Op/Ed: Ron Paul remains media poison

[Gaidin]

There is an American left?

Well, the fact that we have to call it the "American Left" and not just the "left" kind of says everything that needs to be said doesn't it?

[TheHammer]

I realize a lot of Ron Paul's ideas come across as "cooky" to the mainstream, but how the hell is he any worse than Herman Cain, or Hell a lot of what Palin and Michelle Bachman have said? It does baffle the mind a bit. Seems only The Daily Show and Colbert give him any sort of recognition.

[Simon_Jester]

It's not that he's worse, it's that he's tried and failed and no one really expects it to work better this time than it did last time.

Although this doesn't justify total media blackout.

[ThomasP]

I actually don't agree with that at all. My position is that both are rights. I think it's a civil right to bar someone from your business based on race, but it's in societies interest as well as the rights of others to infringe upon the right to discriminate based on race.

As I said, this is precisely what I never liked about the way Americans think of rights. Even something as simple as saying "hey, you can't kick that guy out of your restaurant for being black" cannot be described by Americans as a defense of rights. It can only be described by Americans as an infringement of rights.

Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" might be of interest. Using Berlin's terminology, the traditionally American concept of civil liberty would be defined as "negative liberty", liberty in the the expected "absence of coercion" sense. But he also recognizes "positive liberty", identified with self-determination, freedom to choose, and socio-economic opportunity, which would be more in line with what you're saying about rights vs. liberties.

[Lord Zentei]

There's more to entitlement than self-determination, freedom to choose and socio-economic opportunity. These things are entirely in line with the American idea of rights. By contrast, entitlements such as healthcare and housing, etc. by their very nature involve a claim to society's material resources, which means that someone else in society has to provide them.

[Lord Zentei]

Too late to edit, so Ghetto Edit:

To further clarify Ron Paul: he's actually not purely a libertarian, but also a "strict constitutionalist", which means that he doesn't believe that the federal government has a right to interfere in anything that isn't explicitly spelled out in the constitution. This means that it's up to the states to regulate most things. Moreover, while he has said that he's pro-life and that Roe v Wade was "incorrectly decided", he has also voiced opposition to federal bans on abortion. He has opposed the proposed amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman because he deems that outside the remit of the federal government, etc.

So there are several examples of him coming to the "right" conclusion for what are IMHO the wrong reasons.

Of course, the proper rebuttal to all these arguments is the "equal protection" clause, which has in practice given the federal government far more power than was probably anticipated initially.

It's not that he's worse, it's that he's tried and failed and no one really expects it to work better this time than it did last time.

Although this doesn't justify total media blackout.

It's also that he gives off the same vibe as a nice old uncle who happens to be a nutty professor. In other words he has no charisma - not "presidential" as the media say.

[Darth Wong]

There's more to entitlement than self-determination, freedom to choose and socio-economic opportunity. These things are entirely in line with the American idea of rights. By contrast, entitlements such as healthcare and housing, etc. by their very nature involve a claim to society's material resources, which means that someone else in society has to provide them.

Someone else in society must provide for all rights. Policing isn't free, and at a bare minimum, rights cannot possibly be enforced without police and legal systems.

[Lord Zentei]

That's true, and a fair point. Though things like policing do not represent resources that are transferred to specific individuals due to a claim that they have to them, but are collective benefits where one-to-one transactions are not possible. In that regard, they're unlike things like the services of a doctor, for instance.

It would be more biting to point out that the right to legal council is one of the things people are assumed to be entitled to, and if one can't afford a lawyer, the court will provide one. This is part of the "right to a fair trial" as per the 6th Amendment. The services of a lawyer is something that IS a one-to-one transaction. In other words there is arguably one "second generation" right in the Bill of Rights after all.

[Thanas]

That's true, and a fair point. Though things like policing do not represent resources that are transferred to specific individuals due to a claim that they have to them, but are collective benefits where one-to-one transactions are not possible. In that regard, they're unlike things like the services of a doctor, for instance.

Why? In most western nations the use of the health care system is a collective benefit as well.

[Lord Zentei]

Health care in most western nations is organized on collectivist lines, but that doesn't make the services of a doctor for each specific individual a collective benefit. Mind you, I'm pro-welfare.

EDIT: There is arguably a case for the contrary position with regards to public vaccinations, though.

[Thanas]

Health care in most western nations is organized on collectivist lines, but that doesn't make the services of a doctor for each specific individual a collective benefit.

Why not? Affordable healthcare very much strengthens a society simply by keeping costs down and keeping members alive longer. If that is not a collective benefit, then what is?

[Darth Wong]

Health care in most western nations is organized on collectivist lines, but that doesn't make the services of a doctor for each specific individual a collective benefit. Mind you, I'm pro-welfare.

That doesn't make any sense. Obviously, if you take apart any collective benefit, ignore the fact that it's a society-wide system, and pretend that you're just dealing with one provider and one client, then it looks like it's an individual benefit rather than a collective one. However, that is highly misleading and I'm not sure what the point of such distortion would be.

[Lord Zentei]

Going by that kind of thinking, then you can say that just about any goods or services constitute a "collective benefit". It's hardly a distortion to distinguish between one-on-one voluntary transactions and things which affect the whole of society directly.

[Thanas]

Going by that kind of thinking, then you can say that just about any goods or services constitute a "collective benefit". It's hardly a distortion to distinguish between one-on-one voluntary transactions and things which affect the whole of society directly.

If my car is broken into, then it is also a voluntary decision on my part of whether I call the police. If I am murdered it is just as involuntary that the police will get involved as if I get a heart attack and an ambulance is called.

[Lord Zentei]

Going by that kind of thinking, then you can say that just about any goods or services constitute a "collective benefit". It's hardly a distortion to distinguish between one-on-one voluntary transactions and things which affect the whole of society directly.

If my car is broken into, then it is also a voluntary decision on my part of whether I call the police. If I am murdered it is just as involuntary that the police will get involved as if I get a heart attack and an ambulance is called.

It's not your decision to have the police patrol the streets and keep the criminals in check. Though the point you raise is exactly the justification libertarians use to say that police can be privatized.

[Thanas]

It's not your decision to have the police patrol the streets and keep the criminals in check.

It is also not my decision to have emergency rooms and hospitals stay operating.

[Lord Zentei]

It's not your decision to have the police patrol the streets and keep the criminals in check.

It is also not my decision to have emergency rooms and hospitals stay operating.

That's a one-to-one transaction between a surgeon and his patients.

[Simon_Jester]

Zentei, I'm a bit confused by your position.

Do you see a clear difference between individual deals and collective benefits?

Do you think collective benefits be irreducible, things that can't be broken into a bunch of individual deals?

What defines an 'individual deal?' The ability to opt out of it?

I mean, my interactions with a police officer are in some sense 'individual.' I can choose to ask a police officer to help me if I'm in some kind of trouble, and if the officer does so, then I've personally benefited from the police. The existence, the availability of police officers, that's a collective benefit, sure, but if you atomize it it has to break down into individual interactions.

The same often goes for the 'first generation' rights, I'd say. Freedom of speech, on the street level, boils down to state officials getting in trouble if they try to stop you from speaking. Socioeconomic opportunity, on the street level, boils down to making good schools and the like available to all classes, and to having things like discrimination laws.

You can't get around this, there must always be enforceability lurking behind any right. And there are always individuals who profit by these things, and individuals who don't, and individuals who can opt out of the system entirely. Free speech is good for people who have unpopular things to say, bad for people who don't want such things said, and irrelevant to people who 'opt out' by not making any political speech.


There will also always be people within the state who complain that their tax dollars are being spent to provide benefits (like protection from harassment) to the wrong people. They will ask why we're wasting money on schoolteachers who don't humor their religion's creation myth, why we waste time trying to provide police protection to a neighborhood full of predatory criminals, and so on. Because in their mental model of the universe, some people are inherently unworthy of rights, or at least unworthy of having rights enforced on their behalf. Especially if those rights are enforced at the expense of people who want those rights to go away.

And I don't think you can get around this either. To do that, you'd need to have the "rights that don't cost anything," which can be provided for all without having to make people spend tax dollars to provide it without their consent. And to have "resource transfer rights" that should be replaced by individual transactions and not be run on a state level. But how can you draw a firm line in the sand between those kinds of rights, when all rights take resources to enforce, and for any conceivable right there will be some person A who doesn't want person B to have it?

[Darth Wong]

Going by that kind of thinking, then you can say that just about any goods or services constitute a "collective benefit". It's hardly a distortion to distinguish between one-on-one voluntary transactions and things which affect the whole of society directly.

Utter nonsense.

1) Collective benefits are those which are available to all citizens. The fact that an individual human being serves as the vehicle for delivery of those benefits does not change the fact that they are equally available to all.

2) Public health care transactions are not one-to-one transactions. You aren't asked to pay for services rendered. Instead, the government pays, from collective resources.

[Lord Zentei]

Zentei, I'm a bit confused by your position.

Do you see a clear difference between individual deals and collective benefits?

No, there's a sliding scale.

Do you think collective benefits be irreducible, things that can't be broken into a bunch of individual deals?

What defines an 'individual deal?' The ability to opt out of it?

The inability to opt out of it is one thing. The other is that the benefits of it can be withheld from a person who refuses to pay.

I mean, my interactions with a police officer are in some sense 'individual.' I can choose to ask a police officer to help me if I'm in some kind of trouble, and if the officer does so, then I've personally benefited from the police. The existence, the availability of police officers, that's a collective benefit, sure, but if you atomize it it has to break down into individual interactions.

That's true to an extent, but you gain from the presence of the police more often simply by the fact that they're patrolling the streets and keeping thugs off them. The whole community benefits from the fact that a criminal is captured and crimes deterred, not just the person who called 911.

The same often goes for the 'first generation' rights, I'd say. Freedom of speech, on the street level, boils down to state officials getting in trouble if they try to stop you from speaking. Socioeconomic opportunity, on the street level, boils down to making good schools and the like available to all classes, and to having things like discrimination laws.

You can't get around this, there must always be enforceability lurking behind any right. And there are always individuals who profit by these things, and individuals who don't, and individuals who can opt out of the system entirely. Free speech is good for people who have unpopular things to say, bad for people who don't want such things said, and irrelevant to people who 'opt out' by not making any political speech.

There will also always be people within the state who complain that their tax dollars are being spent to provide benefits (like protection from harassment) to the wrong people. They will ask why we're wasting money on schoolteachers who don't humor their religion's creation myth, why we waste time trying to provide police protection to a neighborhood full of predatory criminals, and so on. Because in their mental model of the universe, some people are inherently unworthy of rights, or at least unworthy of having rights enforced on their behalf. Especially if those rights are enforced at the expense of people who want those rights to go away.

And I don't think you can get around this either. To do that, you'd need to have the "rights that don't cost anything," which can be provided for all without having to make people spend tax dollars to provide it without their consent. And to have "resource transfer rights" that should be replaced by individual transactions and not be run on a state level. But how can you draw a firm line in the sand between those kinds of rights, when all rights take resources to enforce, and for any conceivable right there will be some person A who doesn't want person B to have it?

OK, let me make one thing quite clear once again: I am pro-welfare. I am not advocating that all resource transfer rights should be replaced by individual transactions. I am saying that it is not a logically impossible position to hold, and am explaining that position.

Obviously, there must be enforcability for any right to have any practical meaning. There is a difference, however, between expending resources to maintain a right which doesn't in and of itself entail a resource transfer on the one hand, and expending resources to maintain a right which does entail that on the other. In only doing the former, you are utilizing the minimum amount of resources to ensure rights that cannot be ensured by voluntary transactions. That is the libertarian ideal: not zero collective resource usage, but the smallest possible collective resource usage. The position you are claiming this must lead to is the anarchist position, namely that all collective resource management is ultimately ensured by coercion, and therefore morally wrong. That's why they hold that even the minimal government envisioned by libertarians is anathema.

Of course, I don't hold either view. It does pay to keep in mind how much we are paying for our rights, and the more we can achieve such rights without coercion, the better, other things being equal (of course they usually aren't equal, so we must face tradeoffs).

[Lord Zentei]

Going by that kind of thinking, then you can say that just about any goods or services constitute a "collective benefit". It's hardly a distortion to distinguish between one-on-one voluntary transactions and things which affect the whole of society directly.

Utter nonsense.

1) Collective benefits are those which are available to all citizens. The fact that an individual human being serves as the vehicle for delivery of those benefits does not change the fact that they are equally available to all.

2) Public health care transactions are not one-to-one transactions. You aren't asked to pay for services rendered. Instead, the government pays, from collective resources.

We seem to be arguing using different terminology, and that can't lead anywhere. The sense of "collective benefit" I'm using is in the meaning "benefits the collective".

I'm well aware that public health care transactions are not payed for by the recipient. That wasn't my point at all.

[Spoonist]

We seem to be arguing using different terminology, and that can't lead anywhere. The sense of "collective benefit" I'm using is in the meaning "benefits the collective".

I'm confused. How can universal healthcare be construed not to benefit the collective?
Contagious diseases go down.
Having to care for kin and family goes down.
etc

If an individual gets sick it affects lots of people around them, if lots of people get sick without assistance that will affect society as a whole (like in the US).

So by what strange logic do you reason that sickness only affects the individual (or rather its cure)...

[Lord Zentei]

I made exception for public vaccination earlier in my response to Thanas. Obviously heard immunity is a collective benefit.

Care for kin is not the collective, since that's usually within the household or small set thereof.

[Simon_Jester]

Do you think collective benefits be irreducible, things that can't be broken into a bunch of individual deals?
What defines an 'individual deal?' The ability to opt out of it?

The inability to opt out of it is one thing. The other is that the benefits of it can be withheld from a person who refuses to pay.

Er... I assume you mean that collective benefits are ones that cannot be withheld (usually), while the inability to opt out is a sign of collective-benefit. Your statement is accidentally unclear on that.

That's true to an extent, but you gain from the presence of the police more often simply by the fact that they're patrolling the streets and keeping thugs off them. The whole community benefits from the fact that a criminal is captured and crimes deterred, not just the person who called 911.

Possibly, but in most cases there are definite winners. We police neighborhoods- which neighborhoods and in what numbers? Some people wind up benefiting more than others. We choose to punish crimes- what do we pursue? Some people benefit more when the police focus on vandalism, or on drug dealing, or on white-collar crime.

And there will always be people who think that the allocation of resources to this kind of thing is unfair, or that some of the resources are being allocated wastefully (to enforce laws they don't want enforced, or to enforce rights that they don't consider universal).

Now, to be fair, I need to pause here and note that you go on to say:

Obviously, there must be enforcability for any right to have any practical meaning. There is a difference, however, between expending resources to maintain a right which doesn't in and of itself entail a resource transfer on the one hand, and expending resources to maintain a right which does entail that on the other. In only doing the former, you are utilizing the minimum amount of resources to ensure rights that cannot be ensured by voluntary transactions. That is the libertarian ideal: not zero collective resource usage, but the smallest possible collective resource usage. The position you are claiming this must lead to is the anarchist position, namely that all collective resource management is ultimately ensured by coercion, and therefore morally wrong...

My argument is that the libertarian ideal reduces predictably to... not quite to the anarchist position, or rather to something not described on your scale at all, but which has been around for so long we might almost consider it the 'state of nature' of a human society. What it leads to, more or less, is the 'tyranny of custom.'

Having minimized the coercion we use to gather collective resources, I expect to see state policy dictated by whatever the largest fraction of the citizens will agree to spend their own resources to do on an individual basis. Which is not the same as what they'd vote to have a government do, just as people don't donate 20% or 30% of their income to charities and consumer protection agencies of their own initiative.

No, what people will spend resources for, what they will want to see enforced in that situation, is exactly what the local majority bias calls for. Rights for minority groups- racial, cultural, or otherwise- are simply not on that scale, unless the minority happens to be well liked in that particular time and place.

That's what you get when you minimize the share the state takes 'coercively' from the public. State policy on matters of rights will end up set by the aggregate of individual choice... and the aggregate of individual choice can be very ugly in some places if there's no law to impose a degree of discipline and restraint on the citizenry.

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.

[Lord Zentei]

Do you think collective benefits be irreducible, things that can't be broken into a bunch of individual deals?
What defines an 'individual deal?' The ability to opt out of it?

The inability to opt out of it is one thing. The other is that the benefits of it can be withheld from a person who refuses to pay.

Er... I assume you mean that collective benefits are ones that cannot be withheld (usually), while the inability to opt out is a sign of collective-benefit. Your statement is accidentally unclear on that.

Yes, correct.

That's true to an extent, but you gain from the presence of the police more often simply by the fact that they're patrolling the streets and keeping thugs off them. The whole community benefits from the fact that a criminal is captured and crimes deterred, not just the person who called 911.

Possibly, but in most cases there are definite winners. We police neighborhoods- which neighborhoods and in what numbers? Some people wind up benefiting more than others. We choose to punish crimes- what do we pursue? Some people benefit more when the police focus on vandalism, or on drug dealing, or on white-collar crime.

And there will always be people who think that the allocation of resources to this kind of thing is unfair, or that some of the resources are being allocated wastefully (to enforce laws they don't want enforced, or to enforce rights that they don't consider universal).

Well, obviously some benefit more, but it's not obvious from the outset which specific individuals these are. And naturally police can also defend non-universal rights, I'm not sure how that undermines the point, though.

Now, to be fair, I need to pause here and note that you go on to say:

Obviously, there must be enforcability for any right to have any practical meaning. There is a difference, however, between expending resources to maintain a right which doesn't in and of itself entail a resource transfer on the one hand, and expending resources to maintain a right which does entail that on the other. In only doing the former, you are utilizing the minimum amount of resources to ensure rights that cannot be ensured by voluntary transactions. That is the libertarian ideal: not zero collective resource usage, but the smallest possible collective resource usage. The position you are claiming this must lead to is the anarchist position, namely that all collective resource management is ultimately ensured by coercion, and therefore morally wrong...

My argument is that the libertarian ideal reduces predictably to... not quite to the anarchist position, or rather to something not described on your scale at all, but which has been around for so long we might almost consider it the 'state of nature' of a human society. What it leads to, more or less, is the 'tyranny of custom.'

Having minimized the coercion we use to gather collective resources, I expect to see state policy dictated by whatever the largest fraction of the citizens will agree to spend their own resources to do on an individual basis. Which is not the same as what they'd vote to have a government do, just as people don't donate 20% or 30% of their income to charities and consumer protection agencies of their own initiative.

No, what people will spend resources for, what they will want to see enforced in that situation, is exactly what the local majority bias calls for. Rights for minority groups- racial, cultural, or otherwise- are simply not on that scale, unless the minority happens to be well liked in that particular time and place.

That's what you get when you minimize the share the state takes 'coercively' from the public. State policy on matters of rights will end up set by the aggregate of individual choice... and the aggregate of individual choice can be very ugly in some places if there's no law to impose a degree of discipline and restraint on the citizenry.

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.

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.