Posted on 03/04/2005 9:56:35 PM PST by neverdem
March 4, 2005
The other night, upon accepting the 2005 Irving Kristol Award from the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of inside-the-Beltway conservatism, the Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa gave a speech extolling liberalism. Not, he hastened to explain, the contemporary American version, but liberalism in its older sense, an outlook predicated on "tolerance and respect for others," the basic elements of which are "political democracy, the market economy, and the defense of individual interests over those of the state."
This liberalism, which requires private property, free markets, and the rule of law, has little in common with the statist mutation that goes by that name in the U.S. One of classical liberalism's central insights, Vargas Llosa noted, is that "freedom is a single, unified concept. Political and economic liberties are as inseparable as the two sides of a medal." By contrast, self-styled liberals in the U.S. tend to view economic liberty with indifference, if not hostility, leaving its defense to conservatives.
Blayne and Julie McAferty's struggle to save their Seattle bed-and-breakfast suggests why this abdication is a mistake. In 2003, citing a dearth of local bed-and-breakfasts, the Seattle City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that for the first time permitted B&Bs in neighborhoods zoned for single-family residences. But after the McAfertys opened the Greenlake Guest House B&B last summer, their neighbors decided it was one too many. "I've got people waving at me and I don't know who they are," one complained.
Under pressure from residents alarmed by these excessively friendly strangers, the city retroactively declared the McAfertys' B&B illegal, ordering it closed by the end of this month and threatening fines of $75 a day if they don't comply. The official justification for the order is the remodeling work the McAfertys did on their home before opening it as a B&B, which involved adding one dormer to the second floor and expanding another to make the upstairs rooms larger.
According to the city's interpretation of the law, it would have been fine if the McAfertys had simply remodeled their home. Likewise if they had remodeled it and sold it to someone else who then used it as a B&B. Where they ran afoul of the law was in remodeling their home and subsequently offering rooms for rent.
This interpretation is contrary to the explanation offered last year by the director of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development. Although "regulations pertaining to bed and breakfast use stipulate that exterior alterations must not be a part of establishing a bed and breakfast use," she said, "there is no restriction on how much time must transpire between making exterior alterations for a house remodel and establishing bed and breakfast use."
Now the city has changed the rules in response to complaints from the McAfertys' B&B-phobic neighbors. The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm dedicated to protecting economic liberty, recently filed a lawsuit in King County Court that seeks to stop the city from taking away the McAfertys' livelihood.
Although Americans tend to view the right to earn a living without unreasonable interference from the government as a conservative issue, in this case the conservatives are McAfertys' neighbors, who are using the government to resist change. They are angry about the liberalization that permitted the McAfertys to open their B&B.
Nor is this dispute simply about economic freedom. The government's arbitrary and inconsistent treatment of the McAfertys' business is hard to reconcile with the rule of law. The case also involves freedom of speech, since the city has barred the McAfertys from putting a sign in front of their home and otherwise restricted their ability to advertise.
The experience of running a small business can foster an appreciation for economic liberty even among those previously inclined to give it short shrift. In 1992 George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate who for many years personified leftish "liberalism," wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece decrying the government regulations that had helped drive his Connecticut inn out of business.
Five years later, McGovern was on the op-ed page of The New York Times, astonishing his old opponents by condemning paternalistic policies aimed at stopping people from smoking, drinking, overeating, or bungee jumping. "While the choices we make may be foolish or self-destructive," he wrote, "there is still the overriding principle that we cannot allow the micromanaging of each other's lives."
McGovern finally sounded like a liberal.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.
© Copyright 2004 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Dream on, dream until your dreams come true...
Are you a speed reader, or did you bother to read it?
Nah, it wasn't interesting enough to finish.
I responded to the title and the first paragraph. Liberals don't care about true freedom.
"there is still the overriding principle that we cannot allow the micromanaging of each other's lives."
there is still the overriding principle that we cannot allow the micromanaging of each other's lives."
Hard to believe that McGovern said that.
A conservative saying we need more people like George McGovern? Uhhhhhh, yeah.
Too bad, it's your loss, and a waste of my time. Didn't you ever hear that if you don't have something good to say, then don't say anything?
"In 1992 George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate who for many years personified leftish "liberalism," wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece decrying the government regulations that had helped drive his Connecticut inn out of business.
"Five years later, McGovern was on the op-ed page of The New York Times, astonishing his old opponents by condemning paternalistic policies aimed at stopping people from smoking, drinking, overeating, or bungee jumping."
The author is probably a libertarian. The new McGovern doesn't seem to fit well with modern statists of either major party on at least some domestic issues.
The author was referring to the liberalism that established this country, not the demented bs that has co-opted the name under the democrat banner. Read John Locke; he was the liberal who wrote out the fundamental tenets of separation of powers. Read Montesquieu, he wrote about checks and balances. They're who Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton read. They were liberals.
I'm a big fan of Mario Vargas Llosa's novels. He's funny.
I never use the term liberal without scare quotes because the people going under that name today are anything but. Liberal in the dictionary has a real meaning and in regular usage is a compliment. Not earned. I use the term left, as in left liberality behind.
Why did Llosa get this award?
The word "speech" in the 1st paragraph is a link that works and explains why.
Liberals see things as a negative of what they really are.
It seems that modern conservatives and the old liberals had a lot in common. The conservatives morphed into liberals and the liberals morphed into commies.
I realize that. Which is why I said "dream on." Liberals don't believe in freedom anymore.
Right back at ya.
Look, I don't care to read about bed and breakfasts, and it's not a particularly well-written piece. I responded to the initial question, as I said. Will liberals rediscover [classical] liberalism? dream on.
Now get some sleep. You're cranky.
I agree. The waste of my time reading sophomoric comments is the waste. The lack of good manners and respect annoys me. It reminds me of teenagers who think they know it all.
Thanks. But I did not find his speech explained it, but this link does:
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.21781/news_detail.asp
I knew Mr Llosa had run for president in Peru and lost. But I was not aware of the extent of his involvement against Bank seizures.
"Agitation against a government seizure of Peru's private banks in 1987 drew Mr. Vargas Llosa into active politics for several years. In 1990, he was the candidate of the FREDEMO Movement for the president of Peru, running on a platform of conservative reform and losing narrowly to Alberto Fujimori. His memoir El pez en el agua (A Fish in the Water, 1993) relates his brief political career.
'snip'
The Irving Kristol Award, AEI's highest award, recognizes individuals who have made extraordinary intellectual or practical contributions to improved government policy or social welfare. The award was established in 2002 in honor of AEI senior fellow Irving Kristol, replacing the Institute's Francis BoyerAward, which had been awarded annually for the previous twenty-five years. The Kristol Award is selected by the AEI Council of Academic Advisers (for information about the Council, visit www.aei.org/caa)."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.