The classic American debate.
Wherever you fall on the debate, the truth will remain that Pandora's box is already opened. There can be no gun free USA.
The argument however remains divisive and lacks any sense, especially from the pro-gun advocates.
First up, it's extremely naive to believe an armed population is somehow going to stop tyranny.
It's an argument I see constantly, and yet those most vocal about it never DO shit about their own corrupt and abusive government.
Congress is (and has been for a while) less popular than the British during colonial rule.
Where's the revolution, boys and girls?
Why not look to other nations with mass gun ownership. I don't see much democracy and free association going on.
Plenty of civil unrest, war and violence though.
This is not an argument for gun control.
It's an argument against bullshit justifications for gun ownership.
Banning guns in the US will never work, stop pretending that is the end goal for gun control.
Banning guns may not ever be the correct response to gun crime, but regulations and restrictions are not the same as a ban.
There is no need to parrot meaningless rhetoric as your argument to keep your precious guns.
Gun ownership doesn't make any individual bad, and obviously those that legally own a firearm are not the criminals, but widely available guns certainly incentivise their use and make them more accessible
If you like to hunt or sport shoot, that's awesome. If you like to collect? Great.
If you think owning a gun makes you safer? You are an idiot.
I get the idea of self defence, but it's largely an illusion. There really is no such thing as safety.
We live in a world of 7+ billion people.
Even the most well armed and skilled individual can be overcome with numbers, and numbers the human race has in abundance.
Using a gun as a safety blanket strikes me as silly.
For every instance where gun ownership makes you more safe, there are many in which it makes you less safe.
A reasonable and rational person will weigh these risks and decide, and that I can respect.
Anybody
that imagines their sidearm is going to prevent government corruption,
or their arrest (lawful or otherwise) is frankly delusional.
Anybody that thinks good guys with guns are a necessary counter to bad guys with guns really does not know how life works.
The fantasy of being a hero and shooting the bad guy is a great one.
It's understandable.
Hell, I even admit to it myself, and I think "death by cop" is absolutely justifiable (even if we remove the cop. I think criminals forfeit the right to their safety even though I'm a bleeding heart. A criminal is not as deserving of respect or empathy as a non criminal, though bloodshed is always best avoided)
Perhaps home or personal defence really do justify gun ownership and I'm simply a cynic, but what I do know is that an untrained individual with a gun that is stored unsafely and poorly maintained is not a person I would trust to use it properly.
Gun ownership and gun control are complex issues.
When politicians declare arbitrary kinds of guns illegal they do a disservice to the conversation every bit as much as the nuts that think a rifle will end tyranny.
I only hope that sensible voices win out in the long run.
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Monday, 15 June 2015
Friday, 12 June 2015
Self made fortune: How wealth is a colloboration, no matter how hard an individual works, even alone.
As in the previous post, I wanted to discuss the idea of wealth and how only society has enabled individuals to amass and protect it.
In most instances this is FAR too complex to even approach an explanation of in short form. The dependence of everyone on the systems we have developed over the vast expanse of human history if a marvel to an inquiring mind.
I will choose to pick my favourite example, as it is simple in the extreme and inarguably those that gain success with it have done all the work themselves.
I am talking, of course, of writing.
A best selling author will probably only make a modest sum, but occasionally a writer will hit the jackpot, finding fame and fortune.
The thing they sell to the masses is an idea. Perhaps an idea in long form, but it has no other value.
Now, this author that has achieved such success has earned it. They did the work and deserve the credit, but even still they rely on a system so heavily that whatever price they pay in tax is a small price for what they gained.
Let us begin with the direct help a writer will receive and likely pay for directly with a share of the "profit" or as a service.
Now, some take a significant portion of the proceeds from selling books, but I do not imagine a single instance of self publishing working better in terms of audience reach (perhaps crowd funding would be more financially rewarding for many aspiring authors, but with less possibility for commercial success)
The book is a physical object, the production of it is reliant on so much infrastructure, labour and human invention that books were an object of immense value for most of human history; not something to jot down a yarn on for the general public. From growing the raw materials to making the paper and ink, to the manufacture of machinery need for this and for the printing... No one person could accomplish all of this, no matter how awesome their book.
But this is only the beginning.
It would take a very long time for a writer to deliver copies of their book to every buyer and so we have.
Except there is more.
Who exactly is the audience for this? It is almost certainly not written in a language created entirely by our hypothetical author? How is the author even receiving value for this idea of theirs? Did they emerge from the womb with such ideas fully formed as if by divine inspiration?
Even this one VERY limited example is of such complexity that my short explanations barely do it justice. I'm shining a beam torch in a cavern.
Imagine how much more reliant on our systems other endeavours might be.
Always keep in mind that no man is an island.
Without society, without our communities, shared culture and even (*cue dramatic music*) the state, there would be no support to hold up the successful.
If the world operated best on "enlightened self interest" (an oft invoked excuse for selfishness) as the only way forward, why are the most dominant species ALWAYS communal? Why indeed do humans find the best success in groups? Could it be that cooperation and the altruism required to make it work is... pragmatic?
Put away the childish objectivist or self serving attitudes.
Realise that meritocracy, liberty and personal success are not antithetical to the principles of community, but that community serves those principles (or damn well should do)
Remember, those decrying the state and the payment of taxes are in a very real sense the most reliant on the things those taxes pay for.
Without "the state" a poor person remains poor; a rich person *becomes* poor.
Who should have the largest incentive, the largest responsibility, the largest share of the burden to preserve these systems?
History reveals that throughout all times until recently those with the greatest wealth realised they had the most to lose. Noblesse oblige was about true "enlightened self interest" as much as it was a moral imperative for those in power not to abuse their status.
In short, those that benefit most from the system should be footing the fucking bill, not finding excuses to put that burden on others.
In most instances this is FAR too complex to even approach an explanation of in short form. The dependence of everyone on the systems we have developed over the vast expanse of human history if a marvel to an inquiring mind.
I will choose to pick my favourite example, as it is simple in the extreme and inarguably those that gain success with it have done all the work themselves.
I am talking, of course, of writing.
A best selling author will probably only make a modest sum, but occasionally a writer will hit the jackpot, finding fame and fortune.
The thing they sell to the masses is an idea. Perhaps an idea in long form, but it has no other value.
Now, this author that has achieved such success has earned it. They did the work and deserve the credit, but even still they rely on a system so heavily that whatever price they pay in tax is a small price for what they gained.
Let us begin with the direct help a writer will receive and likely pay for directly with a share of the "profit" or as a service.
- The professional editing of the manuscript
- The physical printing of the book
- The promotion of the book
Now, some take a significant portion of the proceeds from selling books, but I do not imagine a single instance of self publishing working better in terms of audience reach (perhaps crowd funding would be more financially rewarding for many aspiring authors, but with less possibility for commercial success)
The book is a physical object, the production of it is reliant on so much infrastructure, labour and human invention that books were an object of immense value for most of human history; not something to jot down a yarn on for the general public. From growing the raw materials to making the paper and ink, to the manufacture of machinery need for this and for the printing... No one person could accomplish all of this, no matter how awesome their book.
But this is only the beginning.
It would take a very long time for a writer to deliver copies of their book to every buyer and so we have.
- Transport of the books to retailers
- The infrastructure allowing this transport
- Safe storage of the books
- Retail outlets that stock the book
- advertisement of the book (related to the above promotion of the book, but not limited to it)
Except there is more.
Who exactly is the audience for this? It is almost certainly not written in a language created entirely by our hypothetical author? How is the author even receiving value for this idea of theirs? Did they emerge from the womb with such ideas fully formed as if by divine inspiration?
- The education system (without which, there would be no audience)
- Human culture (without which, the ideas would have no context)
- Language (who would understand it if it didn't use some form of shared lexicon)
- Communications networks (without this, the idea wouldn't spread to become popular)
- Currency (how you get paid)
- Law enforcement (how your stuff doesn't get nicked)
- The courts (how you enforce contracts and ensure fair play)
Even this one VERY limited example is of such complexity that my short explanations barely do it justice. I'm shining a beam torch in a cavern.
Imagine how much more reliant on our systems other endeavours might be.
Always keep in mind that no man is an island.
Without society, without our communities, shared culture and even (*cue dramatic music*) the state, there would be no support to hold up the successful.
If the world operated best on "enlightened self interest" (an oft invoked excuse for selfishness) as the only way forward, why are the most dominant species ALWAYS communal? Why indeed do humans find the best success in groups? Could it be that cooperation and the altruism required to make it work is... pragmatic?
Put away the childish objectivist or self serving attitudes.
Realise that meritocracy, liberty and personal success are not antithetical to the principles of community, but that community serves those principles (or damn well should do)
Remember, those decrying the state and the payment of taxes are in a very real sense the most reliant on the things those taxes pay for.
Without "the state" a poor person remains poor; a rich person *becomes* poor.
Who should have the largest incentive, the largest responsibility, the largest share of the burden to preserve these systems?
History reveals that throughout all times until recently those with the greatest wealth realised they had the most to lose. Noblesse oblige was about true "enlightened self interest" as much as it was a moral imperative for those in power not to abuse their status.
In short, those that benefit most from the system should be footing the fucking bill, not finding excuses to put that burden on others.
Wednesday, 10 June 2015
A political allegory: The chairmaker.
Politics is a harsh mistress, and misunderstandings are responsible for much of the bad blood.
I hope to alleviate some of the ignorance with a story.
A man makes the best chairs in his community.
Everybody can make a place to sit, or sit on the floor, but the chairs this individual produces are better than any other.
Now, in order to make a chair he must secure and mature the wood, assemble the chair and either use it, or find somebody that will exchange something of value for it. (amongst many other tasks)
Operating on his own, only a small amount of his time is taken producing the thing he is best at. Much of his chair producing time is taken up by tasks he is perfectly capable of, but perhaps not the best at or which anybody could do.
And so, our intrepid chair maker asks another to chop down trees to produce the lumber he needs. He allows others to do the less skilled tasks involved in the production of the chair itself, he allows another to sell the final product.
He is now a job creator. An entrepreneur. He found a market for chairs and he fulfilled that need.
Perhaps he expands his business by training others in his methods so that he has skilled help. Perhaps he patents his ideas and allows others to use his ingenuity.
To me, this chairmaker represents the ideals most people want to support, whatever politics they choose. I do not think I would hear disagreement from conservative, libertarian, liberal or socialist on this matter.
The man is entitled to the fruits of his labour, and he got there through merit.
What I will suggest is that many believe they are supporting the chairmaker against the evils of those workers perhaps jealous of his success, or of the state body overseeing the lives of all, but they are not.
The man who owns the land the trees are grown on, the building the chairmaker works in , the home he lives in. That is the person supported by populist policies on the right, that is the kind of person most usually claiming the title of "job creator"
Not a person that makes, produces or envisions. Just a person that owns things.
A socialist, on the other hand, believes that work has value, ownership does not.
Should the chairmaker exploit those helping him produce his chairs, he makes an enemy of socialist ideology, but he is not inherently so.
I'd suggest that such a "business" as I have outlined is *entirely* in keeping with socialism. Each contributes, each is afforded a share of the fruits of their labours.
As much as the chair maker here is responsible for the livelihoods of many, without those helping him he would not have achieved so much. The point being is that large endeavours require cooperation and inter-reliance.
Any billionaire or multimillionaire that declares themselves "self made" is entirely delusional. (the caveat being that many are aware of the reality and are simply being poetic, which is awesome)
They were reliant on the system they made their fortune in and on the work of those they employed. No man is an island.
If you personally believe that capital (the wealth one possesses) is more important than the work one does, then you do not support the chair maker. You do not support those that create the wealth.
You support the parasites that add no value to the system.
I often hear admonishments that capital gains tax is essentially taxing a person twice, as they already earned the money.
I think this is laughable and makes no sense to a rational mind.
What these people are suggesting is that money which is earned by your money is worth more than money you earn through work.
In a very real sense they are suggesting that the ownership of wealth has more value than the production of wealth.
Now, does this mean investment is evil or worthless?
Of course not!
But due consideration much be made as to the value of investment over work.
Should buying the labour of others be worth more than the labour itself?
We live in a capitalist world, and capitalism has proven to be a very successful tool that works well in many situations.
Socialism aspires to build a better mousetrap, but social democracies prove that socialists have always been willing to embrace the ideas that work.
Bear that in mind when you hear from political ideologues how compromise is evil.
Who would you trust? A political philosophy willing to embrace what works, or one which demonises all opposition at all times?
Regardless of your preferred politics, support the chair maker. Don't blindly support rhetoric on claims of how much it will help those intrepid chair makers of tomorrow.
I hope to alleviate some of the ignorance with a story.
A man makes the best chairs in his community.
Everybody can make a place to sit, or sit on the floor, but the chairs this individual produces are better than any other.
Now, in order to make a chair he must secure and mature the wood, assemble the chair and either use it, or find somebody that will exchange something of value for it. (amongst many other tasks)
Operating on his own, only a small amount of his time is taken producing the thing he is best at. Much of his chair producing time is taken up by tasks he is perfectly capable of, but perhaps not the best at or which anybody could do.
And so, our intrepid chair maker asks another to chop down trees to produce the lumber he needs. He allows others to do the less skilled tasks involved in the production of the chair itself, he allows another to sell the final product.
He is now a job creator. An entrepreneur. He found a market for chairs and he fulfilled that need.
Perhaps he expands his business by training others in his methods so that he has skilled help. Perhaps he patents his ideas and allows others to use his ingenuity.
To me, this chairmaker represents the ideals most people want to support, whatever politics they choose. I do not think I would hear disagreement from conservative, libertarian, liberal or socialist on this matter.
The man is entitled to the fruits of his labour, and he got there through merit.
What I will suggest is that many believe they are supporting the chairmaker against the evils of those workers perhaps jealous of his success, or of the state body overseeing the lives of all, but they are not.
The man who owns the land the trees are grown on, the building the chairmaker works in , the home he lives in. That is the person supported by populist policies on the right, that is the kind of person most usually claiming the title of "job creator"
Not a person that makes, produces or envisions. Just a person that owns things.
A socialist, on the other hand, believes that work has value, ownership does not.
Should the chairmaker exploit those helping him produce his chairs, he makes an enemy of socialist ideology, but he is not inherently so.
I'd suggest that such a "business" as I have outlined is *entirely* in keeping with socialism. Each contributes, each is afforded a share of the fruits of their labours.
As much as the chair maker here is responsible for the livelihoods of many, without those helping him he would not have achieved so much. The point being is that large endeavours require cooperation and inter-reliance.
Any billionaire or multimillionaire that declares themselves "self made" is entirely delusional. (the caveat being that many are aware of the reality and are simply being poetic, which is awesome)
They were reliant on the system they made their fortune in and on the work of those they employed. No man is an island.
If you personally believe that capital (the wealth one possesses) is more important than the work one does, then you do not support the chair maker. You do not support those that create the wealth.
You support the parasites that add no value to the system.
I often hear admonishments that capital gains tax is essentially taxing a person twice, as they already earned the money.
I think this is laughable and makes no sense to a rational mind.
What these people are suggesting is that money which is earned by your money is worth more than money you earn through work.
In a very real sense they are suggesting that the ownership of wealth has more value than the production of wealth.
Now, does this mean investment is evil or worthless?
Of course not!
But due consideration much be made as to the value of investment over work.
Should buying the labour of others be worth more than the labour itself?
We live in a capitalist world, and capitalism has proven to be a very successful tool that works well in many situations.
Socialism aspires to build a better mousetrap, but social democracies prove that socialists have always been willing to embrace the ideas that work.
Bear that in mind when you hear from political ideologues how compromise is evil.
Who would you trust? A political philosophy willing to embrace what works, or one which demonises all opposition at all times?
Regardless of your preferred politics, support the chair maker. Don't blindly support rhetoric on claims of how much it will help those intrepid chair makers of tomorrow.
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
Who benefits most from society?
This is a big topic.
Without a doubt, civilisation DOES benefit those living in it.
Now, there are sociological arguments that isolation and barbarism (for want of a better term) are not bad, but I for one enjoy the benefits of the modern world which would be impossible without our sprawling and interconnected cultures.
Many would suggest that the greatest benefits of civil society are enjoyed by the poor through welfare and charity.
These are certainly advantages bought about through our social contracts, and a great argument for our nature as nurturing and empathetic creatures.
I would argue that whatever the advantages enjoyed by the poor and disadvantaged in society, they are dwarfed by the advantages garnered by the wealth classes.
Take a look at the world and examine the lives of its peoples.
Many argue that greater freedom results in increased wealth and less reliance on state.
Observation should inform people otherwise.
Freedom comes with costs.
Absolute freedom results in chaos, poverty, crime and war.
Every nation without a strong governing body is rife with conflict and poverty, regardless of natural wealth. Even areas within advanced nations without a welcome and positive police presence are more dangerous.
So, when society places restrictions on people (which it must) what we see is often greater personal freedom for the majority.
We can argue where limits should be placed and what constitutes an attack on personal liberty, but I do not believe that anyone supports absolute freedom, as such a position is self defeating.
Tax pays for the structure of society, and we are told that the rich are overburdened because they pay more than the poor. The poor make use of lots of government resources, so the burden to pay for these services should rest on those that use them.
To me, this is fallacious.
Who benefits the most from education?
The individual pupil?
I do not think you would find many that would agree.
No, society as a whole benefits from an educated population, and the wealth classes leverage this population for their endeavours. An educated worker is more useful than an uneducated one. This is irrefutable.
This is not exploitation on either side, when done well, but a partnership.
Without the expenditure by the government through tax, employers would not have skilled people to employ. An illiterate and innumerate population would produce far less value, to say nothing of advanced education.
This thinking extends to everything.
Who benefits from roads?
The individual motorist can get to work, absolutely, but the company he works for relies on the roads for ALL of their staff to arrive. The drivers themselves use the roads, but others indirectly benefit from that infrastructure.
If you look at wealth distribution, you see that the richest people in the world make their money in the markets of societies in which they complain about paying too much tax.
They believe their contributions to society are unfair, despite their wealth being ENTIRELY RELIANT on that society.
To me, this is a simple, self explanatory concept.
They are riding the horse, but refuse to pay for its feed, stable and grooming.
Just because they do not benefit directly from a state handout does not mean they are not utterly reliant on the system they rail against.
Largely that last sentence is untrue anyway, as the burden felt by business and the independently wealthy is often massively alleviated by tax breaks, refunds and subsidies.
The misleading idea that marginal tax rates are the rate of tax an individual or institution pays is responsible for much of the support for lowering taxes.
This is not to say that those contributing the most to society are unworthy of praise or should be vilified, I have nothing against people working for wealth (I have many things to say against cronyism and wealth, as in capital, having more value than work)
I just believe that they must begin to recognise that they are the most reliant on that society. They have the most to lose. Their contributions to society are essential, but they are not inherently noble or virtuous. They should pay most in because they do in fact get most out. If you earn two thirds of the wealth you should be paying two thirds of the tax bill, not complaining that the poor don't shoulder more of the burden.
You are engaged in a partnership with society, value for value.
Try not to escape the obligation you have to the society that enabled you to succeed.
Without a doubt, civilisation DOES benefit those living in it.
Now, there are sociological arguments that isolation and barbarism (for want of a better term) are not bad, but I for one enjoy the benefits of the modern world which would be impossible without our sprawling and interconnected cultures.
Many would suggest that the greatest benefits of civil society are enjoyed by the poor through welfare and charity.
These are certainly advantages bought about through our social contracts, and a great argument for our nature as nurturing and empathetic creatures.
I would argue that whatever the advantages enjoyed by the poor and disadvantaged in society, they are dwarfed by the advantages garnered by the wealth classes.
This shows who is getting the most out of society in a very real & direct way
Two thirds of the wealth is owned by the top 5%
Their tax burden is not 2/3rds of tax revenue.
Take a look at the world and examine the lives of its peoples.
Many argue that greater freedom results in increased wealth and less reliance on state.
Observation should inform people otherwise.
Freedom comes with costs.
Absolute freedom results in chaos, poverty, crime and war.
Every nation without a strong governing body is rife with conflict and poverty, regardless of natural wealth. Even areas within advanced nations without a welcome and positive police presence are more dangerous.
So, when society places restrictions on people (which it must) what we see is often greater personal freedom for the majority.
We can argue where limits should be placed and what constitutes an attack on personal liberty, but I do not believe that anyone supports absolute freedom, as such a position is self defeating.
Tax pays for the structure of society, and we are told that the rich are overburdened because they pay more than the poor. The poor make use of lots of government resources, so the burden to pay for these services should rest on those that use them.
To me, this is fallacious.
Who benefits the most from education?
The individual pupil?
I do not think you would find many that would agree.
No, society as a whole benefits from an educated population, and the wealth classes leverage this population for their endeavours. An educated worker is more useful than an uneducated one. This is irrefutable.
This is not exploitation on either side, when done well, but a partnership.
Without the expenditure by the government through tax, employers would not have skilled people to employ. An illiterate and innumerate population would produce far less value, to say nothing of advanced education.
This thinking extends to everything.
Who benefits from roads?
The individual motorist can get to work, absolutely, but the company he works for relies on the roads for ALL of their staff to arrive. The drivers themselves use the roads, but others indirectly benefit from that infrastructure.
If you look at wealth distribution, you see that the richest people in the world make their money in the markets of societies in which they complain about paying too much tax.
They believe their contributions to society are unfair, despite their wealth being ENTIRELY RELIANT on that society.
To me, this is a simple, self explanatory concept.
They are riding the horse, but refuse to pay for its feed, stable and grooming.
Just because they do not benefit directly from a state handout does not mean they are not utterly reliant on the system they rail against.
Largely that last sentence is untrue anyway, as the burden felt by business and the independently wealthy is often massively alleviated by tax breaks, refunds and subsidies.
The misleading idea that marginal tax rates are the rate of tax an individual or institution pays is responsible for much of the support for lowering taxes.
This shows the effective rates of tax on individuals
It can be applies generally with some caveats
Note how the corporate entities pay significantly less than individuals
As you can see, it is neither rich nor poor individuals that have "no skin in the game"
Compare these two images to the first image on this post.
Think about how you are told that the rich pay "too much"
We are left in a world where those drawing most benefit from the system complain if asked to pay a fair share back into it; believing the convenient self deception that their wealth is magically produced by their own ingenuity, and not a product of the Nation in which they reside.This is not to say that those contributing the most to society are unworthy of praise or should be vilified, I have nothing against people working for wealth (I have many things to say against cronyism and wealth, as in capital, having more value than work)
I just believe that they must begin to recognise that they are the most reliant on that society. They have the most to lose. Their contributions to society are essential, but they are not inherently noble or virtuous. They should pay most in because they do in fact get most out. If you earn two thirds of the wealth you should be paying two thirds of the tax bill, not complaining that the poor don't shoulder more of the burden.
You are engaged in a partnership with society, value for value.
Try not to escape the obligation you have to the society that enabled you to succeed.
Friday, 22 May 2015
Thoughts on Liberalism.
Liberalism.
Much maligned and often misrepresented (even by it's staunch proponents) it is without doubt one of the most important political ideologies in human history.
First, to nail down my definition.
A liberal portion is generous, a liberal attitude is tolerant or moderate.
As a political principle liberalism has always placed personal liberty, freedom of expression and secular society highly.
If you believe in freedom of speech (no matter how offensive), the free market and freedom of (or from) religion, you are practising Liberal attitudes. (note: Liberalism as a movement or ideology does not have a monopoly on these things, but the point remains)
In the UK, Liberalism has maintained it's definition.
It is the middle ground between conservatives and socialists.
Now, in some ways this is immensely positive as all mainstream parties have adopted some measure of liberalism, as have the core political ideologies behind them.
In others it has come to reflect a lack of conviction, fence sitting indecision and conflicting policies.
Small L liberalism has won throughout the Western world, and no amount of pretending the word is a curse word will change that reality.
Sadly, American Liberalism (and the political left internationally) has been somewhat coopted by groups and individuals that are not liberal at all.
Anything that undermines individual freedom is against liberalism.
This is a hard line, but difficult to describe.
Personal liberty must have some limit, or I could just walk into your house and take your shit.
I think it's fairly obvious when we are limited so that others may be extended their rights, but there is plenty of ambiguity to argue over the specifics.
Anyone suggesting that individual rights are somehow subordinate to the needs of society is not a liberal.
Free Markets.
Liberalism does not promote state capitalism or socialism.
One of the core tenets of liberalism are property rights, which are the basis of capitalist economies; flawed though I find our modern standards they're a damn sight better than history can provide. Capitalism is not perfect. Anyone saying it is needs to be taken into a padded room, but much like democracy itself; it's an horrendous way of doing things, the only virtue being that it's superior to all alternatives.
Anyone opposing capitalism (even as much as I do, which is to focus on the criticisms) is not a liberal.
Secular society.
Religious tolerance is the cornerstone of liberalism.
Sadly, this is often taken to ridiculous extremes lately with much "progressive" media desperate to defend intolerable religious practices and preach moral relativism.
This can only end in division and intolerance reciprocated from both sides of the divide created.
Anybody suggesting that the religious rights of one person or ideology should be afforded extra protection or reverence is not a liberal.
Now "Social Liberalism" as an ideology complicates matters, but honestly I see it as entirely unrelated to liberalism as an economic or political philosophy.
This laudable set of values grew from classical liberalism, but is such a diverse and divisive concept that it should be placed firmly in it's own category.
For one, I believe that almost the entire Western world is socially liberal.
The trouble comes when zealous ideologues use people's altruistic desires for a tolerant and inclusive culture to promote attitudes of intolerance, bigotry and blame.
This has been a growing problem amongst liberals and the political left, as "call out culture" reaches new heights, all in the name of "inclusion"
The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the practice disturbs me more because so many people refuse to condemn it.
Liberalism might have sown the seeds of social liberalism, and the ubiquity of social liberalism might have allowed the authoritarian "progressives" we should rightly and ironically label "social justice warriors" to flourish, but they are none of them synonymous.
I for one hope that Libertarians will reach a moderate consensus and appreciate just how much they share with Liberals they so often vilify.
Only by unifying reasonable people across political divides can we hope to combat the identity politics endemic on the extreme ends of all ideologies.
Iidentity politics are as inimical to liberalism as they are to libertarians.
Much maligned and often misrepresented (even by it's staunch proponents) it is without doubt one of the most important political ideologies in human history.
First, to nail down my definition.
A liberal portion is generous, a liberal attitude is tolerant or moderate.
As a political principle liberalism has always placed personal liberty, freedom of expression and secular society highly.
If you believe in freedom of speech (no matter how offensive), the free market and freedom of (or from) religion, you are practising Liberal attitudes. (note: Liberalism as a movement or ideology does not have a monopoly on these things, but the point remains)
In the UK, Liberalism has maintained it's definition.
It is the middle ground between conservatives and socialists.
Now, in some ways this is immensely positive as all mainstream parties have adopted some measure of liberalism, as have the core political ideologies behind them.
In others it has come to reflect a lack of conviction, fence sitting indecision and conflicting policies.
Small L liberalism has won throughout the Western world, and no amount of pretending the word is a curse word will change that reality.
Sadly, American Liberalism (and the political left internationally) has been somewhat coopted by groups and individuals that are not liberal at all.
Anything that undermines individual freedom is against liberalism.
This is a hard line, but difficult to describe.
Personal liberty must have some limit, or I could just walk into your house and take your shit.
I think it's fairly obvious when we are limited so that others may be extended their rights, but there is plenty of ambiguity to argue over the specifics.
Anyone suggesting that individual rights are somehow subordinate to the needs of society is not a liberal.
Free Markets.
Liberalism does not promote state capitalism or socialism.
One of the core tenets of liberalism are property rights, which are the basis of capitalist economies; flawed though I find our modern standards they're a damn sight better than history can provide. Capitalism is not perfect. Anyone saying it is needs to be taken into a padded room, but much like democracy itself; it's an horrendous way of doing things, the only virtue being that it's superior to all alternatives.
Anyone opposing capitalism (even as much as I do, which is to focus on the criticisms) is not a liberal.
Secular society.
Religious tolerance is the cornerstone of liberalism.
Sadly, this is often taken to ridiculous extremes lately with much "progressive" media desperate to defend intolerable religious practices and preach moral relativism.
This can only end in division and intolerance reciprocated from both sides of the divide created.
Anybody suggesting that the religious rights of one person or ideology should be afforded extra protection or reverence is not a liberal.
Now "Social Liberalism" as an ideology complicates matters, but honestly I see it as entirely unrelated to liberalism as an economic or political philosophy.
This laudable set of values grew from classical liberalism, but is such a diverse and divisive concept that it should be placed firmly in it's own category.
For one, I believe that almost the entire Western world is socially liberal.
The trouble comes when zealous ideologues use people's altruistic desires for a tolerant and inclusive culture to promote attitudes of intolerance, bigotry and blame.
This has been a growing problem amongst liberals and the political left, as "call out culture" reaches new heights, all in the name of "inclusion"
The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the practice disturbs me more because so many people refuse to condemn it.
Liberalism might have sown the seeds of social liberalism, and the ubiquity of social liberalism might have allowed the authoritarian "progressives" we should rightly and ironically label "social justice warriors" to flourish, but they are none of them synonymous.
I for one hope that Libertarians will reach a moderate consensus and appreciate just how much they share with Liberals they so often vilify.
Only by unifying reasonable people across political divides can we hope to combat the identity politics endemic on the extreme ends of all ideologies.
Iidentity politics are as inimical to liberalism as they are to libertarians.
Friday, 15 May 2015
Thoughts on Libertarianism.
Libertarianism is becoming more mainstream as a political alternative.
This is a good thing, as it reflects a great deal of common ground amongst political moderates that were otherwise polarised.
I do not however agree with the principles espoused by proponents of libertarianism, nor some of the methods or rhetoric employed.
This does outline genuine differences in political opinion, but it also serves to characterise what has historically ALWAYS been left wing (anti authoritarian) as actually right wing (because we should all be able to agree that "libertarian" is a term popularised and utilised by the political right)
I see this kind of compass most often invoked (outside of #gamergate) to discredit the left or at best to promote the horseshoe theory that the extremes of either political wing are indistinguishable. (a theory I am happy to concede has great merit)
Many people claim to lean libertarian, or be right libertarian, but practice and preach the exact policies and justifications of the "authoritarian right"
Others merely excuse such with claims that a free market will ensure bad elements of such political movements will be out competed (people should "vote with their feet" and leave places that don't serve their needs)
Libertarians reading this: if you can not admit that big business is culpable in corruption, and that deregulation has allowed this to happen, you are simply an authoritarian that wants YOUR ideas to be enforced.
When I start seeing libertarians call out corruption, collusion and malpractice from avowed libertarians, maybe I'll appreciate the distinction more.
I'll leave my thoughts on socialism for another day, where I hope to outline exactly WTF it is clearly.
Please note libertarian readers: If you demonise somebody because they have a different set of political beliefs to you, how are you different from an authoritarian? You are demanding others conform with your beliefs, you are not engaging in debate and rebuttal, you are not practising an "open marketplace of ideas" (one of the few places I believe an absolute free market is essential)
If you want to say "classical liberals" fair enough, but understand that liberal only became a dirty word because of the authoritarian right you supposedly oppose.
I briefly discussed how common usage can influence meaning and nuance in defence of political correctness and believe it applies thoroughly with Liberal in American politics.
Perhaps some liberals have lost their way (they have, no "perhaps" necessary) but the fault largely lies in the very partisan divisions that the Republicans have driven in the electorate.
This does work both ways.
The liberal press, internationally, is disgustingly partisan and will often demonise the right or generalise anything it perceives as opposing modern liberalism. This is most clearly displayed with constant accusations of misogyny and racism with no room for nuance or empathy.
Any time you hear "right wing" being invoked to dismiss a person or idea, that is the exact problem I am talking about, and both "sides" are guilty of it.
The one I find most annoying is when those campaigning for or supporting a pro life position are said to hate women. No, I'd guess most pro life advocates really do care deeply about unborn children.
I vehemently disagree with them, but I know that *most* are reasonable people driven by altruism. Not bond villains that want to oppress women.
They just don't think it through and describe them.
Simply put; a man's freedom ends where another man's nose begins.
I think it's a principle most libertarians agree to, as it's all about volunteerism and zero harm, but no thought is put into what the allegory MEANS.
I see a lot of comments featuring some variation on "employers should do what they like, if you don't want to work for them, don't"
In an unregulated free market this is basically endorsing slavery. Not every employer will be unscrupulous, but not everyone can work for a moral employer. In the US *right now* large, wealthy and profitable corporations pay so little to their staff that the government must support them on welfare.
Getting rid of the welfare doesn't fix the problem.
Ensuring that employers cant exploit people does.
This is limiting the freedom of an employer to do as they please with their resources, but it prevents the freedoms of employees and competitors being infringed by crushing and unfair working conditions.
It's a balance, and I'd hope most can see that.
If you look to nations with absolute freedom (no tax, no state) you do not see a utopia. You know what you see, so stop pretending we can do without these things, even in hyperbole.
Absolute freedom means nothing more than that those with strength are free, and those without it are thralls.
Self interest is very human, understandable and in many cases necessary.
It is not, however, a virtue. You are not a better person by being selfish, you do not make the world a better place by always putting yourself first.
This contention aside, you cant praise the benefits of selfishness or greed in one breath and then absolve both of any responsibility for the DIRECT consequences of selfishness and greed.
Crony capitalism is BOTH OF THESE THINGS.
Just as with any tool (and greed/self interest are tools in the human arsenal, agreed) it is not always beneficial. It is not always appropriate. Sometimes, the application of the wrong tool can cause great harm.
When libertarians discuss corruption, it is exclusively the fault of the state. No reason is EVER provided except that the state is used to enforce the corrupt outcome.
If you don't understand why that is faulty logic, I cant help.
The state, in this case, is the tool of people motivated by the virtues you promote.
Greed is good is almost the most retarded thing anyone has ever repeated unironically.
It may not always be bad, it may inspire people to achieve, but it is at best an ambiguous mixed bag.
Studies have repeatedly shown that people can be motivated as well or better by other means than financial incentive.
Deal with it. Stop being naive. Money isn't everything, and you know it.
Charity, it is said, will solve all the problems government is left to deal with.
Get rid of welfare, public healthcare and similar programs, because generous people will solve those problems with charity!
This has never worked.
Government has ALWAYS had to intervene to assist the good works of private entities. This is not a bad thing, nor a good thing, it is just a necessary thing.
It is also at odds with the other assertion, that welfare actually HARMS people.
So, charity must step in so people can be given what they need by generous people (who will likely write if off on their taxes. ie: the government will pay) but the government doing this directly, with incentives and help for people to get out of welfare, is evil.
No explanations given, just "work is virtue" crap often repeated by people that have not done an honest days work in their lives.
Now, the welfare trap is VERY real.
But the problem isn't welfare itself. Industrialism causes this dependence.
In the last 200 years we have produced technology that enables us to do the work of DOZENS of people automatically, and reduce the work needed to accomplish many other tasks. The only result being less jobs are available. This is somewhat countered by other markets opening up. Consumerism is the ONLY reason we don't see mass starvation, because without it there would be no work for people to be paid so they could afford to eat the food produced by the VERY FEW people needed to produce enough food for everyone. If nobody could afford to buy the food produced by these people, it would rot in the fields.
It's a cycle of intermingled reliance, not a benevolent waterfall of wealth and resources from the top, with "job creators" our lord and saviour.
Welfare is a necessary bandaid over the problems caused by the very system we all understand is the best humans have come up with.
It might not be pleasant, it has bad effects as well as good, but without it you'd consign at LEAST 10% of the population to starvation (unemployment figures rarely go above 5% in Industrialised nations, and those are only those DIRECTLY drawing welfare, not all people without employment are considered "unemployed") and you'd take an AWFUL lot of revenue out of circulation. Poor people spend their money.
Just because we can and should reform welfare, and the exploitative businesses that benefit from it does not mean welfare is wrong. (here in the UK they're actually bringing in changes to allow employers to exploit welfare even more with low/zero hour contracts. Essentially any business can have people on "retainer" that draw welfare until they are needed, then draw a wage based on their hours worked and the government still pays them to make up the difference. I don't think it's entirely intended for this, I think many supporting the changes really do want to help people work, because "work is a virtue." They are just blind to exploitation. In the end, it will just mean more employers will have access to cheap workers that have no choice to accept their conditions)
***
Despite my reservations on libertarianism, I do believe it is absolutely necessary and positive in a democracy, reliant as we are on pluralism and representation.
There is more common ground between right libertarians, liberals and socialists than you may be lead to believe (especially over in the US, where socialism is an even dirtier word than liberal)
This is a good thing, as it reflects a great deal of common ground amongst political moderates that were otherwise polarised.
I do not however agree with the principles espoused by proponents of libertarianism, nor some of the methods or rhetoric employed.
- A rewriting of the political compass, and thus political history.
I see this kind of compass most often invoked (outside of #gamergate) to discredit the left or at best to promote the horseshoe theory that the extremes of either political wing are indistinguishable. (a theory I am happy to concede has great merit)
- Rebranding conservatism and traditionalism.
Many people claim to lean libertarian, or be right libertarian, but practice and preach the exact policies and justifications of the "authoritarian right"
Others merely excuse such with claims that a free market will ensure bad elements of such political movements will be out competed (people should "vote with their feet" and leave places that don't serve their needs)
Libertarians reading this: if you can not admit that big business is culpable in corruption, and that deregulation has allowed this to happen, you are simply an authoritarian that wants YOUR ideas to be enforced.
When I start seeing libertarians call out corruption, collusion and malpractice from avowed libertarians, maybe I'll appreciate the distinction more.
- Inability to understand left wing politics.
I'll leave my thoughts on socialism for another day, where I hope to outline exactly WTF it is clearly.
Please note libertarian readers: If you demonise somebody because they have a different set of political beliefs to you, how are you different from an authoritarian? You are demanding others conform with your beliefs, you are not engaging in debate and rebuttal, you are not practising an "open marketplace of ideas" (one of the few places I believe an absolute free market is essential)
- You guys are all liberals
If you want to say "classical liberals" fair enough, but understand that liberal only became a dirty word because of the authoritarian right you supposedly oppose.
I briefly discussed how common usage can influence meaning and nuance in defence of political correctness and believe it applies thoroughly with Liberal in American politics.
Perhaps some liberals have lost their way (they have, no "perhaps" necessary) but the fault largely lies in the very partisan divisions that the Republicans have driven in the electorate.
This does work both ways.
The liberal press, internationally, is disgustingly partisan and will often demonise the right or generalise anything it perceives as opposing modern liberalism. This is most clearly displayed with constant accusations of misogyny and racism with no room for nuance or empathy.
Any time you hear "right wing" being invoked to dismiss a person or idea, that is the exact problem I am talking about, and both "sides" are guilty of it.
The one I find most annoying is when those campaigning for or supporting a pro life position are said to hate women. No, I'd guess most pro life advocates really do care deeply about unborn children.
I vehemently disagree with them, but I know that *most* are reasonable people driven by altruism. Not bond villains that want to oppress women.
- Absolute freedom is not only impossible, but deeply immoral.
They just don't think it through and describe them.
Simply put; a man's freedom ends where another man's nose begins.
I think it's a principle most libertarians agree to, as it's all about volunteerism and zero harm, but no thought is put into what the allegory MEANS.
I see a lot of comments featuring some variation on "employers should do what they like, if you don't want to work for them, don't"
In an unregulated free market this is basically endorsing slavery. Not every employer will be unscrupulous, but not everyone can work for a moral employer. In the US *right now* large, wealthy and profitable corporations pay so little to their staff that the government must support them on welfare.
Getting rid of the welfare doesn't fix the problem.
Ensuring that employers cant exploit people does.
This is limiting the freedom of an employer to do as they please with their resources, but it prevents the freedoms of employees and competitors being infringed by crushing and unfair working conditions.
It's a balance, and I'd hope most can see that.
If you look to nations with absolute freedom (no tax, no state) you do not see a utopia. You know what you see, so stop pretending we can do without these things, even in hyperbole.
Absolute freedom means nothing more than that those with strength are free, and those without it are thralls.
- Self interest is a virtue
Self interest is very human, understandable and in many cases necessary.
It is not, however, a virtue. You are not a better person by being selfish, you do not make the world a better place by always putting yourself first.
This contention aside, you cant praise the benefits of selfishness or greed in one breath and then absolve both of any responsibility for the DIRECT consequences of selfishness and greed.
Crony capitalism is BOTH OF THESE THINGS.
Just as with any tool (and greed/self interest are tools in the human arsenal, agreed) it is not always beneficial. It is not always appropriate. Sometimes, the application of the wrong tool can cause great harm.
When libertarians discuss corruption, it is exclusively the fault of the state. No reason is EVER provided except that the state is used to enforce the corrupt outcome.
If you don't understand why that is faulty logic, I cant help.
The state, in this case, is the tool of people motivated by the virtues you promote.
Greed is good is almost the most retarded thing anyone has ever repeated unironically.
It may not always be bad, it may inspire people to achieve, but it is at best an ambiguous mixed bag.
Studies have repeatedly shown that people can be motivated as well or better by other means than financial incentive.
Deal with it. Stop being naive. Money isn't everything, and you know it.
- Charity will solve all of societies problems, but giving people things is evil. Because reasons.
Charity, it is said, will solve all the problems government is left to deal with.
Get rid of welfare, public healthcare and similar programs, because generous people will solve those problems with charity!
This has never worked.
Government has ALWAYS had to intervene to assist the good works of private entities. This is not a bad thing, nor a good thing, it is just a necessary thing.
It is also at odds with the other assertion, that welfare actually HARMS people.
So, charity must step in so people can be given what they need by generous people (who will likely write if off on their taxes. ie: the government will pay) but the government doing this directly, with incentives and help for people to get out of welfare, is evil.
No explanations given, just "work is virtue" crap often repeated by people that have not done an honest days work in their lives.
Now, the welfare trap is VERY real.
But the problem isn't welfare itself. Industrialism causes this dependence.
In the last 200 years we have produced technology that enables us to do the work of DOZENS of people automatically, and reduce the work needed to accomplish many other tasks. The only result being less jobs are available. This is somewhat countered by other markets opening up. Consumerism is the ONLY reason we don't see mass starvation, because without it there would be no work for people to be paid so they could afford to eat the food produced by the VERY FEW people needed to produce enough food for everyone. If nobody could afford to buy the food produced by these people, it would rot in the fields.
It's a cycle of intermingled reliance, not a benevolent waterfall of wealth and resources from the top, with "job creators" our lord and saviour.
Welfare is a necessary bandaid over the problems caused by the very system we all understand is the best humans have come up with.
It might not be pleasant, it has bad effects as well as good, but without it you'd consign at LEAST 10% of the population to starvation (unemployment figures rarely go above 5% in Industrialised nations, and those are only those DIRECTLY drawing welfare, not all people without employment are considered "unemployed") and you'd take an AWFUL lot of revenue out of circulation. Poor people spend their money.
Just because we can and should reform welfare, and the exploitative businesses that benefit from it does not mean welfare is wrong. (here in the UK they're actually bringing in changes to allow employers to exploit welfare even more with low/zero hour contracts. Essentially any business can have people on "retainer" that draw welfare until they are needed, then draw a wage based on their hours worked and the government still pays them to make up the difference. I don't think it's entirely intended for this, I think many supporting the changes really do want to help people work, because "work is a virtue." They are just blind to exploitation. In the end, it will just mean more employers will have access to cheap workers that have no choice to accept their conditions)
***
Despite my reservations on libertarianism, I do believe it is absolutely necessary and positive in a democracy, reliant as we are on pluralism and representation.
There is more common ground between right libertarians, liberals and socialists than you may be lead to believe (especially over in the US, where socialism is an even dirtier word than liberal)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)