Op/Ed: Ron Paul remains media poison

[Simon_Jester]

In other words, you think that people's neighbours will in some sense become the new enforcer? If so, that does not actualize the libertarian ideal at all - the individual must be able to undertake the individual transactions that he pleases for a society to be genuinely libertarian.

From my point of view, that's exactly the point- the libertarian ideal is self-contradictory, and trying to actualize it brings out the contradiction very strongly.

The self-contradictory bit is that people will always be more willing to enforce their will on their neighbors than they are to have their neighbors' will enforced on them. Whatever aggregate of people have the most ability to voluntarily contribute resources to compel their neighbors will seek to use those resources. They will try to make society "right," to punish the "worst" crimes while ignoring the "minor" crimes, to make sure that the people who live the "right" way are free to do so even while the people who live the "wrong" way are not.

Now, that will always happen. But it becomes a very big problem in a society that actively tries to minimize coercion, because the only way to minimize coercion, as a practical matter, is to keep cutting back what the state does coercively. And keep doing it until the screaming about government intrusion fades away- logically, at that point you've reached a place where the average citizen no longer minds the coercion, so it isn't really coercion at all.

But when you do that, you don't really get the minimum necessary coercion, not if "necessary" has a coherent definition. All you get is a situation where the loudest faction is content with the social order. Where no one complains about "welfare queens" because there is, in effect, no such thing as welfare. Where no one complains about "excessive military spending" because there is, in effect, no military. Where no one complains about "excessive regulation of industry" because there is, in effect, no regulation for better or for worse.

Meanwhile, the poor may be starving, the barbarians may be mentally sizing up the country for plundering, and the mine tailings may be seeping into the drinking water... but since none of these processes provoke screams of pain from the taxpayers, they easily go unnoticed.

And I think that this is a fundamental flaw in the 'libertarian ideal' of minimizing coercion: that minimizing coercion on every individual doesn't get you the same outcome you'd really want in a democratic society. Not unless you have external forces guaranteeing the self-discipline of the citizens, particularly the ones who have lots of resources that they can choose to use to reshape society.

That would be independent courts and rule of law, and basic rights spelled out in a constitution, which they say is requisite for libertarianism.

The devil's in the details: the interpretation of rights, the fact that nominally impartial laws may be very impartial in effects,* and that it's so easy to create situations where a group of people define their rights in terms of their "right" to have an advantage others, and will loudly condemn any attempt to make them stop.

*Rich and poor alike may be forbidden to sleep under bridges- but who is harmed and who isn't, when such a law is enacted?

[Lord Zentei]

In other words, you think that people's neighbours will in some sense become the new enforcer? If so, that does not actualize the libertarian ideal at all - the individual must be able to undertake the individual transactions that he pleases for a society to be genuinely libertarian.

From my point of view, that's exactly the point- the libertarian ideal is self-contradictory, and trying to actualize it brings out the contradiction very strongly.

The self-contradictory bit is that people will always be more willing to enforce their will on their neighbors than they are to have their neighbors' will enforced on them. Whatever aggregate of people have the most ability to voluntarily contribute resources to compel their neighbors will seek to use those resources. They will try to make society "right," to punish the "worst" crimes while ignoring the "minor" crimes, to make sure that the people who live the "right" way are free to do so even while the people who live the "wrong" way are not.

Now, that will always happen. But it becomes a very big problem in a society that actively tries to minimize coercion, because the only way to minimize coercion, as a practical matter, is to keep cutting back what the state does coercively. And keep doing it until the screaming about government intrusion fades away- logically, at that point you've reached a place where the average citizen no longer minds the coercion, so it isn't really coercion at all.

But when you do that, you don't really get the minimum necessary coercion, not if "necessary" has a coherent definition. All you get is a situation where the loudest faction is content with the social order. Where no one complains about "welfare queens" because there is, in effect, no such thing as welfare. Where no one complains about "excessive military spending" because there is, in effect, no military. Where no one complains about "excessive regulation of industry" because there is, in effect, no regulation for better or for worse.

Meanwhile, the poor may be starving, the barbarians may be mentally sizing up the country for plundering, and the mine tailings may be seeping into the drinking water... but since none of these processes provoke screams of pain from the taxpayers, they easily go unnoticed.

Again, this would be an good rebuttal to the anarchist position, but it's not a coherent response to the libertarian one. Obviously, the minimal level of coercion that makes society functional is not the point at which people stop complaining about government coercion, but the point prior to the one where the rule of law breaks down. If you say that X reduction in coercion would lead to a breakdown of rule of law and justice, then you've crossed that threshold. Also, I think you meant to say that "you don't really get the minimum necessary coercion, not unless "necessary" has a coherent definition".

That would be independent courts and rule of law, and basic rights spelled out in a constitution, which they say is requisite for libertarianism.

The devil's in the details: the interpretation of rights, the fact that nominally impartial laws may be very impartial in effects,* and that it's so easy to create situations where a group of people define their rights in terms of their "right" to have an advantage others, and will loudly condemn any attempt to make them stop.

*Rich and poor alike may be forbidden to sleep under bridges- but who is harmed and who isn't, when such a law is enacted?

Naturally, the rights have to be clearly defined, and people can't make up new ones even if a majority demands them. Hence the vital importance of the independence of the courts and their ability to strike down laws when they violate the established rights. As for the democratic society, it's quite possible to envision a scenario where the democracy denies rights to the minority.