The following might be an incorrect assumption on my part, I realize that. Still, has anyone else made the following observation? Keep in mind that the reason I support rightists more than leftists is purely because their policies are easier to undo (and don't create perpetual votes):
Rightists want to tell people what they won't do. In a rightist mind, individuals run the economy and run their own lives unless their actions disrespect the country and its culture. Of course, that philosophy isn't consistent and it's shown not to shrink government.
Leftist, on the other hand, want to tell people what they will do. In a leftist mind, the government manages the economy and ensures individuals act in a way that benefits the community.
I think that terrifying mindset is displayed in this column.
Take a look at this quote:
The market is not the best part of America. Not even close. Our government is the best part — or at least it used to be before the current gang took over.Ultimately, it is government that defines who we are and lays out a path for how our society will be. The market wouldn't have built a uniform system of roads and bridges or provided free public education. It wouldn't have guaranteed minimum wages or insisted on safe workplaces. (Economists who claim that the market would have filled these gaps are not students of history.)And without the government's backstop of depositor money, we would still have bank runs.But somewhere along the way, we started to buy Reagan's line that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' "
Ultimately, it is government that defines who we are and lays out a path for how our society will be. The market wouldn't have built a uniform system of roads and bridges or provided free public education. It wouldn't have guaranteed minimum wages or insisted on safe workplaces. (Economists who claim that the market would have filled these gaps are not students of history.)
And without the government's backstop of depositor money, we would still have bank runs.
But somewhere along the way, we started to buy Reagan's line that "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' "
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
I am glad someone posted this thread. I read this article in the newspaper the other day and I was truly disgusted by what I read. Anyway I completely agree with the assumption posted about the rightists versus the leftists.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Capitalists, how on earth are we going to defeat their desire to control others?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
It's easier to end wars than to wean people off of welfare and privatize Social Security. Plus, any industry that becomes nationalized, a favorite tactic of the left, is by definition, a monopoly.
Juan:I think that the banking cartel and military contractors are harder to stop and way more dangerous than other branches of the state. Also, I don't see why ending social security is any different than ending something like, say, the 'war on drugs'. Personally I think that the right and its lip service to the 'free-market' go a long way to discredit the real free-market.
The war on drugs could be ended in a week. Just stop enforcing the laws! There would be practically no fallout.
Social Security, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to end (and FDR even gloated about this).
How is it possible to end a system where current workers are funding current retirees? Note only is it logistically difficult, it's electorally impossible! It's a system that creates voters who are dependent upon the system.
How can we wean people off of welfare(and all other social services) when they've become accustomed that money? Ignoring the logistical mess of cutting off millions of people's main source of income (an income to which they've become accustom), it is nearly electorally possible. Not only will those using welfare be opposed to ending it, so will people who feel they might need to use it soon.
A welfare system create more poverty and more voters who want a welfare system, which in turn leads to an expansion of the welfare system, which leads to more poverty and more voters who want a welfare system, etc.
Leftist policies create perpetual votes, and that's why they are biggest enemy. That, and the left's ingrained arrogance and desire to control others, as I noted in the OP.
No, no, no. Rightist policies control people, there's no doubt. Even the funding of rightist policies is coercive (taxation). What I'm saying is two-fold:
In my opinion, the average rightist is only a few conversations away from becoming capitalist, while leftists are rooted in anti-capitalism. And yes, there are exceptions.
It's important to note that many policies define as "right-wing" are totally opposed by the average self-identified rightist (if you think that rightists love banking cartels, check freerepublic). I don't know of any leftists who oppose Social Security (no, they want to remove caps on payroll taxes!).
Did you agree or disagree with my previous post?
In my opinion, the average rightist is only a few conversations away from becoming capitalist,
thecapitalist:In my opinion, the average rightist is only a few conversations away from becoming capitalist
I would have to disagree...
Juan:Let's see : Telling people what stuff they can smoke and what stuff they can't smoke sounds to me like an attempt to control others. Do you agree ? On the other hand, SS is a system based on misguided altruism, or demagogical promises, if you will. People want social security or socialized medicine because they believe (or pretend to believe) that it's free - not because they directly want to control others. I'm not saying the left is any good, but trying to underline that a lot of policies advocated by the right rely on the same principle as those advocated by the left. Now, if you define 'the right' as people who actually believe in inalienable individual rights, then what I say is wrong, but I don't think that's the case. In my opinion, the average rightist is only a few conversations away from becoming capitalist, I doubt it. But you are free to try : )
As I mentioned in my first post, rightists want to tell people what they won't do, leftists want to tell people what they will do. I don't think that drug laws are rooted in a desire to control other people, I think they are rooted in a desire to preserve culture (and many rightists are against drug laws, anyways). Lefist policies are rooted in a desire to "make a difference". I'll try to explain:
Whenever you read leftist message boards or blogs, every post will talk about making the rich pay their fair share in taxes, requiring all business to pay a living wage, silencing hate-filled right-wingers on talk-radio, affirmative action to ensure particular races are fairly represented in business and education, setting maximum salaries to ensure fairness in pay, nationalizing businesses and industries (because profit-seeking individuals can't be trusted as much as high-minded leftists), public funding of political races to ensure that no potential candidates are silenced and their desire to make a difference in the world.
When the left wants people to act a certain way, all they need to do (in their opinion) is to convince a majority of voters to go along with them! Instead of petitioning and raising money for programs they want, they petition and raise money for votes. Most rightists, despite being statists, are appalled at that idea.
I'm in a hurry and I realize that this post is scattered, but it's their intangible desire to "make a difference", using someone else's money, that puts the left at odds with rightists and capitalists.
Again, I'm not saying that rightists aren't controlling statists; they are! But it's the left's snarky arrogance, like claiming that they're open-minded for having certain views and expecting to get away with it, like telling us capitalists that taxes are actually voluntary because everyone votes on them, like claiming to be for free speech while shouting down and silencing dissenting views, like claiming to be compassionate with someone else's money, etc. that makes them much more dangerous than the right.
In case you have started to respond to the previous post here, think about this:
Leftists fundamentally think that government (in other words: coercive force) is the sollution to all problems. Rightists most certainly do not hold that fundamental belief.
thecapitalist:Ultimately, it is government that defines who we are and lays out a path for how our society will be. The market wouldn't have built a uniform system of roads and bridges or provided free public education. It wouldn't have guaranteed minimum wages or insisted on safe workplaces. (Economists who claim that the market would have filled these gaps are not students of history.)
Education is the only way to defeat this. First, no, the free market would have probably not built a uniform system of roads on which thousands of people die each year in horrible car crashes. The free market also would have probably not built these roads out of asphalt that must be continuously maintained by government-paid, taxpayer-funded workers or contractors.
Of course, we all know that "free" education is not free in either sense of the word. The free market would have most definitely not created an government-run education system. The free market would not have created any system of education what so ever. Some individuals would have educated their own kids, and some would have sent them off to private schools, and some may have gotten together to form community schools. But regardless, the government would have not gotten involved in the education of our children. Look at what this "free:" education system has gotten us so far. I heard a report on the radio today that said 25% of the kids in the Austin, TX "ISD" were not graduating from high school. Besides the fact that 25% of the kids are not graduating, what kind of job can anyone get with a high school diploma now days?
The free market would have never set any kind of arbitrary minimum wage. The minimum wage, OSHA, and all these other laws and regulatory bodies only keep people unemployed. The capitalist are not pointing a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to work for low wages or under unsafe conditions, but the socialist and communists surely have and surely would if they got their way.
I don't agree with the dychotomy or characterizations in the OP or the ones made afterwards either. "Rightists" also believe in forcing people to do certain things, and "leftists" also believe in forcing people to not do certain things. The only real difference is a matter of what they personally prefer to force people to do and not do and what their cultural outlook is. Not a significant difference over the means advocated (I.E. political ones). Also, the dychotomy between personal and economic liberty is of course fallacious in the first place. "Rightists" do not actually favor a free economy and "leftists" do not actually favor personal liberty. Furthermore, when I take a look at it, at least in America, "the right" has actually more often favored protectionism over free trade than "the left". Nor do I buy into the notion that "the right" is individualist while "the left" is collectivist. "The right" has always believed in various forms of collectivism ranging from nationalism to racism to traditionalist communitarianism.
Rothbard's essay "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty" addresses the history of these terms and movements and the fallacy of libertarians assuming that they have some sort of natural alliance with "the right" over "the left". This assumption exists in part because around and soon after the turn of the 20th century, "the left" became increasingly statist so the old libertarian "left" sought refuge in the muddled "right". "The right" then co-opted libertarian rhetoric, which it retains to this day, without actually representing the substance of it. The actual libertarian elements were of course quickly purged from "the right" in the 50's and 60's. Furthermore, the status quo in America has increasingly been in the direction of right-wing collectivism and economic fascism, not communism. Libertarians in America are fighting against what actually is a corporatist or "state-capitalist" system, not "communism" proper.
The economic system favored by most American "rightists" is not laissez-faire but a synthesis, collusion or patronage between the state and private entities (and an interesting observation that I saw made by Francious Tremblay is that state communism is the logical result of this synthesis between state and buisiness, taking it to the point where the state literally is big buisiness). "The left", quite correctly, tends to identify the negative effects of this system and then goes on to blame it on a non-existant free market and advocate state-socialism. "The right" tends to either deny the negative effects of this system or engage in apologetics for them and then goes on to trumpet the current system as if it were a free market, defending the status quo and advocating state-socialism of a more corporate sort. The "vulgar libertarian" falls into the same trap that "the right" does sometimes. In either case, it seems clear to me that the American "right", in large part, never really favored laissez-faire and has always more or less represented corporatism, communitarianism, authoritarianism, traditionalism, perpetual war and theocracy.
For all of the reasons outlined above, and much more, I feel safe in making the claim that libertarian philosophy and historical revisionism makes it quite clear that libertarians have no more reason to trust "the right" than "the left".
Brainpolice, I actually agree with you more than I think you realize.
My least favorite radio-talkshow host is Neal Boortz, the self-described "libertarian" who is a huge supporter of the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. People like Boortz trash the libertarian brand with scummish policies and rhetoric. I agree than many advances of the state have been done by self-described rightists (Nixon, Reagan, Bush). Reagan aside, the methods that Nixon and Bush used were traditional left-wing, FDR/Obama-style left-wing policies.
At this point, you could easily counter me:
"I see what you're doing, whenever a self-described rightist expands the government, you just call those policies leftist." And you'd be right. This is why I don't like attaching political labels to individuals... and why I prefer using them to describe policies.
And so I will rephrase my point, thanks to your excellent post:
Basically, it's best to look at it issue by issue, and you have to look at individuals on an issue by issue basis. Thanks for helping me clarify my position.
It still seems to me that you're using a political spectrum that boils down to the idea that the farther right you go, the less government and the farther left you go, the more government. I think this is mistaken because much of what is considered to be "the right" would have to fall on "the left" under such a spectrum. It's misleading because it still puts foreward the notion that conservatives favor smaller government, which I find only to be remotely true rhetorically rather than substantively. And I find it kind of silly to place people like Hitler on the "far left". I also find it silly to place the entirety of anarchism on "the far right", especially considering that it's typically been a "leftist" movement. It doesn't make any practical sense to place people like Pierre Joseph Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker on "the right".
It seems to me that using a horizontal axis is a mistake. I prefer a diagnal one that measures the means advocated or persued (political and coercive and monocentric vs. voluntary and pluralistic/polycentric). "Left" and "right", in contrast to this diagnal axis of means, are merely personal or cultural preferances. I don't consider it to really be an axis at all, as the only true axis is the diagnal one measuring the way in which one's preferances are approached. So my view of the political spectrum takes a neutral stance on "left" and "right" in that either of the two could be either statist or voluntaryist depending on the context. And I think that a diversity of preferances can peacefully co-exist in a voluntary context, while in a coercive and political context they inherently must be imposed from above.
Also, I don't really understand your four statements there. How about not expanding any of them? Why make a mere comparative analysis and pragmatically pick one over the other when the point should be to reject all of the above? And I don't necessarily agree with them. War is a very expensive endeavor for a government to engage in. I don't see how it's any better than nationalized healthcare. Arguably it's worse, since it is mass-murder (funded through the same means as nationalized healthcare). It doesn't make sense to me to side with foreign policy expansions over domestic policy expansions (isn't that one of the main problems with the contemporary "right" in the first place, I.E. that they tend to have polar opposite positions between foreign and domestic policy?). In principle, both are bad.
I prefer 'moretist' and 'lesstist' over 'rightist' and 'leftist'. When asked if I'm a 'righty' or a 'lefty' I tend to reply that I am a 'lessty'. The question mark that almost invariably appears on the foreheads of others lends me plenty of time to preach the wonders of a truly free society.
BP, I think you mean vertical, not diagonal. The most useful graph I've seen is the political compass, which splits the spectrum into four quadrants. On such a graph, I'd definitely prefer voluntaryist capitalists to anything else, and even minarchists to most left-anarchists. As for thecapitalist's point on those four programmes, I think he means it's easier to abolish them once they've been instated, whereas leftist programmes are not (precisely because they create classes of dependents.) I disagree on both the war and the drug war; both programmes create massive classes of dependents.
Inquisitor: BP, I think you mean vertical, not diagonal. The most useful graph I've seen is the political compass, which splits the spectrum into four quadrants. On such a graph, I'd definitely prefer voluntaryist capitalists to anything else, and even minarchists to most left-anarchists. As for thecapitalist's point on those four programmes, I think he means it's easier to abolish them once they've been instated, whereas leftist programmes are not (precisely because they create classes of dependents.) I disagree on both the war and the drug war; both programmes create massive classes of dependents.
Yea, brain fart. My bad. I meant vertical. I prefer something along the lines of the spectrum Walter Block proposed in his speech on socialism and fascism. Which is basically "up" and "down", where "up" is liberty" and "down" is tyranny, whereas "left" and "right" are just muddled inconsistancies or irrelevancies in between. The only real axis is liberty vs. tyranny or voluntaryism vs. coercivism. This makes a lot of sense to me. I also kind of agree with his "thin" libertarian analysis made in Block's paper on libertarianism and culture, although I also tend to agree with Roderick Long's "thick" libertarian approach on a more personal level.
I personally prefer voluntaryist "capitalists" to voluntaryist "socialists", but in my political analysis I'm neutral to them. Because I don't necessarily think that voluntary socialism would objectively or necessarily be less "free". I always try my best to take a voluntaryist or anarchist without adjectives approach to matters, despite my clear preferance for more "capitalist" forms of organization. But then, stepping outside of the realm of economic organization, I tend to personally prefer much of what would be considered "leftist" tendencies (I.E. open or inclusive policies, resistance to racism, secularism, etc.). In either case, it should be quite obvious that I go out of my way to distinguish between the personal or preferential and the political. The more they mix or overlap, the more of a danger there is of subjugation in my view.
I'm not sure if "rightist" policies don't create classes of dependants. I think they do, it's just a matter of different interest groups being dependants. In the case of more "rightist" policies, the dependants just so happen to more likely be rich people, corporations and various select private interests. Of course, it could be argued that the "leftist" policies create larger groups of dependants made up of more "common" people. But I don't necessarily see that as being worse. Why is corporate welfare better than peasant welfare? I don't see how a dependant class of corporate elites is better than a dependant class of peasants or serfs. And I don't conflate such elites with "natural elites", which is an entirely separate thing, especially considering that "natural elites" would be in opposition to currently existing "corporate elites" in my understanding.
I personally prefer voluntaryist "capitalists" to voluntaryist "socialists", but in my political analysis I'm neutral to them. Because I don't necessarily think that voluntary socialism would objectively or necessarily be less "free".
If faced with the choice this election cycle, I'd take continuing the Iraq war over nationalized healthcare any day. Wars are ended much, much more easily than nationalized healthcare.
We have different approaches to politics. I wouldn't make such a pragmatic choice in the first place. I'd rather abstain entirely than choose between the two. I'm a proud non-voter. I also disagree that wars are better than national healthcare. Wars directly lead to the murder of people. National healthcare, of course, would probably lead to some deaths as well, but not in the same direct way in which a war would. The current war we are in has a huge price tag not only in dollars and debt but in blood. Wars are among the most expensive endeavors that a government can persue, and the warfare state essentially is a great big nationalized military industry. This site is full of information explaining how bad the warfare state really is from an Austrian economic perspective. Mises himself, of course, was fairly strongly anti-war.
I see no reason why to prefer foreign policies over domestic policies. And I don't see how wars are ended easily at all. The majority of people in this country have turned against the Iraq War long ago yet it still goes on and probably will continue for many more years to come. The establishment, including the Democratic Party, has no interest in ending the warfare state anytime soon. It is an essential part of their bread and circuses and they depend on it for their very livelyhood. And even if the official war ends, military occupation will technically not end, as we have built the largest military base in the world over there. This will function as an incentive for more hostility against the U.S., which may very well lead to future wars. The warfare state is no light matter. It is arguably the central problem right now.
Before I go any more into those comparisons, am I correct in assuming that you believe one is just as (or possibly more) free under socialism as under capitalism? Or was that a typo?
That really depends on which definition of "socialism" one is using. I reject "socialism" and "capitalism" as anti-concepts (hence my constant usage of quotation marks around the terms). I don't necessarily accept the singular or cliche definition of socialism as government ownership of the means of production or a transitional stage towards state-communism. I grant that voluntary socialism is possible in the context of an anarchist society if everyone involved explicitly consents to join such a form of organization. I don't personally prefer that, but if I would eggregiously violate my own principles if I opposed people's liberty to voluntary organize into unions, co-ops, communes or what have you. They can go live as primitivists for all I care. So long as they don't force me into it, I'm fine with it. Live and let live.
If faced with the choice this election cycle, I'd take continuing the Iraq war over nationalized healthcare any day.
I essentially agree with BP on most of the above. I think voluntary socialism is fine, just that it will not fare very well, and that a total system of socialism would collapse entirely. But if someone wishes to attempt it anyway, as they say, it's their funeral. I agree with him that vested corporate interests can be every bit as difficult to "tear out" of the system as can be those of the common man. However, I do think that it is much harder to justify terminating welfare programmes to the average man than it is to justify ending corporate favoritism. I also prefer free market conservatives to most leftists, who haven't a clue of even the most rudimentary economics. BTW, I think it is an understatement to say national healthcare will just kill some people. The inefficiency, distortions and corruption it will introduce will cost a lot of lives, or at the very least much well-being. However, war is still the worst of all possible evils.
thecapitalist:It's not as simple as "murder" vs "robbery". It's "short-term murder and robbery" vs "never-ending robbery and never-ending subtle murder". Throughout history, there have been hundreds of thousands of wars, and all of them eventually come to an end. I don't know of any cases of nationalized healthcare coming to an end (actually, privatizing of any industry is rare).
Privatizing of the military industry isn't rare in modern times too?
thecapitalist:In my opinion, the average rightist is only a few conversations away from becoming capitalist, while leftists are rooted in anti-capitalism. And yes, there are exceptions.
I completely agree. It is much easier to convince a rightist than a leftist that sweatshops are a good thing or the minimum wage is a bad thing.
capitalist: thecapitalist:In my opinion, the average rightist is only a few conversations away from becoming capitalist, while leftists are rooted in anti-capitalism. And yes, there are exceptions. I completely agree. It is much easier to convince a rightist than a leftist that sweatshops are a good thing or the minimum wage is a bad thing.
Then again, in contemporary politics, it is much easier to convince a "leftist" than a "rightist" that a war, a patriot act, a prohibition on an unpopular activity (such as drugs, prostitution, sodomy or gay marriage) or a government contract to a corporation is a bad thing. Unless one wants to confine oneself to anti-welfarism, I don't see how the average "rightist" is particularly close to favoring laissez-faire or libertarianism at all (and quite clearly, strictly economic issues are not all there is to libertarianism).
Furthermore, in my experience, many sections of the paleo right are also firmly rooted in anti-capitalism. In particular, they love protectionism and unions. The likes of Pat Buchanan scare me. And the neocons? Ha! They may as well be called "foreign policy socialists". As I've stated, the consensus on the right largely appears to be in favor of corporatism or corporate "socialism" and neo-mercantalism, not laissez-faire "capitalism". Let us not be decieved by the conservative's rhetoric.
Juan:Dating back to an earlier period than their names, the two political parties at first stood respectively for two opposed types of social organization, broadly distinguishable as the militant and the industrial — types which are characterized, the one by the regime of status, almost universal in ancient days, and the other by the regime of contract, which has become general in modern days, chiefly among the Western nations, and especially among ourselves and the Americans. If, instead of using the word "co-operation" in a limited sense, we use it in its widest sense, as signifying the combined activities of citizens under whatever system of regulation; then these two are definable as the system of compulsory co-operation and the system of voluntary co-operation. The typical structure of the one we see in an army formed of conscripts, in which the units in their several grades have to fulfil commands under pain of death, and receive food and clothing and pay, arbitrarily apportioned; while the typical structure of the other we see in a body of producers or distributors, who severally agree to specified payments in return for specified services, and may at will, after due notice, leave the organization if they do not like it.Spencer - 1884.http://www.constitution.org/hs/manvssta.htm
That particular writting by Spencer plus Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty" is every illuminating on this topic. Also, Roderick Long's speech "Left and Right: 40 years later", which is a retrospective on the whole thing, is very illuminating as well.
Which government program is more likely to end: The Patriot Act or Social Security? The war in Iraq or (future) universal healthcare? I think in each case, it's the former.
I agree 100% that neocons are scum (especially neocons who call themselves libertarian). Still, because voters aren't receiving dollars from neocon programs, it's much easier to end those programs. Why do you think it is that Social Security hasn't ended yet?
I generally tend to agree with the conversion argument; that a fiscal conservative is more likely to be converted into a libertarian than is a social liberal (this is, of course, based on a subjective view of what's more libertarian and what's not).
BP, you make a good point, namely, that to say which politicial philosophy is "less" libertarian purely depends on what libertarian principles you or I hold above others (humor the idea of ranking various libertarian principles).
I tend to sympathize with capitalist for a couple of reasons. First, I find it far easier to relate and have intelligent conversation with the average conservative than with the average liberal. While you make a good point in stating that conservatives harbor just as many anti-libertarian views as the typical liberal, e.g. drug prohibition or war; like capitialist, I distinguish between the "quality" of the anti-libertarian views held by conservatives versus liberals.
As I see it, those anti-libertarian views held by liberals are even further from reason than are those same types of views held by conservatives. I perceive the deep-rooted nature of emotional irrationalism to be far greater in socialistic type policies like welfare, etc. While emotional irrationalism also exists among those who favor war it seems to me that it is not as ignorantly rooted as are those beliefs in socialism.
The argument of the socialist, in my view, tends to be as superficial and indefensible as is conceivable.
This whole argument is simply a judgement call, that is, at least, if you're willing to argue for on or the other. For me it simply boils down to one rather simple fact. The typical liberal abhors the free market where as the typical conservative does not (at least less so). As it is this principe which I hold to outdistance any other, I tend to sympathize with conservatives more than liberals. While war is against libertarian principles it does not, at least fully, contradict a belief in the magnificence of the free market. The whole motto of the typical liberal is anti-free market.
It is clear that the concept of war is far more important than the free market to many self-proclaimed libertarians. I don't think it would be an over-statement to say that much of Ron Paul's support came from such "libertarians". What I find so dissapointing however, is that many of these "libertarians" could care less about the free market nor what it entails.
Yet the modern imperial warfare state is in opposition to the free market. It does contradict a belief in the free market because it is not a free market phenomenon or activity. It is a great big nationalized industry that is maintained through the exact same kind of mechanisms as the welfare state. It requires the imposition of taxation, the use of monetary inflation and a policy of perpetual borrowing. It involves the exact same kind of socialism as domestic policy because it involves the building of the exact same type of infastructure overseas, and what amounts to welfare benefits for those involved in the military. Its effects also bleed over into domestic policy, making us less free at home. It is "military socialism". It involves just as much central planning and government bereaucracy as any domestic program.
Opposition to the warfare state has always been a fundamental feature of libertarianism. Was Walter Block wrong in quite boldly and repeatedly proclaiming that favoring pre-emptive war basically makes one cease to be a libertarian, as it is a blatant violation of the non-aggression principle? Is libertarianism not a broad political philosophy, rather then merely an economic doctrine? What does a rhetorical devotion to laissez-faire mean when one actually advocates perpetual war, theocracy, mercantalism and "social" authoritarianism? That's how I see contemporary conservatism for the most part. A great big contradiction in terms that tries to sell itself with libertarian-ish rhetoric.
As far as I can tell, many conservatives actually do believe in state-socialism in terms of the substance of the positions that they advocate. In the name of anti-communism and anti-terrorism, they seem quite content in supporting what amounts to a leviathan socialist state involving all sorts of economic meddling. The economic meddling gets a green light in the present so long as the goal is to defeat the bad guys. So what happens? The state grows just as much, if not more so, than it would have if "liberals" would have been at the helm. What happens when one boogeyman has gone away? A new boogeyman is erected in its place and the cycle of interventionism repeats itself and continues.
To me, there is no real reason to separate the issue of war from the free market. The state's warfare apparatus can easily be opposed using free market principles, especially considering that it's a great big "socialist" experiment and product of the progressive era. But furthermore, I see no reason why libertarianism should be treated as if it were solely a matter of utilitarian economics. It most certainly is not so confined or limited. It is a broad political philosophy that involves far more than economic ideas. Sometimes such a strict and limited devotion to economics neglects an ethical and broader philosophical treatment of matters. I may take a lot of flack for saying this, but perhaps sometimes we should take our free market caps off for a moment and use our noggins as libertarians rather than economists.
BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree.
In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare!
thecapitalist: BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree. In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare!
I don't see any reason why it should be easier to dismantle the warfare state. It involves just as much government meddling, central planning and bereaucracy. Furthermore, I don't consider the imperial warfare state not to be a social welfare system in and of itself. It's just one that happens to benefit different groups or interests (wether that be the generals, soldiers, select corporations, foreign dictators, government bereaucrats, etc.). Why should it be any easier to ween these interest groups off of their welfare than the domestic peasantry? And are they somehow more deserving of it?
Block's point that if one is to believe in pre-emptive war than he shall seize to be libertarian is some sort of objective ultimatum which lacks a certain insight.
I think it less admirable to knowingly despise and abhor the free market because of its ostensible horrific effects on humanity than it is too believe in a war which you perceive to be a necessary evil for the preservation of freedom. At least in the second case freedom, in the true sense, is still the ultimate end of the individual in question. True, their perception of the proper means for that end may be in error but the end, freedom, is present nonetheless; in the former case it is not.
I agree that many conservatives, perhaps most, are far from free market advocates in the true sense, although on the whole, I would say closer than the average liberal.
Brainpolice: thecapitalist: BrainPolice, I don't think that we're going to agree. In a democratic system, it's easier to cut back militaries than it is to cut back social-welfare systems. Once the voters become hooked, it becomes nearly impossible (logistically and electorally) to dismantle the welfare state, while the money spent on wars is "government money" that should be spent on welfare! I don't see any reason why it should be easier to dismantle the warfare state. It involves just as much government meddling, central planning and bereaucracy. Furthermore, I don't consider the imperial warfare state not to be a social welfare system in and of itself. It's just one that happens to benefit different groups or interests (wether that be the generals, soldiers, select corporations, foreign dictators, government bereaucrats, etc.). Why should it be any easier to ween these interest groups off of their welfare than the domestic peasantry? And are they somehow more deserving of it?
Please. Public support for an active war (excluding foreign occupation) tires much easier than its support for the welfare state. It's consequences are far easier to perceive.