doesn't it?
No - libertarians should not shut up.. but they should concentrate on what they stand for. Sound economics, limited government and individual rights.
Mr Miron's Commentary: "Libertarian ideas to stimulate economy" for example made me laugh as it is more or less a summary of what I and most other libertarians that I know are thinking right now.
*) Lower payroll tax...
*) Higher CO2 tax (aka dancing the Pigou)
*) Less wasteful spending (no - not $40 million projects like the Replublicans pick out but $40billion/annum projects like agriculutral subsidies that Republicans themselves have introduced)
etc.
But how does it compare to the Obama stimulus? Well - Obama wants to lower the income tax for middle America rather than the payroll tax for companies. Payroll tax would be better from a libertarian perspective - but the income tax is second best. I can live with that. However - the Obama plan is based only 40% on tax incentives and not 60% - I can live with that as well (why not 50:50). Better than nothing right now!
What about the CO2 tax in order to balance the budget and in order to push more green domestic jobs and investments? Well - Obama is against a CO2 tax. Why? Probably his "gas tax holiday" expirience during the election that he opposed? The Republicans and Hillary wanted to decrease the tax instead of increasing it. It had public support as people care more about their trucks than their jobs and children. It was that time that made any CO2 tax in America politically suicidal. Obama opted for Green Energy investments instead. Makes sense to me when factoring in social and political realities. I can live with that too - it is better than doing nothing.
I just hope that the government choses to merely subsidize ever green kWh (like in the EU) rather than playing VC and handing out R&D grands and ordering Smart-Grids off-the-shelf and without grassroots demand.
No matter what your philosophy - public infrastructure like transportation, policing, health care, schooling will not disappear over night - modernizing their computer systems in order to become more efficient etc makes sense for jobs and tax payer.
No - libertarians should not shut up and they have no reason to shout either. It seems to me that the differences right now are a matter of degree and not kind.
Most libertarians would have to agree that the measures proposed are not first best choices but that they are better than nothing at this stage? The risk of the proposed stimulus of causing more damage than good are minimal. We are not dumping $1 trillion into a black hole like the last 8 years.
The only thing me cannot live with are some free trade restrictions. Biting the hand that feeds you - not when you are in crisis, actually - never. Get rid of the H1B restrictions etc.
Obama at least has the theoretical ability to listen and his administration wants to help the economy and not be ideologically right. Libertarians should continue to educate - it is not in vain.
Go libertarians. Go Obama. Go GOP. No - not the GOP. Go fiscal conservatives.
Nick:
"Wolcott provokes and antagonizes, but he'd never put up a post as silly as this one."
Try googling up Wolcott's opinions on hurricanes.
This is a moronic post. I should know better than to read McArdke (I rarely do). Her ability to follow elementary reasoning chains is pathetic.
Simply hilarious!
When I read the Kling piece yesterday, I knew beyond any doubt that using the word "reparations" would land him in trouble with some illiterate pundit.
Gang of Thugs, seeking reparations, ransacks white Republicans house and threatens his daughter. First Black President to blame.
There is no way that could ever be construed as race baiting. Poor Kling. The blogosphere is just filled with meanies.
Well see, here's the problem, when you say this:
You're saying to disregard essentially 95% of what modern libertarianism is all about. In 1975, the libertarians I knew were far, far more concerned with the government starting unnecessary wars, the draft (we're just post-Viet Nam remember), surveillance and privacy issues, etc. Unions were not ipso facto bad things back then, unless you were talking about the professional unions like the AMA, and minimum wage wasn't even on the radar. Those libertarians would have voted against Bush in 2004 instantly, as well as McCain in 2008. In fact, they'd have been leading the charge to impeach Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
I'd also venture to say that my old companeros were, well, just a little more intellectual, a little smarter, a little more informed than the 3.0 and later versions. Dare I say it, a little more nuanced. "Taxes are theft" would not have flown with that crowd.
KC wrote: " ... Megan's right that accusing someone of racism shuts down conversations, but why even open a chink in your armor to such accusations in the first place?..."
As a proud Asian-american, I just want you to know that I find the word "chink" deeply hurtful and offensive -- and I'm going to hold my breath until I faint if you don't apologize immediately!!
This thread is full of so much *&it, that I need to go put my barn-boots on just to read the damned thing.
The stereotypes, the greed, and the obnoxiousness are worse then a ever.
I believe in many libertarian ideas -- personal privacy and liberty first among them. But just because you're greedy doesn't give you the right to deny public planning and discourse.
Really, SOV? As I recall, the best selling pamphlet of the Society for Individual Liberty, a major libertarian group in 1975, was titled "Taxation is Theft."
I guess the positive side on this is that it apparently means Wolcott has noticed there were black people in positions of power in the Bush Administration.
"I believe that Arnold Kling had no ill intentions, but it's a bit negligent on his part to not consider how his words might be used against him, particularly when speaking at an event co-sponsored by the Heritage Foundation (i.e. an organization associated with Republicans who, rightly or wrongly, are associated with intolerance and hatred). There are certain words and metaphors that, rightly or wrongly, can and will be construed by some as race-baiting."
So, these "certain words", which are listed nowhere, can be, "rightly or wrongly," employed without prior notice to defame debate opponents. Kling *expressly* used the word in a context wholly removed from the one his detractors cite, but that is not enough to remove his "negligence"?
What Kling said on his site: "To the Democrats, the Bush tax cuts were a heinous evil, comparable to Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality in World War I. Now, they are demanding reparations, with hundreds of billions of dollars to be paid into teachers unions and other members of the coalition that won the election. Most of the bill makes no sense from a stimulus perspective. But all of it makes sense from a reparations perspective."
You presume to even-handedness, but your position is as follows: Kling is wel-intentioned. Despite his intentions (and despite his express use of clear language to the contrary), people on his side of the debate must adhere to language rules unilaterally decided upon by opponents during the debate. If Kling breaks the rules, and the other side calls Kling a racist, Kling bears responsibility for this because he should be aware that the other side will make hideously unfair ad hominem attacks.
I find "moderates" like you as bad as the guys practicing this debate technique. By refusing to come to the defense of Kling, and instead offering up mincing, insipid apologies for this "Kling is Racist!" garbage, you encourage more such outrageous slanders.
Yes, you.
"Gang of Thugs, seeking reparations, ransacks white Republicans house and threatens his daughter. First Black President to blame. There is no way that could ever be construed as race baiting. Poor Kling. The blogosphere is just filled with meanies."
Race baiting indeed. By whom is the issue you are confused about.
Ugh, what a travesty.
No serious person could possibly think Kling's remarks had anything to do with Obama's race, and anyone making such a claim forfeits their right to be taken seriously.
More disturbingly, if this is how Obamabots are going to respond to criticism of their Dear Leader, then how long before they take the next logical step of branding such criticism as "hate crimes" and suggesting prosecution?
Combine this trend with the proposed return of the Fairness Doctrine and clearly the First Amendment is in serious danger.
Would it be racist of me to note that Mr. Wolcott's accusations seem vaguely redolent of the tactics of one Senator Joseph McCarthy?
Except, of course, in McCarthy's time there were actually Communists in the U.S. government actually working to destroy America, and McCarthy didn't accuse anyone of being a Communist on the basis of supporting a tax hike.
Shrug. I really don't know. Do you have any sales figures? While 'taxes are theft' was known to my crowd, it was largely derided as a know-nothing concept. But as far as some actual quotes, let's see what your group has to say actually:
Gee, your guys support my version of history. And there's no mention of any economic issues either. Whadda surprise.
Why can't we just substitute voluntary relationships for involuntary relationships? Because people aren't, in general, like that. The Libertarian Utopia cannot exist until the development of New Libertarian Man and the eradication or total suppression of others. Sort of a Totalibertarian movement.
The spontaneous form of government is the gang, and there has never been a shortage of people willing to form gangs. The history of government is mostly a history of rival gang suppression. The "checks and balances" of the constitution (inadequately) tried to institutionalize and formalize the competition among rival interests.
The only reason the Libertarian movement can exist is because it is in a relatively secure bubble created by a dominant gang which doesn't feel threatened by them.
Plenty of hyperbole going around here. Wolcott is going out on a limb with his comments, but a Vanity Fair blogger isn't in a position to stifle political discussion.
The right-wing penchant for woe-is-us martyrdom is astounding, particularly when they are so quick to use extreme rhetoric to make their points. (Kling previously compared Paulson to Mussolini, FFS.) When the right isn't busy looking under the beds for Commies, they're whining and crying "oppression!", very much like the victims whom they allegedly despise. Accept some personal responsibility, and learn to fight bad speech with good speech.
Libertarians are hilarious... and insecure.
This is a charge so serious that it shuts down any possible discourse, and is thus much loved by people who do not care to be disagreed with.
Why does it shut discourse? Especially if the charge is a tad unwarranted to say the least. It certainly didn't shut you (Megan) up.
SOV,
"Gee, your guys support my version of history. And there's no mention of any economic issues either. Whadda surprise."
Maybe there isn't any mention of economic issues because economic issues in that quote because it is addressing the reasons for the split from conservatives. Economic issues aren't a traditional source of tension between conservatives and libertarians. They both traditionally support limited government. Additionally, the ISIL website does list as part of its philosophy "open and competitive economic system based on voluntary exchange and free trade." That appears to be an economic issue.
SoV: "You're saying to disregard essentially 95% of what modern libertarianism is all about. In 1975, the libertarians I knew were far, far more concerned with the government starting unnecessary wars, the draft (we're just post-Viet Nam remember), surveillance and privacy issues, etc."
Um, these are all modern libertarian positions as well. Most of the criticism of Obama's proposed forced labor/draft/involuntary community service plan comes from libertarians, for instance, and most oppose the war.
The only libertarian objection to unions is the fact that unions now use threats of violence to prevent competition.
"Those libertarians voted against Bush in 2004 instantly, or at least didn't vote at all."
Fixed that for you.
Sigh. All these comments, and so far not one libertarian has condemned Kling for being out of line with his inflammatory invective. Kling calling people thugs, or comparing them to fascists, apparently that's just fine(in fact, according to Megan, he's 'mild-mannered' and 'circumspect'.) Woolcot calling Kling a racist, well, that's just plain rude. This reminds me of the marriage counselor bought-and-paid-for by the wife who chastises the husband for having anger issues because he slammed the front door really hard as he stormed out of the house one day. When he protests that he had just found out that his wife was having an affair, had in fact just caught her in their own bed with another man, he is admonished, "We'll get to that later. Right now we're talking about you."
I don't understand why libertarians don't get that this sort of behaviour really turns people off.
SOV, you are correct and Kling is wrong to call them thugs. Obama isn't a thug- he is just another empty suit leftist who is going to find that he doesn't have the real buying power to do a damned thing in the end to satisfy his doe-eyed followers.
Shutting up is the worst possible thing to do. If your response to baseless charges of racism is to fall silent, then statist bullies will take it as an admission of guilt, and continue to use that tactic to squelch your opposition. What you need to do instead is to call them out for making baseless accusations, then return to the thread of logical argument.
Dissent is the highest form of racism!
You could at least quote the remarks with which Walcott takes issue:
"Barack Obama is destroying my daughter's future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs."
But if that's the case . . . then what differentiates a 'libertarian' from a 'conservative'? Because it sure isn't about civil liberties, the draft, starting unnecessary wars, etc. In fact, no less a propagandist rag then CATO says this:
So in Bush vs Kerry, it was 59% vs 38%, with apparently 3% abstaining or voting for some other candidate. Note that CATO doesn't back up their speculation with any data, and in fact, I seldom heard or read of any libertarian in 2004 saying anything of Kerry other than that he was 'tax and spend', that he was a wimp, afraid to prosecute a necessary war, etc.
Finally, I'll note that the issues that are overwhelmingly discussed by libertarians seem to be economic issues, not civil libertarian issues. See for example mein hostess.
@TallDave
"Combine this trend with the proposed return of the Fairness Doctrine and clearly the First Amendment is in serious danger."
Who exactly is calling for its return? Except for right wing hysterics I see very little about this.
@BeardedSpock
"In fact, a system similar to that which I propose lasted for 300 years in Saga-era Iceland, which is longer than our current experiment in democratic republicanism has been running. Actually, as drastic as my solution admittedly is, when looked at another way, it is not so radical. People have the option of changing governments today by moving. I am merely suggesting we extend that same option to those who choose not to relocate. By increasing the ease at which we could switch governments, they would be forced to become more responsive or risk losing their subjects (and tax revenue)."
So why don't you just move to Saga-era Iceland?
What's surprising to me is that James Wolcott, who is by most accounts a sensible person, cares what libertarians think. Who does this? One doesn't consult trekkies regarding social policy just as one doesn't read what libertarians write to understand government or people or anything else.
It is a source of endless astonishment that the Atlantic hosts a blog by a libertarian. How oddly useless.
After posting that, I thought to myself, "I wonder if this 'libertarian' blog is as self-referential and thumb-sucking as most of the other 'libertian' blogs," and - lo! - it is. So many posts here about the level of awesomeness of libertarianism. One could almost make a career of this sort of thing.
@Michiganguy
By refusing to come to the defense of Kling...
So this means that you'll be next to come to the defense of Walcott? Except that Walcott doesn't need defending. If he said something stupid then fire away at him. Kling wrote and said something that some of us find out of line. We criticize him for it. No one is trying to deny him the right of speech. So yes, we defend his right to speak stupid shit. But no, we don't defend the stupid shit itself.
And OMG, the "you criticized something I wrote/said, I don't like the terms of your criticism therefore you're trying to silence me" act is pathetic. It boils down to "we're victims because other people don't agree with us." Free thinkers indeed!
Raf:
Why can't we just substitute voluntary relationships for involuntary relationships? Because people aren't, in general, like that. The Libertarian Utopia cannot exist until the development of New Libertarian Man and the eradication or total suppression of others. Sort of a Totalibertarian movement.
The spontaneous form of government is the gang, and there has never been a shortage of people willing to form gangs. The history of government is mostly a history of rival gang suppression. The "checks and balances" of the constitution (inadequately) tried to institutionalize and formalize the competition among rival interests.
The only reason the Libertarian movement can exist is because it is in a relatively secure bubble created by a dominant gang which doesn't feel threatened by them.
This is the best concise description of real-world (vs. propeller-head playland) libertarianism I have ever read.
I think that right-thinking people can all agree that Woolcott and Kling both went too far with their invective.
Libertarians are people who once could rationally argue that people, if left to themselves, would naturally organize themselves into a benevolent anarchy. Unfortunately we now have real-life example of what happens when government breaks down , and the examples ain't pretty ( Somalia, the Congo, Haiti). You know that libertarianism has lost all credibility when folks like Bearded Spock actually argues that the present chaos in Somalia represents an improvement!
Somalia also refutes an oft quoted maxim of Robert Heinlein 's about how an armed society is a polite society. There ,I said it: Heinlein was WRONG!
You'd better shut up, too, Megan. As I recall you endorsed Obama, while putting down Palin. You've got no right to complain about all the demagoguery and economic illiteracy that the next four years will bring.
Bearded Spock (awesome Trekkie/libertarian combo): Why is it so hard to grasp that all we need is a simple replacement of involuntary relationships with voluntary ones? Why all this special pleading for the state?
Because that's now how people work, that's not what they want, and that's not what they do. As Raf said, what they do (the vast majority) is form gangs. You have to corral and channel those instincts, not done the propeller hat (or spock ears) and wish it away.
I'm....getting....sucked into....the....libertarian vortex!
Bearded Spock (awesome Trekkie/libertarian combo): Why is it so hard to grasp that all we need is a simple replacement of involuntary relationships with voluntary ones? Why all this special pleading for the state?
Because that's now how people work, that's not what they want, and that's not what they do. As Raf said, what they do (the vast majority) is form gangs. You have to corral and channel those instincts, not done the propeller hat (or spock ears) and wish it away.
I'm....getting....sucked into....the....libertarian vortex!
What's surprising to me is that James Wolcott, who is by most accounts a sensible person, cares what libertarians think. Who does this?
Hmm ...
Bearded Spock represents the anarcho-libertarian extreme of the libertarian spectrum. Conventional libertarians recognize the difference between "natural monopolies" like the military, police and public roads and un-natural ones like education and health care and think the government should stick to the former and get away from the latter.
Floyd - Happily for me (less so for you), few actual human beings agree with you. I've said before, libertarianism is a great philosophy as long as you're not concerned with what people actually want, think, or do.
Poodle - you could easily recast libertarianism as a desire to be left alone by the incremental busybody interventions of bureaucrats intent on expanding their own power. Put that way, far more people than you suppose would support libertarianism.
So, you're decrying the use of extreme language against the use of extreme language?
It seems to me that if one is inclined to casually throw around words like "thug," then one has precious little ground on which to insist on a careful and measured use of language applied to yourself.
It is, after all, every bit as easy to defend hyper-sensitivity to racial code words, as it is for you to defend libertarians' adorable hyper-sensitivity to government coercion.
The way out of this bind is to avoid recourse to extreme rhetoric in the first instance.
Gapeseed: Put that way, far more people than you suppose would support libertarianism. Odd, then, that they actually don't.
Would it be racist of me to note that Mr. Wolcott's accusations seem vaguely redolent of the tactics of one Senator Joseph McCarthy?
No. Merely ahistorical and moronic. Did it ever occur to you that the relevant fact about Joe McCarthy is that he, as an agent of the US government, actually had the power to coerce and imprison?
Who exactly is calling for its return? Except for right wing hysterics I see very little about this
Don't you even listen to your pwn party? Sigh.
the concept has prominent supporters in the newly Democrat-heavy Congress, including Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Richard Durbin (D-IL). Supporters' rationale for the Fairness Doctrine is that the airwaves are owned by the public.
...
“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” Feinstein told The Hill in 2007. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides... of the big public questions of debate of the day, are aired... with some modicum of fairness.”
Yet, FCC commissioner Robert McDowell has warned that a new bill, or other efforts to regulate public affairs coverage, could go beyond TV and radio to the Internet, cable, and satellite radio, according to a report in Broadcasting & Cable.
This is a charge so serious that it shuts down any possible discourse,
Which, of course, is the point. They can't rationally discuss the fact that we're witnessing a trillion-dollar armed robbery courtesy of the state, so they say "Aha! Armed robbery is a racist stereotype about blacks, and Obama is black, so you must be racist!" and then you have to spend the rest of the debate arguing over whether or not you're a racist.
Poodle - You dismiss Reagan, who crushed statist challengers twice in the eighties and whose rhetoric mirrored most of today's libertarian concerns (at least, from an economic perspective). You also dismiss the current and extreme unpopularity of a statist Congress and the unpopularity of the various bailouts. So, it seems that you'd put your chips on Americans being interested in more state intervention. I'd be interested in how you come to your conclusion that Americans are more interested in your ideals than freedom.
@Floyd
So the government should get away from education? Maybe they should just close down all public schools? Is there no government interest in ensuring an educated citizenry? Seriously?
As to health care, do you want to then scrap Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, the NIH, the CDC,the FDA, vaccination programs-not to mention the licensing of health professionals and hospitals? I'm willing to bet that you might be in a minority on this.
I actually feel sorry for Wolcott. He's just an angry person I think is all.
So, it seems that you'd put your chips on Americans being interested in more state intervention. I'd be interested in how you come to your conclusion that Americans are more interested in your ideals than freedom.
Because American's just increased Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and elected by a clear majority a Democratic President who ran on an increase in governmental services.
I mean really, it's not that hard to see which way the wind is blowing.
"I won." - President Obama
Reagan was a libertarian? Heh.
I love this manichean libertarian 'statist' vs. 'non-statist' rhetoric, as if any major candidates for office have been 'libertarians' at any point in modern times.
People don't vote for libertarians, my friend. That's why we don't live in a libertarian utopia, and nobody else does either.
Quick, make me a list of elected national-level libertarians.
If there is one thing I know, it is that libertarians never, ever, shut up.
I don't see what the Fairness Doctrine has to do with any of this.
I recall the days when I was a wee child and we still had the Fairness Doctrine. Back then, talk radio had actual moments of -- gasp! -- intelligent discussion, in which opposing parties were required to defend and debate their views. It was less shrill and more informative, befitting the citizens of a democracy.
At this point, with so many forms of electronic media becoming available, the idea of protecting licensed airwaves may be verging toward being obsolete. But elevating the level of dialog above the Limbaugh level should be viewed as an overall positive.
The way out of this bind is to avoid recourse to extreme rhetoric in the first instance.
That position is entirely too rational. You should take the opportunity to retract that, before it's too late...
Poodle -
I know you know that in a winner-take-all electoral college system, the equilibrium settles in with two major parties. Even a billionaire like Ross Perot could not overcome the deep systemic biases that virtually guarantee one of the two parties winning any particular presidential election. And as presidential politics draws money and resources, local politicians not of the two major parties are very rare indeed. So, libertarians must operate around the edges and influence rather than directly lead.
SG -
Republicans followed a big state philosophy for most of Bush's term. To say that Obama's victory was a refutation of libertarian ideas is foolish. And say what you want about Palin not being ready for prime time, but her vaguely libertarian allure gave McCain his only lead before she was carved up and McCain committed political suicide with the very anti-libertarian brokering of the bailouts.
Gapeseed - Ahh, right. That explains why libertarians do so much better in countries with parliamentary systems, like Sweden and Canada.
That's it? Three senators who have made some rather mild and vague supporting statements in the last few years. Run for the hills!
That warning from McDowell is scary. Here is another quotation from his from his talk:
Furthermore, it is important for proponents [of which he admits that Obama is not one] of the Doctrine’s restoration and expansion to understand that they have opponents from across the political spectrum, including prominent liberals. In a recent Wall Street Journalop-ed, Jon Sinton, the founding president of the liberal Air America Radio network, wrote that although he disagrees strongly with conservative talk radio hosts on just about everything, when it comes to the Doctrine he wrote, “I couldn’t agree with them more. The Fairness Doctrine is an anachronistic policy that, with the abundance of choices on radio today, is entirely unnecessary.” In helping to found the left-leaning radio network, Sinton went on to say, “[i]t never occurred to me to argue for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, I sought to capitalize on the other side of a market already built.”
Why do right-winger so desperately need bogey-men? Sigh indeed.
"One doesn't consult trekkies regarding social policy just as one doesn't read what libertarians write to understand government or people or anything else."
So they're not even worth reading? Agree with libertarians or not, surely their arguments merit consideration. Can a serious student of government ignore John Locke and Algernon Sydney? Madison and Jefferson didn't think so.
Poodle,
Of course, America is not Canada and not Sweden, and has a unique tradition of freedom embodied in a Constitution that sought to channel the aggressions of "gangs" from the public sector. And countries like Canada and Sweden have allowed their gangs to create dependencies in the public body, such that dismantling would incur sizable pain. And these two countries, in particular, have atrophied in defense capabilities and rely, directly or indirectly, on an American military fueled by capitalism and, indirectly but absolutely, on freedom.
What worries me about Obama is that he does not appear to appreciate how government actions hurt freedom, which would hurt capitalism and the economy, which consequently would hurt the military, and which could ultimately threaten those countries you seem to want to emulate.
Government actions often help capitalism - compare, for example, Haiti with Denmark. If you want to discuss why Europe doesn't spend as much as we do on defense, that's an IR debate, and it doesn't sound like that's an area of expertise for you. Also, that's a strange argument for a libertarian to make (support freedom because it gets you a gigantic military-industrial complex).
Europe and the US both spend large fractions of their respective GDPs on government - Europe a little bit more, the US a little bit less. You invent these stark terms for them when we're actually talking small degrees of difference - generally 30-40% of GDP. Big deal. Europeans are happier, have better lives, and live longer. And none of them - NONE - vote libertarian.
Megan ... why are you surprised?
Screaming "RACIST!" is just standard liberal operating procedure. It's Lefty shorthand for "I disagree." And you have to admit, when you don't have the time to read through and find the weak spots in someone's argument in order to refute it, just labeling the person a "RACIST!" is a nice effective time-saver.
If I were to answer that the capital of Washington State is Seattle, a Conservative would say my answer is wrong. A liberal's way of doing the same thing would be to call me a racist.
I'm pretty certain Wolcott didn't even bother to read through Kling's blog, it was more of a reflex action; "RACIST!" So neither Kling nor you, nor anyone else should take this sort of thing seriously. I'm sure Wolcott doesn't really think Kling is a "RACIST!". He probably had somewhere to go and wasn't sure he would be able to type up a response after he got back.
So next time a liberal calls you a "RACIST!" please don't be too bothered about it. It'll be just as likely to be about disliking the way you color-coordinated your clothes as anything ...
Gene:
I hope that if Kling and sympathizers accuse Wolcott of mysogyny because Wolcott used a phrase on Kling's patented, double-secret "can't-use-this-word-when-debating-policy" list (even though Wolcott expressly avoided Kling's proscribed usage), yes, I will defend Wolcott.
But Kling's offense, it seems, was he said the following in course of a policy discussion: "Barack Obama is destroying my daughter's future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs."
Silly but hardly strong brew these days.
Wolcott, by contrast, said this:
"Now if Kling can't comprehend the implication of racial menace encoded in daughter-gang-thugs/home invasion, he's either fatuously clueless--too innocent for this wicked world--or weaselly disingenuous, and a drama queen either way. Did he feel the sanctity of his home was being violated when the costs of the Iraq war shot into outer space? Did he picture marauders smashing cherished mementoes when Hank Paulson introduced TARP? Anytime Obama's name and "thug" are thrown in close proximity, it's a pretty sure bet that the speaker or author intends to fan the anxiety and animosity of those who think Obama's presidency represents black grievance gloved with the iron fist of the state--and out to punish whitey. No wonder so many would-be Wolverines in the right blogs are talking about stocking up on assault rifles and ammo..."
Gene, do you honestly think the former Kling quote is equivalent to the latter Wolcott qote?
Oh? And whom did the McCarthy hearings imprison?
Your basic premise that libertarians do not like coercive is pure bull.
They love coercion. It is just they love the coercion of the market.
Their view of freedom is that it is something you buy. Libertarians are like the majesty of the law that bans the poor as well as the rich from sleeping under bridges.
It's not just liberals who drop the R bomb out of the blue.
That shining light at NRO's The Corner, Lisa Schiffren, remarked immediately after Obama's inauguration that the benediction's inclusion of the words "brown" and "yellow" made her think of pee-pee and doo-doo, and was therefore racist. In other words, white conservative Lisa Schiffren accused black Rev. Lowery of anti-black sentiment because his words, when taken deliberately out of context, remind her of human feces.
Not just liberals.
Here's my 2 cents:
I think everyone should try to distinguish, in their own minds, between characterizations that will appeal to open minds and/or opponents and characterizations that preach to the converted.
When a libertarian says "the government is a bunch of thugs that steal my hard earned money", he or she is preaching to the converted. The vast majority of people think that taxation is, in principle, legitimate. What they would like to hear from libertarians is plausible ways to reform the government in ways that would reduce their taxes without scrimping on those government functions that are actually needed. To those folks, hearing epithets based on the first principle that all taxation is theft is not going to convince them.
That doesn't mean that libertarians have to stop using that language. Sometimes such language helps clarify positions (e.g., liberals who refer to Cheney as a war criminal). But it isn't the type of language that is going to help grow libertarianism as a movement.
I don't see what the Fairness Doctrine has to do with any of this.
It's all about silencing the opposition.
I recall the days when I was a wee child and we still had the Fairness Doctrine. Back then, talk radio had actual moments of -- gasp! -- intelligent discussion, in which opposing parties were required to defend and debate their views. It was less shrill and more informative, befitting the citizens of a democracy.
If only we had applied that to all our media. Then Dan Rather and Ann Coulter could have been co-anchors, and every NYT editorial would be accompanied by a Bill Kristol piece in opposition. Oddly, only conservative-leaning talk radio was forbidden. Not sure how that could have happened.
Oh? And whom did the McCarthy hearings imprison?
It's surprising how many people think McCarthyism was a wave of imprisonments like the Japanese internments of the decade prior; I see this meme in popular entertainment fairly often. In actual fact, it was just a (badly managed, bullying, scaremongering) effort to get Communists out of sensitive jobs.
Bosch's Poodle:
Oh, come on. Rev. Lowery used rhymes with "yellow [can be] mellow" and "brown [can get] down." It's incredibly normal to think of excretory functions if you hear those rhymes.
What, you've never heard that great water conservation chant of "If It's Yellow, Let It Mellow. If It's Brown, Flush It Down?"
They love coercion. It is just they love the coercion of the market.
Explain to me exactly how you're coerced into consensual transactions.
SOV
"So in Bush vs Kerry, it was 59% vs 38%, with apparently 3% abstaining or voting for some other candidate. Note that CATO doesn't back up their speculation with any data, and in fact, I seldom heard or read of any libertarian in 2004 saying anything of Kerry other than that he was 'tax and spend', that he was a wimp, afraid to prosecute a necessary war, etc.
Finally, I'll note that the issues that are overwhelmingly discussed by libertarians seem to be economic issues, not civil libertarian issues. See for example mein hostess."
Well, I voted for Kerry. I know others that did too. You know, it's funny, you show that Cato gave multiple reasons for the swing toward Kerry...including reasons you say don't matter to libertarians...like civil liberties and the war. But you discount all that because of "no data".
Well, looking at who the libertarian voter is, what else would be the reason for the shift, then? It's quite obvious that it had to do in part with many non-economic reasons along with massive deficit spending.
And for all the demands of data for the vote swing, you don't provide any either. You simply seem insist that it cannot be for non-economic reasons because that doesn't fit your preferred caricature. You make assertions on selective sampling:
"All I ever saw was XYZ"
"I never see libertarians discussing XYZ"
and so on...
So what? So YOU don't see libertarians discussing these other issues. I say it's perhaps a result of the blogs you frequent or the discussions you respond to.
Perhaps the discussions you look for or take part in only involve the issues you choose to see. My google reader feeds me lots of libertarian blog entries. I see tons of stuff on civil liberties. I think Reason...the biggest of them all...probably has MORE on these types of issues than not. And if it isn't, it's pretty close.
I hardly know any libertarians on the conservative side of social issues like drugs, war, civil liberties and the like. And while that's just my experience, my sample size is pretty big. I see the the blogs. I see the topics.
Of course, libertarian economics blogs are more likely to stay on economic issues but that's the nature of the beast. There are plenty of others that give considerable time to other issues.
If you don't know them, you aren't looking enough.
Nothing would absolutely prevent it, but it would be severely discouraged by the laws of economics. War is simply too expensive without coercive taxation.
The Romans made tons of money by invading other countries. The Vikings made tons of money by invading other countries. Going to war with the purpose of looting and enslaving another country can make the first country a ton of money. Then using the money and power gained, will seek to do it to others.
Who is James Wolcott, and why should we care what he thinks?
I love how 'libertarian' websites ban criticism. Exactly what I expected, Megan.
Bosch Poodle,
Frankly, I thought Lowery was riffing on that "yellow (urine) - let it mellow, brown (feces) - flush it down" thing of some years back, when I heard it.
Apparently Schiffren and I were thinking along the same lines. Do you have a link to that post at the Corner?
It's all about silencing the opposition.
The Fairness Doctrine does exactly the opposite. It mandates debate where none currently exists. It would require the Rush Limbaughs of the world to host some opposing points of view and force his ilk to defend some of their statements, instead of allowing their falsehoods to go unchallenged.
Oddly, only conservative-leaning talk radio was forbidden.
That may be true in your revisionist version of history, but there were plenty of right-wing cranks on the radio back then, too. But, unlike today, said cranks were forced to contend with some pesky opponents, and they weren't as free to drown out anyone who wasn't a dedicated Dittohead.
It's not surprising to see that the right is absolutely terrified of being forced to open up the airwaves to opposing points of view. No need for sunlight as a disinfectant when the shades can be drawn for good.
Wolcott is an asshat who roots for death.
He's since disappeared that post from his blog archives www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2005/08/catastrophe_tim.html:
"I've removed my earlier post about hurricanes ("An Ignoble Confession"); it was written in a frivolous vacation mood, and this is not the time for frivolity."
In reading through these comments, I've noticed that in addition to trying to shut down debate by painting Kling as a racist, further commentary has tried to shut down debate by painting all libertarians as knee-jerk anarchists hell-bent on bringing about a survival-of-the-fittest dystopia.
The truth is that there are quite a lot of "soft" libertarians out there, who get as much grief from the left for not supporting a strong central government as they do from their hard-core brethren for not supporting anarchy. There's a broad swath of citizens who'd like to see the government shrink to fit its historic limits as enumerated in our founding documents. There's a broad swath of citizens who admit that a certain amount of government is necessary, but that the current size and scope of government is far beyond that point.
But rather than talk about the limits of government power, or debate the relative costs and benefits of shrinking or growing government, a lot of commenters choose to hold up the most hard-core anarchists as emblems of the whole philosophy of limited government, in the hopes of discrediting any who'd prefer to have less State meddling in their lives.
It's unfortunate that our discourse has sunk so far, and doubly unfortunate that small-government types are so bad at recognizing and defending against these rhetorical tactics.
RW says: It's not surprising to see that the right is absolutely terrified of being forced to open up the airwaves to opposing points of view. No need for sunlight as a disinfectant when the shades can be drawn for good.
I think the main worry from the Right is that the arbiters of "fairness" would see Coulter and Limbaugh as being partisan voices, while simultaneously seeing Olbermann, Couric, Jon Stewart and the like as being neutral.
There's also the principled argument that having the government mandate content in media is a Bad Idea, and runs against the First Amendment. It's long struck me as funny that people who scream bloody murder about some infringements on free speech can turn a blind eye to others. (But of course, it's the dittoheads that are hypocritical.)
RW,
You can't possibly by this dense. This is about stifling criticism of politicians through fear of lawsuits and license suspensions.
If regulation enforced 'fairness' is such a boon, why not expand it to all communication media: television, print and US based online news agencies.
Who were they, and do they compare to the number of commentators today, both right and left?
When did 'the right' gain control of all radio airwaves? I must have missed that part of the (Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush?) Administration. Why doesn't congress overturn that law.
Isn't that Barack Obama's legislative motto?
The question, RW, is; who has now (or ever) prevented liberals from having radio talk shows of their own?
Did President Bush order the FCC to refuse Air America radio licenses? Or is it that you just think it's unfair that Rush has 20 million listeners and you think he should share?
Can you tell me who's preventing Bill Press and Randi Rhodes from pulling in 20 million listeners?
To be consistent, would you agree to have the government force the New York Times to make sure there are an even number of Republicans to Democrats among its newsroom staff, rather than none?
What about CBS? ABC? NBC? CNN? All of which are owned, run and staffed practically exclusively by liberals and people who donate to liberals? Don't we own *those* airwaves too?
RW,
I might also add that the FD is yet another example of a regulation that will be used by large competitors to force out smaller operations.
Well put, Squid.
I feel the same way.
The internet is beautiful thing but blogs also have the tendency to throw a wide variety of opinion out there from across the gamut with little in the way of inhibitions or restraint. It's hard to really who you are talking to. The "reserved jerks" in face to face reality can become outright abrasive through the computer screen. Others with a penchant for argument can really push the issue and give wrong impressions for others to draw assumptions on matters not being discussed.
There's plenty of material for those who are so inclined to filter through and cling to as a basis for the validity of any caricature they want.
The prudent reader...regardless of his POV...you should always bear this in mind.
If regulation enforced 'fairness' is such a boon, why not expand it to all communication media: television, print and US based online news agencies.
The reason for the distinction is clear -- airwaves are public and their usage is licensed, whereas publications are privately owned and unlicensed. Airwaves were uniquely regulated because of the inherent limitations of radio and TV bandwidth that do not exist for print. (Surely, you can't be so dense as to not see that? Oops, don't answer that.)
Did President Bush order the FCC to refuse Air America radio licenses?
That isn't the point, obviously. The deregulation of ownership had led to centralized programming by major corporate concerns, which segmented the audience and decided not to serve large swaths of it, despite the public nature of the airwaves. That may be perfectly acceptable for private print media, but it should not be for public airwaves that are being rented from the people.
The issue is similar to that of a public square versus a private mall. A mall operator has the right to regulate one's behavior in ways that aren't permitted on public property. The public nature of property results in different rights and responsibilities being accorded.
stonetools - there's also a government interest in a clothed citizenry, but that doesn't mean that we need government-run clothing stores.
And the FDA, CDC and physician licensing could all be considered natural monopolies, since they help protect the populace from harm or fraud.
Goodness, Poodle, where to begin?
First, it may not be the perfect proxy for something as amorphous as happiness, but Europe has negative population growth, and the countries with more advanced government intervention are the ones with the largest absolute declines in population. I have heard Russia, for example, described in many ways, but "happy" is not one of them. In fact, the European countries that can paper over the incredible inefficiencies of socialism are countries like Russia and Sweden - energy exporters. Works well when oil is pricey, but ask them how they're doing now.
The fact that Europe does not vote libertarian is not surprising given the lack of tradition for freedom in Europe, which I addressed previously and to which you failed to respond. Bureaucracies metastasize over time, and they would work to demagogue and squelch a philosophy so threatening to its existence and the comfort of its clients, the public at large.
And finally, the fact that Europe largely spends little on its defense and yet still spends more of its GDP in its public sector than America is embarrassing and speaks to a large free rider problem. Should America ever withdraw its umbrella, the social structure set up in Europe would likely crash. According to today's news (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/4590512/European-banks-may-need-16.3-trillion-bail-out-EC-dcoument-warns.html), the EU's collective liabilities may mean that the process has already started.
Am I missing something here. As I recall Kling's comments were very much aimed at the upcoming Obama stimulus bill rather than the Bush admin's spending. His hyperbole was absurd and had slightly racist overtones although he may well have been oblivious of them. That's the problem with ridiculously over the top statements, you don't realize how ridiculous they are or you wouldn't make them.
1) The legal basis you mention is clear, but not the reasoning you used above. If it is an unalloyed good, why not spread it around?
2) Do you support enforcing the FD on non-cable TV? Giving opposing sides to ABC, NBC and CBS programming, including news, morning programming and Sunday shows.
You mean like ClearChannel - oh wait - they host Rush and Air America? Guess not, got any examples?
RW: Excellent!
So you're with us on applying the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on ABC, CBS and NBC, right? Cause the instant the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is signed into law, they're going to be in court.
If it is an unalloyed good, why not spread it around?
I have long favored restricting ownership to reduce broadcast oligopolies. Not surprisingly, it is the Republicans that favored the deregulation that resulted in consolidated ownership.
Do you support enforcing the FD on non-cable TV? Giving opposing sides to ABC, NBC and CBS programming, including news, morning programming and Sunday shows.
Sure. They already do a pretty good job of it, so there would be nothing to police, at least at this moment.
AM radio is already dominated by right-wing programming, including radio stations with longstanding all-right formats with nationally syndicated programming. There's no lack of conservatism in broadcast media, despite the whining to the contrary.
Fortunately, technology may ultimately render this issue irrelevant, as we develop useful alternatives to broadcasting, such as WiMAX-based services. There would be need for a Fairness Doctrine if those prove to be effective.
Typo above -- there would be **no** need for a Fairness Doctrine if we could have unlicensed alternatives to broadcasting.
Sure. They already do a pretty good job of it, so there would be nothing to police, at least at this moment.
It is that belief--and the likelihood that it will be shared by government regulators--which disturbs conservatives so deeply. Bias and balance are often in the eye of the beholder.
Democrats support the fairness doctrine because they intend to recalibrate the political center to include outlets they like. Thus, NPR and the legacy networks, purportedly being neither right nor left, will be left unfettered to gush over Michelle's dresses and their own tingling legs, while any station that carries Rush Limbaugh will be forced to carry some money-losing bozo like Bill Press.
With talk radio now unprofitable, the stations will switch formats. Good-bye talk radio, hello easy listening. They just won't do political talk at all. That's the point - everyone in Washington knows it, and it's amazing people like Tom Harkin (and RW) can avoid giggling when they pretend otherwise. Guess you gotta be a real professional to do that.
Air America didn't make it because they were trying to land the same market segment served by NPR, not because they were "stifled" by anyone.
That is an Obama-esque obfuscation of my question. I will restate it - if legally requiring opposing comment on any political speech by a commercial enterprise is an unalloyed good as you say, then why not expand it to other media like print or the internet?
If you honestly believe that you're too far gone to reason with. www.cmpa.com/pdf/media_monitor_jan_2009.pdf
So you plan on shutting down the radio aspect so that NOTHING balances out the TV side????
If only some technology to beam television into houses or radio waves from space or some massive computer network to broadcast those opinions!
It is that belief--and the likelihood that it will be shared by government regulators--which disturbs conservatives so deeply.
Not surprising. Unless all the panelists on a given show are clones of George Will, the media is hopelessly "biased." Add even one hour of someone who doesn't echo the thoughts of Ann Coulter or Monica Crowley, and everything is suddenly plunged into some sort of socialist darkness.
This gets to the heart of the problem. The American right has become so stilted and skewed that it considers anything that is even remotely balanced as being biased to the left, even when conservatives are obviously given the time and forum to express themselves. Unless an entire day's worth of programming is in lockstep with the doctrine, it is deemed unacceptable.
It's no wonder that you oppose the Fairness Doctrine. The whole notion of fairness is going to be offensive to those who don't understand what fairness is in the first place. When "fairness" is equated with dogma with which one agrees, only unfairness can result.
FTFY
Also I note you never responded to the George Mason study I posted...
I will restate it - if legally requiring opposing comment on any political speech by a commercial enterprise is an unalloyed good as you say, then why not expand it to other media like print or the internet?
I specifically addressed the differences between public airwaves and private press in more than one reply. You not only prefer to see bias where none exists, but you are also unable to read responses when provided.
The martyrdom from the right is astounding, and more than a bit hypocritical. For folks who talk so much about taking about others taking responsibility, you sure don't seem willing to do it yourselves.
RW,
The problem is not that I'm an idiot who demands total conformance to my opinion. The problem is that opinions differ. Your personal opinion, despite what you apparently believe, is not so inherently and obviously correct that you can simply dismiss others as plainly wrong. Your repeated attempts to do so, both in this context and in the context of the Amex "blacklist," bespeaks an unappealing arrogance and unwillingness to examine your own views.
I see a mild left-wing (and pro-establishment) bias to the major networks' news programming. Some hard lefties see a serious rightward bias. Soft-left types tend to see no bias at all, and apparently you agree with them. Who is "right"? Who should get to impose their view on the networks? Should the Socialist Worker's Party and Bo Gritz get "equal time" with Republicans and Democrats to talk about the stimulus bill? If not, why not?
When "fairness" is equated with dogma with which one agrees, only unfairness can result.
We actually agree entirely on this point, and you have succinctly summarized why I oppose the imposition of "fairness" by the government. Who gets to decide what is "dogma" and what is "fairness," and why that person?
I repeat - I did not ask for the LEGAL distinction, as that is plainly obvious - I asked for the logical reason why we wouldn't all benefit from "
mandat[ing] debate where none currently exists...requir[ing] to host some opposing points of view and force his ilk to defend some of their statements, instead of allowing their falsehoods to go unchallenged."
If it is about increasing debate, then why not expand it everywhere we can!
there was supposed to be <commentators> after "requir[ing] but the HTML rendering chopped it.
I see a mild left-wing (and pro-establishment) bias to the major networks' news programming. Some hard lefties see a serious rightward bias. Soft-left types tend to see no bias at all, and apparently you agree with them. Who is "right"?
This alleged crisis of conscience is resolved fairly easily -- include a number of guests who don't agree with one another, and you're bound to get some diversity of opinion.
Take ABC's This Week, which included Larry Summers vs. Michael Steele, and a panel debate with George Will, Newt Gingrinch, Robert Reich and Claire Shipman. Right vs. left, followed by a panel of right and right vs. left and left. George Will is a constant presence of the show, and he is notably conservative.
If that isn't good enough for you, that says more about you as a viewer than it does about the program itself, which clearly made an effort to cover varying mainstream opinions. What's absent on these shows are the true extremists -- the Aryan Brotherhood and Communists don't get any voice on these programs -- but the conventional US versions of right and left get fairly equal airtime, week after week.
You won't find anything approaching that on the AM talk formats, which are clearly dominated by the right. The difference in bias is clear, there just isn't much to argue here.
Losing my job is a form of coercion.
Illness is a form of coercion.
The human requirements for air, water, food, shelter, etc. are forms of coercion.
If government rearranges our current conventions of who owns what in a way that reduces the coercive effects of nature, how is that evil?
Losing my job is a form of coercion.
Illness is a form of coercion.
The human requirements for air, water, food, shelter, etc. are forms of coercion.
If government rearranges our current conventions of who owns what in a way that reduces the coercive effects of nature, how is that evil?
RW,
So 1 episode of 1 channels forum show proves balance?
Did you look at the George Mason study? Any response?
Take ABC's This Week...
Or take the various nightly news programs, or the news magazine programs, or the Today show/GMA...TV is more than just the Sunday talk shows, you know.
The difference in bias is clear, there just isn't much to argue here.
I don't think anyone believes that Rush is less biased than a deliberate debate between various viewpoints that you describe. Nor is Rush less biased than the major nightly anchors; he is unabashedly biased, and nobody can possibly deny it. But if you're coming after Rush, I want to come after Couric. Yet conveniently, that isn't likely to happen.
AM is dominated by right-wingers because it is serving a market not currently well-served by other mainstream corporate broadcast outlets, which lean soft-left. With your concern for underserved markets, I would have thought you'd support that.
I did not ask for the LEGAL distinction, as that is plainly obvious - I asked for the logical reason why we wouldn't all benefit from "mandat[ing] debate where none currently exists"
I don't know how many times that you expect me to answer this, because I already answered it directly on more than one occasion.
The legal distinction is one based upon a sensible paradigm. Public property should be treated differently from private property because public property is, er, public. Private operators can do just about whatever they like with their own assets, but they need to compromise when the assets belong to the public.
Surely, it shouldn't be tough to understand the concept, even if you don't personally agree with it.
RW,
Putting aside your complete non-answer of my repeated question, did you look at the study? Are you ignoring it simply because it contradicts your opinion?
Or take the various nightly news programs
OK, let's take them. I make a point of watching one when possible, to get a sense of what the public digests for news, and I see 22 minutes of blandtastic coverage that never challenges the status quo. No hotbeds of leftiness there.
or the news magazine programs
Did Dateline NBC's endless search for pedophiles become a left-wing crusade? I thought that we bleeding hearts were opposed to entrapment and trial-by-media without juries.
Network news deserves every accusation of not being particularly deep and of being pro-establishment. The "bias" is in favor of the digestible, not of one party over another. At certain times, that may benefit one group over another, but on the whole, it's the establishment that wins, whether that includes Bush on the war path or the Obama girls' first day in school.
Putting aside your complete non-answer of my repeated question...
And to think that you wonder why I can't possibly take you seriously.
RW:
You said that the FD is a good idea because increasing debate where none exists and forcing ideologues to defend their beliefs is a good idea.
Are you of the belief that it would be beneficial to public discourse to impose the FD on private parties, but unfortunately not legally possible?
Or are you of the opinion that the salutory effects of increasing debate only occur when a public medium is concerned?
The reason for the distinction is clear -- airwaves are public and their usage is licensed, whereas publications are privately owned and unlicensed. Airwaves were uniquely regulated because of the inherent limitations of radio and TV bandwidth that do not exist for print.
Gee, what a coincidence talk radio just happens to be dominated by the right.
Well, that was lucky.
Anyways, you may not have heard but there are new inventions called satellite radio and cable TV with hundreds of channels, so there's really no limits on broadcast anymore.
Network news deserves every accusation of not being particularly deep and of being pro-establishment. The "bias" is in favor of the digestible, not of one party over another.
I can't decide if you're really this ignorant or just think we are. You do realize polling of the news for the past 40 years has found a huge leftward tilt?
James Wolcott said something ugly and stupid? I'll try to contain my shock.
I see 22 minutes of blandtastic coverage that never challenges the status quo.
If you were a gun owner, an abortion opponent, a gay-marriage opponent, or a proponent of limited government spending, you would see it differently.
The fact that you don't see bias, or that you see a different bias than others see, is not evidence that there is no bias. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but when it comes to the FD, you're talking about imposing your opinion of what constitutes "bias" and "fair" by force of law. Would you like it if I were to do that? If not, can you understand why I don't want you to do it?
"but why even open a chink in your armor to such accusations in the first place?"
Because, KC, Wolcott and his ilk seek to silence opposition. No need to actually criminalize speech if you can not only make certain topics off-limits but also deny your opponents the right to use all sorts of metaphors, similes, etc.
It would require the Rush Limbaughs of the world to host some opposing points of view and force his ilk to defend some of their statements, instead of allowing their falsehoods to go unchallenged.
Oh dear Lord the ignorance. Obviously you've never actually heard Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly. I've heard maybe 4 hours in 5 years and even I know they all invite leftists on constantly for that exact purpose of debating them.
You know what we DON'T have? We don't have someone on 60 Minutes to debate Dan Rather when he presents forged documents accusing Bush of shirking his Nat'l Guard duty within a couple weeks of an election. It's just presented as fact.
Are you of the belief that it would be beneficial to public discourse to impose the FD on private parties, but unfortunately not legally possible?
Or are you of the opinion that the salutory effects of increasing debate only occur when a public medium is concerned?
Your either-or construct doesn't work for this.
Public airwaves carry different obligations from a private press. What you or I may want for the private press vis-a-vis fairness is absolutely irrelevant, because it is just not our prerogative to impose a Fairness Doctrine on users of private property. Whether or not that's "fortunate" or "unfortunate" has no bearing whatsoever; it just isn't our business.
In contrast, public airwaves belong to the public. The available bandwidth is limited, necessarily placing broadcast license holders into a different role with greater social responsibility and a democratic purpose that other forms of media are not obliged to maintain.
As wacky as it may seem to the hard right and its little cousins on the libertarian fringe, I am simply in agreement with the premise of a basic legal concept of public ownership of the airwaves that has been with us for decades. It helps to explain why the FCC regulates broadcast media, but not newspapers, magazines and most other variants of the press.
"Because that's now how people work, that's not what they want, and that's not what they do. As Raf said, what they do (the vast majority) is form gangs. You have to corral and channel those instincts, not done the propeller hat (or spock ears) and wish it away."
That is NOT how people work. You need twelve years of government provided or licensed education minimum just to think like that. When that kind of propaganda is complimented with additional indoctrination from family, church, university, the media, etc, it may feel like people naturally work that way when they don't. Coercion is actually rare and requires a good deal of doublethink for people to accept certain types of it as normal.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but when it comes to the FD, you're talking about imposing your opinion of what constitutes "bias" and "fair" by force of law.
It's simply not that hard to generate debate. Find a few reasonably intelligent people who are unlikely to agree with each other, gather them around some microphones, and ask them to provide their viewpoints. Toss in a paycheck or dial in a chance at self-promotion for good measure, and within moments, you'll have your debate.
It worked before, and it can work again. Talk radio was a lot more dignified and informative when we did things this way. Those who find that concept too troublesome will continue to find plenty of unregulated, unabashedly slanted print and broadband alternatives available for their dancing and dining pleasure.
What you or I may want for the private press vis-a-vis fairness is absolutely irrelevant, because it is just not our prerogative to impose a Fairness Doctrine on users of private property.
You remind me of one of my friends, who was a sharp critic of the Bush Administration. I posed this question: It's Sept. 12, 2001. You are the President. What do you do? His response was, and I quote, "That's irrelevant because I am not the President." The fact that he was technically correct did not make his answer adequate.
An actual response to skullberg's question would be something like "Yes, I think the NYT would better serve its readers by inviting rebuttals to its own editorials, to be published side-by-side. However, it is not our prerogative..."
But let's return to my question: would you like it if skullberg and I were put in charge of implementing the Fairness Doctrine? Would you be pleased to have me impose my version of "fair" on the media?
If not, then is it really hard for you to understand why we object to your version of "fair"?
It's simply not that hard to generate debate.
How do I go about "generating debate" in a network newscast which presents a blatantly 1-sided view of a subject?
My posts are now being held....
The fact that he was technically correct did not make his answer adequate.
Ouch. The irony is that you don't recognize libertarianism when it's right in your face.
I don't wish to regulate the private press for fairness, simply because it is private and it isn't up to me to regulate it. It isn't my business whether or not the print media is "fair," and I would adamantly defend their rights to be as biased as they like, just so long as they don't libel or defame others.
I treat public airwaves differently because they are public. The public difference is the difference that counts. You may refuse to see a distinction between public and private, but I do see it, and I shape my views accordingly.
Would you be pleased to have me impose my version of "fair" on the media?
I think that we covered this. If you don't comprehend fairness, then no, you'd be a poor arbiter of fairness.
I can't stand George Will or Newt Gingrinch, but I'm glad that ABC gave them time on Sunday to voice their positions. I'm pleased that ABC took its job seriously by giving them and others who don't agree with them the opportunity to analyze a political issue in a reasonably cogent fashion. That's fair, and since they used public airwaves to do it, it's my business to care about it being fair.
It's obvious that you don't define fairness as I would. You have an agenda, and you become upset if too much opposition to your agenda is expressed.
In contrast, I just want to see a debate. Since debates are easily organized, this is not particularly difficult to accomplish.
Hmmm . . . I claim that yellow shades into green here. You claim that yellow shades into green there. Obviously a subjective call, right? Therefore, there isn't any difference between yellow and green.
I don't think this is an argument you want to make. Note also that 'differing opinions' and 'fairness' is something of a false equivalence; while we might all have divergent notions of 'fair', the sense of when 'differing opinions' are absent or present is a much easier call.
This really doesn't make much sense (in fact, your friend is just wrong, given the hypothetical.) My brother is free to use his own money any way he wishes because it's his. If I give him money to pay his bills, the stipulation is that he doesn't blow it on booze and gambling. Where is the contradiction? And how is my preference for booze and gambling relevant? I could just as easily stipulate that he not blow it on a new stereo; does that imply that I have something against electronic equipment?
I don't wish to regulate the private press for fairness
That's nice, but it's not the question. The question is whether you think the private press would be better for the public if subject to such regulation. The question of whether it is legally possible, or undesirable for other, unrelated, reasons, is logically separate.
If debate is good in the public square, it's good in the private sphere too. Or at least, so I mote. What your opinion is is as yet undetermined.
I think that we covered this. If you don't comprehend fairness, then no, you'd be a poor arbiter of fairness.
What, precisely, makes you think that you are god-like paragon of perfect neutrality, untouched by bias or prejudice, but I am not?
You have an agenda, and you become upset if too much opposition to your agenda is expressed.
I would be delighted if you could point to some evidence to substantiate this assertion. I prefer to say that I become upset when my "agenda" is ignored, intentionally mischaracterized, or when salient facts related to my agenda are misreported.
In contrast, I just want to see a debate.
I will ask again, without hope of seeing a response: how do you organize a "debate" when the issue is one-sided "news" programs?
the sense of when 'differing opinions' are absent or present is a much easier call.
It is if you're talking about Rush or Crossfire. It's not so easy when you're talking about a nightly news broadcast, where numerous people will claim there is no opinion at all, and others will claim the opposite.
Rob, why don't you give specific examples of how 'your agenda' is ignored or marginalized? And while you're at it, why don't you explain why this is relevant? If you want to say that everyone assumes the U.S. put a man on the moon in 1969, and the opposing view, that it's all a hoax is given practically zero air time, I'd agree. But I don't see why this view should be given any sort of public sanction at all.
The question is whether you think the private press would be better for the public if subject to such regulation.
As I've told you, it's not a meaningful issue. You may as well ask me whether it would be better if everybody liked puppies or chocolate ice cream.
I put a greater premium on protecting the rights of the property holder to use his property as he sees fit. My guiding principle is on the rights and responsibilities attached to the property. Use of public airwaves and ownership of a private press entail different obligations, and that's what I care about.
If debate is good in the public square, it's good in the private sphere too
Irrelevant. The issue isn't with "good" or "bad", but with the differing obligations of the public vs. private.
Honestly, I'm not going to comment on this again. I've expressed the point a number of times in more ways than should be necessary, and that's quite enough.
I would be delighted if you could point to some evidence to substantiate this assertion.
Being that you can't recognize how to assemble a debate, and that your feelings are hurt by some apparent bias that you claim to see despite a lack of evidence, it's fairly obvious that you have proven it for me.
Fairness should be easy. Let's take a debate on abortion. Under the Fairness Doctrine, you get some number of people arguing positions in favor of abortion rights, and match them against others who disagree. Voila! Instant debate.
You don't have to agree with any of the representatives, the views of the moderator should be irrelevant. All the moderator needs to to is give them all a forum and allow them to speak. If you hold each side's feet to the fire and require them to address rebuttals while challenging their assumptions, then more the better.
If you can't grasp that methodology of fairness intuitively, then yes, fairness may be a bit beyond your grasp and may be better left to someone else. Some people are capable of understanding this, and do well with it. That's what makes it possible for George Will and Robert Reich to peaceably coexist on a Sunday morning, in a reasonable showing for democracy.
SoV,
Try not and run away this time, but look at the link I posted www.cmpa.com/pdf/media_monitor_jan_2009.pdf and let me know that this wouldn't be different if the Bush administration had legal regulatory power over whether television news coverage was 'fair'
Rob, why don't you give specific examples of how 'your agenda' is ignored or marginalized?
Sure, I'll offer my personal favorite. It is widely believed that "assault weapons" (which Obama wishes to ban/regulate) are fully-automatic, and that they therefore belong "on foreign battlefields," rather than "on America's streets." It is also commonly believed that they are "more powerful" than the benign hunting guns of which everybody approves.
This widespread belief is undoubtedly due to the fact that news stories about the controversy frequently have featured B-roll footage of, yes, fully-automatic weapons, as well as unchallenged assertions by politicians and advocates that such weapons are very powerful and not useful for hunting or target shooting.
The fact that the "assault weapons" ban concerns exclusively semiautomatic guns, regulates features which are largely cosmetic (with some level of functionality, such as adjustable stocks which match a gun to the stature of the shooter easily), that most such weapons are of a lower power than many common hunting calibers (although caliber does not form part of the definition), and that the most common centerfire target rifle in the country is the AR-15 all go unmentioned, night after night.
Heck, it usually goes unmentioned on the Sunday talk shows, too. (Granted, this is my personal hobbyhorse)
RW,
Just to amuse myself, I'll put it to you in a ay that eliminates your private/public distinct you refuse to let go.
How would you feel about any organization that receives a White House Press Pass, surely a public good, be forced to submit to a Fairness Doctrine of equals time? This would cover print, news, internet
or other US based news organizations.
If this is such an a boon to society as a whole, that regulation would seem to have 0 downsides.
Fairness should be easy. Let's take a debate on abortion. Under the Fairness Doctrine, you get some number of people arguing positions in favor of abortion rights, and match them against others who disagree. Voila! Instant debate.
And we come back to my perpetual question: how do you have a "debate" with a network news anchor who is not being "fair"? Surely you grant it is possible to shade or distort the news to favor a particular viewpoint, even if you don't think that happens a lot these days. What is your "fair" solution to that problem?
I think you've just answered your own question. Do you have any better examples of 'your agenda' that might better serve to make your point?
Do you have any better examples of 'your agenda' that might better serve to make your point?
What about the gross misrepresentation of the facts surrounding that particular issue makes it a bad example? It happens to be something that pisses me off more than, say, soft-focus discussions of the plight of illegal immigrants, but why is it unworthy of consideration? Frankly, it's a rather clear-cut issue.
An addendum - bear in mind Rob that I agree with you on this one, and that I am generally what would most accurately be described as not favoring gun control.
SoV--although I am a gun nut, I chose that particular example over (for instance) a discussion of the pros and cons of gun registration schemes or ballistic fingerprinting because I believe the issue is so clear, and so clearly manipulated.
And I will also confess something else: I haven't watched a network news broadcast for maybe 4 years or so, because I used to get so pissed off about a wide variety of issues in their reporting, including guns, illegal immigration, welfare, the CBS memos, and the war. So I will concede up front that they might be vastly better now and I wouldn't know.
I'd also like to say that I don't begrudge them a viewpoint or bias, public airwaves or not (I DO begrudge them blatent falsehood). What I object to is the double standard: Rush is violating the public trust by being biased but Dan Rather isn't.
Because, to put it bluntly, the vast majority of people just don't care. Give them those facts, and the ban still would not be lifted or modified to any real degree.
Iow, it's a tiny issue that doesn't concern a whole lot of people. I could name any of a number of pet peeves of mine, 'facts' that regularly get aired as facts, but really aren't. But if I mention them to most people, I guarantee that the best expected outcome would be for their eyes to glaze over. Do you think I should get time on the public airwaves trying to correct the impression that 'a quantum leap forward' does not mean a large or radical advance? That it really implies an extremely small one?
How would you feel about any organization that receives a White House Press Pass, surely a public good, be forced to submit to a Fairness Doctrine of equals time? This would cover print, news, internet or other US based news organizations.
I'd say that we are desperately in need of a Literacy Doctrine around here. Reading comprehension is not apparently one of your strong suits.
how do you have a "debate" with a network news anchor who is not being "fair"? Surely you grant it is possible to shade or distort the news to favor a particular viewpoint, even if you don't think that happens a lot these days. What is your "fair" solution to that problem?
A Fairness Doctrine would force the license holder to provide forums for debate. At worst, the broadcast license could be revoked. We had a Fairness Doctrine before, so it's not as if we don't have case studies and experience that could be used to guide us today.
But since you oppose the notion of a fairness doctrine, how could this possibly upset you? This would be the free market in action, etc., etc. Chin up, tough it out and deal with it.
Wow, you really don't want to answer this question!
You're position is that allowing an entity to use a public good (airwaves) should come with restrictions on content
I propose allowing an entity to use a public good (white house press room access to the president) but making restrictions on content.
Explain where I am wrong.
Because, to put it bluntly, the vast majority of people just don't care. Give them those facts, and the ban still would not be lifted or modified to any real degree.
Maybe, maybe not. But I think the difference between "machine gun" and "gun with adjustable stock" is pretty substantial. And I think that support for the ban probably relies on the public (and, more importantly, politicians) believing it is about the former and not the latter.
In any case, if it's important enough to spend 90 second on in the nightly news, then it's important enough not to lie about.
And, incidentally, if some matter of public policy ever depends on the size of a "quantum leap," then yes, I expect that the media should damn well get it right or suffer accusations of bias.
But since you oppose the notion of a fairness doctrine, how could this possibly upset you?
As I said above, it's your double standard that bothers me: Rush is abusing the public trust but Dan Rather isn't.
I wish the media were less biased, and I will continue to criticize bias when I encounter it, but I do not support the government trying to eradicate it.
Wow, you really don't want to answer this question!
No, I have answered the question ad nauseum. You apparently are incapable of reading the answer. (I've typed very slowly, so I've already done my part to help.)
I obviously don't support a Fairness Doctrine being applied to the private press. I have stated this explicitly and repeatedly, in more ways than I care to count.
Yet for whatever reason, you refuse to understand this and insist on attributing the opposing view to me. So forgive me for believing that you must be fluent in no languages and more than a few knives short of a steak set.
Actually, I pity you more than anything else. You exhibit a weakness common to right-wing ideologues, namely a complete inability to comprehend a contrary position as seen from someone else's vantage point.
The points that I raise here are so above your head that you can't even digest them, even though they are quite simple and already a component of American law. You should be embarrassed.
And oddly enough, I again agree with you - I think the difference between "machine gun" and "gun with adjustable stock" is pretty substantial.
But I disagree with you that the support relies on this fine distinction (sarcasm intentional.) I suspect that if you sawed the stock off a beat up old Marlin bolt-action 30.06 and replaced it with a hi-tech looking wire fold-up that most people would still think that it should be banned. Depressing, but true, imho.
And I don't think the people who read the words off the teleprompter are so much lying as they are indifferent to the details. Assuming they even know what they're talking about.
I suspect that if you sawed the stock off a beat up old Marlin bolt-action 30.06 and replaced it with a hi-tech looking wire fold-up that most people would still think that it should be banned.
That's certainly possible. But the fact that politicians and lobbyists rely on dishonesty (Carl Levin recently said that "assault weapons" can fire 600 rounds a minute--don't know about you, but my finger isn't that fast) suggest to me that they gain something by promoting falsehood. I'd like our beloved "Fourth Estate" to, you know, speak a little truth to power here.
And I don't think the people who read the words off the teleprompter are so much lying as they are indifferent to the details. Assuming they even know what they're talking about.
Well, that's fair enough. I've often said that media bias is less about a conspiracy to push a point of view than just laziness in the common assumptions of the newsroom.
SoV,
Ducking the question again, huh? It looks like the Income by State issue all over again...
RW,
Whatever helps you sleep at night... You know my last scenario is valid, and raises the same legal issues the archaic Fairness Doctrine does, you just can't "comprehend a contrary position as seen from someone else's vantage point"
I fully grasp you're tendencies as a censor, they tend to come part and parcel with lefties like yourself. I just don't think their logically consistent, and I think they lead to a very dark place.
What Arnold Kling actually said:
Thank you. I'd like to thank the sponsors of this conference for inviting me to speak.
I think about what's going on, what's happening today, as an economist, but I feel it as a father. My wife and I have three daughters, aged between 19 and 25, and when I see what's being done to their future, I am really angry.
Back in September, when they were talking about taking $700 billion to "unclog the financial system," I wanted to take Henry Paulson and *yank* him out of the TV screen and say, "You keep your hands off my daughters' future!"
But he got away with it. And I had to -- For me it was like sitting there watching my house being ransacked by a gang of thugs. And now we've got a new gang of thugs, and they're going to do the same thing.
So, anyway, that's how I feel, we'll go back to how I think.
(You can see the video here: http://www.myheritage.org/archive/articles/2009/economic-recovery-free-markets-big-government.html -- it's about 40 minutes into the second video.)