Libertarian Takes On Occupy Wall Street

I've previously mentioned the common ground I believe libertarians can hold with left and right alike on Occupy Wall Street. Mainly, the bailouts to financial institutions were not just. If we just keep it right there, we can get along. If we start shading it, the coalition that would be falls apart- fast.

I really like what Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had to say about OWS and crony capitalism, in a recent press statement:

"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.

"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.

"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.

"Unfortunately, hypocritical Republican politicians have taught a lot of Americans to think that 'free markets' means freedom for government and big business to engage in crony capitalism.

"That's not what free markets are. A free market is where the government leaves businesses alone, does not attempt to pick winners and losers, does not stifle competition, does not hand out corporate welfare, and does not absolve businesses of liability for their actions. Most of our economy today does not resemble a free market at all.

I would be interested in seeing an OWS reaction to this statement. Can people on the left agree and draw the distinction between actual capitalism and crony capitalism? Can the left agree that corruption is dependent upon crony capitalism, or do they actually like crony capitalism- so long as the winners chosen are ones they favor, such as green business?

For that matter, can the right see the same distinctions? Can they shed crony capitalism when the chosen winners are military suppliers?

Doug Masson has some similar ponderings today:

It’s always seemed to me that the corporate form should be anathema to Libertarians. It’s a government construct that exists for the purpose of evading personal responsibility.

I quite agree. It's interesting to see some libertarians and folks on the right who love all things business, and should equally cherish self-responsibility, overlook the latter in embracing corporations, merely because corporations are business entities. Business in and of itself is not the same thing as free enterprise.

We all have blind spots. These are the days when it would be a great idea to self-examine and find those blind spots, and acknowledge them. We end up with shitty solutions when we're full of shit.

Gotchas And Cognitive Dissonance

The Ron Paul / Wolf Blitzer "Should they die?" exchange has been greatly remarked upon. I can picture one side of the political spectrum having jumped out of their easy chairs while watching the GOP debate, pointing their fingers at the TV, shaking with righteous indignation and yelling to those in the room (or to nobody at all), "See!"

Doug Masson weighed in on the exchange in more measured tones, and pointed out something that has been bubbling under the surface of my consciousness and made it rise forth.

There are very few actual monsters among us. But, there are plenty of people for whom strangers are little more than an abstraction. And that’s why no sense of empathy stirs them to be concerned about whether the unknown person lives or dies. When confronted with dissonance between their stated logic and the plight of someone they know and care about, there will be some justification about why the person they know is entitled to assistance. But, I suspect social proximity is the determining factor.

If one can be 'guilty' of what Doug brings up here, then we all are. There is this prevailing attack on libertarians as the kind of people who say, "I got mine, so fuck you". Yes, there are libertarians who take this approach. Guess what? Everybody actually lives that. Unless we have sold off all of our belongings and sent the proceeds to Africa, or West Virginia, or Knox County, or even the poor side of town... well, we've drawn the line, and said, "I've got mine, I ain't giving anymore, you're on your own, fuck you". We may draw the line closer to or further from home, but we all draw the line- unless we've sold off our belongings, and maybe joined a guerrilla army to fight against warlords in Somalia or ward off genocide in Darfur. At any rate, these political attacks are designed to inspire guilt. I was raised Catholic. I know a guilt trip when I see it.

I don't know why we can't acknowledge this about ourselves. We earn, we keep some, we give some away, we have some taken from us. We aren't in a national commune, pooling 100% of any income for the use of the whole, so it should be obvious to see. There's willful ignorance teamed with a smug moral relativism going on.

As for me, I don't feel guilty about having not sold my belongings, about having drawn the line, and prioritizing the well-being of my family first, as I define said well-being. I'll never feel the slightest twinge of guilt knowing that someone would have lived longer in Africa, in West Virginia, in Knox County, or in the poor parts of Indy if only I had put more into the public till. I don't see these others as my responsibility. I certainly don't see them as owing me anything. And, I have only begun on the kids' college fund after having been under-employed for 2+ years, and nearing the end of my contract- the only six weeks of actual employment I've had this year. The odd jobs were fun, but weren't even paying the bills. The bills and the kids' college fund, or, a small part of an operation for a person unknown to me? Yeah- the college fund, every time.

And, just like in so many other areas of life, I'll wait for others to lead by example. Any time one who believes in funding the health care of those they don't know wants to, they can. Just as I'm waiting for Al Gore to give up his mansion in the name of a better environment, and Warren Buffett to write a check for a billion dollars to the federal government as a self-tax on the wealthy, I'll look to the proponents of health care to write checks themselves. Otherwise, they're just bluffing. Or pandering. Or, full of shit.

New Podcast Posted

For LPIN Weekly Podcast #19, I took a different approach, reaching outside the roster of Libertarian Party leaders and recent candidates to Doug Masson, a Lafayette blogger and lawyer who has common ground with libertarians, especially on civil liberty issues, but is not a partisan Libertarian.

Several things occurred to me in leading me to ask Doug to sit down at the microphone.

1. One strategy employed by the Libertarian Party has been to court disaffected supporters of the party with majority power. For several years, it was a courtship of disaffected fiscal conservatives, as Republicans delivered smaller government rhetoric alongside exponentially growing budgets and bureaucracies. As power has shifted to Democrats, we are quickly seeing the delivery of pro-civil liberties rhetoric met with restrictive policy by the Obama Administration.

2. When you only talk amongst those who completely agree, the tendency to develop blind spots grows. I wanted to hear from someone outside the partisan-Ls in what ways the Libertarian Party is missing the opportunity to draw from the Left.

3. Doug's blog, Masson's Blog, is really excellent. It is the one on the Left that I read daily, without fail.

This and all podcasts are available via this archive link. You know what to do.

Many thanks to Doug for taking the time to sit down with me for this interview.

Human Nature Never Changes

One thing that irks me is to hear someone say, "Non-interventionist foreign policy may have been fine 200 years ago, but this is a different day and age.

Horsefeathers. I was reading Doug Masson's latest blog entry, called "War is a Racket". It featured a couple of lengthy citations about war, and the motive to transfer wealth from the Treasury to the businesses making war materiel.

This war in Iraq is foolish. Iraq was a threat to the USA? Iraq was hardly a threat to Iran, let alone the USA. It certainly wasn't planning to do anything to us, which is why we should have left Iraq alone. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a nasty, brutal dictator. That's our problem? Not a chance.

The longer this drags on, the more I begin to wonder why we're there.

Anyhow, Masson's quotables are from WWI, and Mark Twain. The idea of cashing in on war is not new. Human nature doesn't change. That's why ideology can be applied across eras, and why pragmatism is more like sticking your finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows.

I was also reminded of the great Dead Kennedys bit "Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round".

What's Wrong With Government

(Sierra Vista, AZ)- Ok, this is the excerpted Reader's Digest version...

One of the things I find most wanting today is the absence of consistent thought, and the development of solid ideas into public policy. One of my favorite quotes is of John Adams:

"A government of laws, not of men."

This means, not a government of personalities, of popularity, or any other whimsical nonsense. Personality and popularity is fleeting and ever-changing. Solid law based on solid principles gives the opportunity for clear understanding and thus clear footing.

Reading recent posts by Hoosier Pundit and Doug Masson on the crafting of property tax legislation brought this all to mind, as it focused on the importance of three figures: Governor Mitch Daniels, Republican State Senator Luke Kenley, and Democratic House Leader Pat Bauer.

It's ironic. They're drafting law. But it is illustrated here that we are a government of men first, with laws resulting secondly.

I could stand it if there was great clarity where either of these three men stood on the issue. Kenley in particular is a "stick your finger in the air and see which way the wind blows" kind of man. For certain, none of these is a statesman. Oh, for a statesman or two!

I'd much rather see solid competing IDEAS, rather than these three egos, and the kind of horsetrading they will marshall. Let's talk about abolishing the property tax. Let's have a discourse about the things the property taxes fund. 

The dialogue should be much more than, "what can we do to look it make like we've created tax relief all while maintaining the funding status quo." That's what it has all come down to, and it is because we are a nation of men, not of laws.

Interesting Banter

(Crystal Lake, IL)- Doug Masson's blog is one of my favorite Hoosier reads. It's been on my link list for 2-3 years now. He and I agree on a lot of civil liberty issues, but we sometimes part company on economic liberty items.

Doug brought up the topic of inherited wealth. It generally bothers him, so he posted about it. A great discussion has ensued, with me taking the side opposite him. It interests me that some can be very strong advocates for some kinds of individual liberty, but also strong opponents of others. Freedom is not an a la carte item for me. It may not be perfect, especially when placing isolated cases under the microscope, but it's better than the alternative.

It's easy for some to become frustrated with the practice of passing wealth to others when your examples are Paris Hilton or the Astors- the former for bad behavior, the latter for the sheer longevity of that wealth. But what does it matter to you or me? It doesn't pick my pocket. It doesn't prevent me from living my life. No harm, no foul.

Just like issues of civil liberty. Look at gay marriage. How does that pick my pocket? Or prevent me from living my life? Or threaten my marriage? It doesn't, and yet there are plenty of people who are bothered by it enough to want to restrict others from engaging in it.

Right and left pick and choose when it comes to examining policy in these terms: Does it pick my pocket? Does it prevent me from living my life? I think that's just it. Too much policy is emotionally driven, and not examined in such terms. If it were, I do believe our society would become a much more tolerant, and happy, place.

As for me, I intend to leave a little behind to my successors, but not a huge amount. I share a good deal of Doug's concern that inherited wealth creates problems for those who receive it. I know I value my own struggles as developmental. But as a parent, I want to endow my children, or perhaps more likely my grandchildren, with a little assistance. Doing so will leave me a happier man at the end of the trail. I do waver on what an appropriate amount is. Being able to make the choices as seems fit to me when the time comes is all I ask for.