The Two Boots of Authoritarianism

cyberclass.net ^ | 1/30/04 | Gary Lloyd

[r9etb]

The fellow tries really hard, but there's a fallacy lurking in his 2x2 matrix.

Specifically, Mr. Lord is trying to define societies in terms of their types of government. Thus, he puts libertarianism down in the "low government control of social and fiscal policy corner." He then says that there are "no libertarian governments."

Warning flags should start flying when a libertarian argument is advanced solely in terms of government, and especially when this swell little matrix (which is not Lord's invention) comes into play.

We actually do know about plenty of countries featuring minimal government control over social or fiscal policies -- Somalia of the 1990s being a particularly fine example. Lord's argument is damaged by the fact that Somalia rested in Lord's "preferred corner," and yet was not a libertarian paradise.

What's missing? Simple: a self-controlled population.

To drag out my favorite John Adams quote:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Libertarianism might work in a place where people tend to behave properly -- but noplace else.

[lormand]

I think you've just illustrated the close relationship of Libertarianism and Anarchism.

[yatros from flatwater]

Actually, classical liberal or libertarian government would describe the historical norm in tribal and agrarian cultures as well as in frontier periods in North America and Australia. There was no central government "boot" to plant upon anyone's neck in these circumstances. No village would abide a thief or brigand, he would have been exiled at least.

Strong central governments simply concentrate the tempting spoils for thieves and brigands to claim as "public servants".

[r9etb]

No village would abide a thief or brigand, he would have been exiled at least.

Precisely: the people behaved themselves, or else. (We can ignore for now the fact that many tribal societies are, in fact, quite authoritarian.)

BTW, history shows that the tribal/agrarian model only works so long the various tribes/communities are too weak and/or poor to look longingly on their neighbors' belongings.

Once you get a group with the wealth to feed armies, and the desire to use them, then everybody else has to either surrender or, if they're going to fight back, follow suit.

The only guarantee against aggression by rich and powerful is the presence of a "moral and religious" population.

[tpaine]

The fellow tries really hard, but there's a fallacy lurking in his 2x2 matrix. Specifically, Mr. Lord is trying to define societies in terms of their types of government.

Whats wrong with that? It a valid diagramic method, not a 'fallacy'.

Thus, he puts libertarianism down in the "low government control of social and fiscal policy corner." He then says that there are "no libertarian governments." Warning flags should start flying when a libertarian argument is advanced solely in terms of government, and especially when this swell little matrix (which is not Lord's invention) comes into play.

Warning flags? That's pure [& amusing] hype on your part . And I doubt he claimed the 'diamond' as his invention..

We actually do know about plenty of countries featuring minimal government control over social or fiscal policies -- Somalia of the 1990s being a particularly fine example. Lord's argument is damaged by the fact that Somalia rested in Lord's "preferred corner," and yet was not a libertarian paradise.

Who said anarchy is preferred? Are straw man ploys your main posting tactic?

What's missing? Simple: a self-controlled population. To drag out my favorite John Adams quote: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Wrong. Our constitution worked just fine til a bunch of blue nosed socialistic moralists started violating it back in the early 1900's. -- Been downhill for liberty ever since.

Libertarianism might work in a place where people tend to behave properly -- but noplace else.

Between 1800 & 1900 probably the most 'misbehaved' people on earth were americans..
Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Libertarianism might work in a place where people tend to behave properly -- but noplace else.

But isn't that where the old saw "An armed society is a polite society" comes into play?

[r9etb]

Whats wrong with that? It a valid diagramic method, not a 'fallacy'.

It is a fallacy, in the sense that he's treating the matrix as if it were fully descriptive of the problem. It's not, as my Somalia example shows.

Who said anarchy is preferred? Are straw man ploys your main posting tactic?

The fact that both anarchy and libertarianism fit in that corner of the matrix merely proves the point: Lord's analysis is not complete. There's more to the puzzle.

Wrong. Our constitution worked just fine til a bunch of blue nosed socialistic moralists started violating it back in the early 1900's. -- Been downhill for liberty ever since.

I think you need to look at what those folks were responding to, before you blame it all on them. There was plenty of blame to go around, including to industrialists who really were greedy, to the detriment of others.

Between 1800 & 1900 probably the most 'misbehaved' people on earth were americans.. Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

I think you'd be rather hard-pressed to prove that.

[r9etb]

But isn't that where the old saw "An armed society is a polite society" comes into play?

The folks in Somalia were nothing if not heavily armed. There's other stuff required -- i.e., civilized behavior.

[tpaine]

Whats wrong with that? Its a valid diagramic method, not a 'fallacy'. <

It is a fallacy, in the sense that he's treating the matrix as if it were fully descriptive of the problem.

"Fully discriptive" is just more of your straw man hype. His diagram is a good way to describe political opposites, and how all can meet in the middle of the diamond, among reasonable men.

It's not, as my Somalia example shows.

You 'showed' us nothing. Anarchy is at the bottom of the libertarian diamond. Rationality is near the top, in the middle.

Who said anarchy is preferred? Are straw man ploys your main posting tactic?

The fact that both anarchy and libertarianism fit in that corner of the matrix merely proves the point: Lord's analysis is not complete. There's more to the puzzle.

What is missing? Your generalizations are getting repetitive already.

--- Our constitution worked just fine til a bunch of blue nosed socialistic moralists started violating it back in the early 1900's. -- Been downhill for liberty ever since.

I think you need to look at what those folks were responding to, before you blame it all on them. There was plenty of blame to go around, including to industrialists who really were greedy, to the detriment of others.

Thank you Mr Marx, and you too Ms Nation..

Between 1800 & 1900 probably the most 'misbehaved' people on earth were americans.. Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

I think you'd be rather hard-pressed to prove that.

Obvious historical fact requires no proof for reasonable men.
Find a roscoe type to argue with if you want to argue cites & quotes.

[tpaine]

Strong central governments simply concentrate the tempting spoils for thieves and brigands to claim as "public servants".

No village would abide a thief or brigand, he would have been exiled at least.
-yatros from flatwater-

______________________________________


Precisely: the people behaved themselves, or else. (We can ignore for now the fact that many tribal societies are, in fact, quite authoritarian.)
BTW, history shows that the tribal/agrarian model only works so long the various tribes/communities are too weak and/or poor to look longingly on their neighbors' belongings.

Once you get a group with the wealth to feed armies, and the desire to use them, then everybody else has to either surrender or, if they're going to fight back, follow suit.

The only guarantee against aggression by rich and powerful is the presence of a "moral and religious" population.
5 -r9-

---

Yartos, notice how our boy 'r9' pretends to agree that strong central governments are bad, but then advocates that "a moral and religious population" must "follow suit" in an authoritarian type government.

[Roscoe]

"...the Internet is about as Libertarian a nation as is likely to exist anywhere..." --Gary Lloyd

Gary is an ignorant crackpot.

See Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace by Milton L. Mueller.

[Roscoe]

Gary is an ignorant crackpot. With a fan.

[tpaine]

You said that already.

[CGVet58]

the fellow does more than make a bad assumption; he plain doesn't know what he's talking about, unless pulling one out of his ass to satisfy his God of moral relativism qualifies as wisdom nowadays.

take, for example, his basic premise: that extreme right and left both wind up in totalitarianism. This is a "Big Lie" that started back when the (socialist) nazi invasion of Russia blew Stalin's rapprochment with that totalitarian, leftist regime to bits; afterwards, the soviet propaganda machine switched from calling them 'comrades' to labelling them dictators and stamping them as being "of the right (since the soviets were naturally the good guys, and from the left).

Just another example of what Thomas Sowell aptly labels "verbal preemption" in his book, Vision of the Anointed.

Leftists... geez, but how I hate them all...

CGVet58
Juan

[DoctorMichael]

"......inevitably, both right and left wing ideologies, taken to their logical conclusions, converge toward the same objective of totalitarianism......"

Try THIS rather than the Matrix/Cube Model: The 'Political Spectrum' is NOT linear, ie. there is a Left and a Right. Instead, the 'Political Spectrum' is CIRCULAR. If you go too far to either the Left or RIGHT you eventually end up in the same place......a Totalitarian State.

[r9etb]

Yartos, notice how our boy 'r9' pretends to agree that strong central governments are bad, but then advocates that "a moral and religious population" must "follow suit" in an authoritarian type government.

Oh, come on, son. Seriously: if you can't see that the difference between libertarianism and anarchy is the presence of John Adams's "moral and religious people," you're never going to understand anything.

[r9etb]

Instead, the 'Political Spectrum' is CIRCULAR. If you go too far to either the Left or RIGHT you eventually end up in the same place......a Totalitarian State.

Actually, if you really need to describe politics in the verbiage of mathematics (which is a mistake to begin with, IMHO), then let me suggest that it's something like the following (sans squid):

In that sense, one might put "bad" governments at the bottom of the heap, and "good" ones higher up -- plus which, you also get to depict your basic "slippery slope."

The main problem with any such formulation, however, is that it suggests that there is a single, optimal type of government/social arrangement, suitable for all conditions and times. Such might be the case, but I really don't think so.

And, as I suggested before, the governmental arrangements are far less important than the attitudes and beliefs of the people within the society.

Think of it in terms of two work crews. The first is full of people who willingly work hard, and do the best job they can. The second crew is full of slackers from the half-way house, looking to get paid the most they can for the least amount of work. If you were the foreman, could you treat these crews the same way? Of course not. And neither could a government work the same way, faced with drastically different populations.

[tpaine]

Good grief.. You had that pulled? How pitiful.