The Fall of the Libertarians

Opinion Journal ^ | 05/02/2002 | FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

[TopQuark]

In your replies you confuse the public and private goods. The examples you give are those of private goods and services --- army, militia, etc.

Please look up the distinction: public goods are characterized by indivisible consumption; that is, once produced, no one can be excluded from consuming them. Police protection, defense, street lighting, and clean air are usually offered as examples.

With private goods, such as an apple, you can exclude others --- those who do not own the good -- from consumption.

There is an intermediate, less researched category --- that of club goods.

Again, I made a statement with regard to public goods; your reply centered on private one. I do not disagree with your remarks, but they speak on a different topic than my post.

[coloradan]

Please look up the distinction: public goods are characterized by indivisible consumption; that is, once produced, no one can be excluded from consuming them. Police protection, defense, street lighting, and clean air are usually offered as examples.

By this definition, then "public goods" might be mythical constructs. For example, the police don't necessarily protect citizens (as explained in Dial 911 And Die) let alone protecting certain classes of citizens, such as blacks in the South in the 50s, or Jews in Nazi Germany. Hence, what exactly is "police protection" anyway? Near as I can tell, the police have the job of protecting the government and the elite from the unwashed masses; they certainly treat some places as would an enemy occupation, sent in to oppress keep the peace.

Futhermore, consider public bads, like taxes that impoverish everybody, the poor especially so, or victim disarmament laws that seek to render everyone defenseless, questions of rights aside. These things are produced in great numbers by governments, and they often lead to problems that are then proposed to be solved by even more public bads.

The author if this article stated that Libertarianism has been dealt a death blow on 9-11, and that the only viable road to the future is with a strong government and continued restrictions on liberties and the free market.

One of the most inane things about this argument is that much of the anger the Muslims have with the US is the interventionist policies in the first place. Had we been a bit more Libertarian before, we might not have suffered the attacks in the first place. But now that we have, the author is trying to say that Libertarianism is dead.

I do not disagree with your remarks, but they speak on a different topic than my post.

Sorry, but comments like "try to educate yourself before shooting from the hip" indicates to me some disagreement.

[DugwayDuke]

Oh, but you are trying to change the subject. Go back to your original post (#13) that started this exchange and show where you mentioned avoiding "crashing into the WTC" as justification. - Duke

"he whole premise of the article to which I was replying was that Sept. 11 caused the fall of Libertarianism. I didn't have to mention crashing into the WTC - it was and is implied by the date Sept. 11."

That may have been the premise of the article, but that is not the point of discussion which was, and remains, your comments in Post #13, that arming the PASSENGERS would have prevented the HIJACKING. Not once, before post #206 did you mention preventing the crash. But, laying that aside, you still haven't established that armed passengers would have prevented that crash. Going back to the events of 9/11, it is unlikely that even allowing armed passengers would have prevented that crash. The airline flights in question were specifically selected for a variety of reasons including their destination points and the fact that they had few passengers. This implies that it would have been highly unlikely that many, if any, passengers would have been armed. Even in the event that some passengers would have been armed, all of the hijackers would have been. The few armed passengers would have been at a significant tactical disadvantage, likely outnumbered, and faced with an organized group of determined hijackers with the advantage of surprise. The prospects of the passengers would not have been good. Now you may argue that things have changed or that arming pilots while maintaining the current status of unarmed passengers, but that would be introducing a subject not in Post #13 and would be changing the subject.

"The reference about arming pilots was to post #206. Regardless of where the point was made, the fact is that the government disarmed the pilots, which may very well have contributed to the success of the terrorist attacks."

Introducing a new concept almost 200 posts later is changing the subject.

"There exist steps on the way to a fully Libertarian society. CCW permits and rights recognized for citizens but not aliens, are examples. So too are vouchers, on the way to banishiment of government schools. By your comment, you are now attacking me for supggesting a partially-Libertarian solution instead of acknowledging that I have answered your question as posed."

So, you're only a "partial" or "incremental" libertarian. That's interesting since the libertarian position is that all rights belong to all persons regardless of their national origin. You are familiar with the libertarian platform on unlimited immigration? Surely, you see that by abandoning the complete libertarian position you validate the premise of the article, that libertarian position has failed?

"o, the burden of proof rests on you: You are the one who advocates the revocation of rights to an entire class of people, much like banning the vote to blacks, or banning the printing of newspapers to Jews. RKBA is a fundamental right, just like voting or free speech."

You really should read your posts more completely before you post. You're the one who has postulated the concept of denying rights to a segment of the population. What else do you consider denying RKBA to a class of individuals such as non-citiizens. And, don't claim that I first introduced this. I only asked how you would prevent hijackers from also being armed. It was you that said you would only allow armed citizens. Now how is this consistent with libertarian ideals and how does it differ from the premise of the article that libertarianism has failed?

"If the insurance is required by the government, then the problem rests, again, with government. If people choose to fly it because they would rather be free than insured, then let the market allow it to be so."

You fall into the typical knee-jerk reaction of libertarianism of blaming all problems on the government. Surely, you understand that lenders require insurance on aircraft just as your car loan lender requires insurance to protect their assets? Now would the cost of this insurance to "liberty air" be higher? We can speculate but are unlikely to resolve this issue. But if these costs are significantly higher, then "liberty" air is unlikely to be a marketing success.

"gain, more problems with government, not with freedom. How do armed people travel to Massachussetts, for example? ... The obvious solution in this case is to totally, permanently, boycott MA. Returning to the question of Liberty Airlines, the question is quite similar: government airports and GunFree government-regulated airlines prohibit guns, just like MA sanctions handguns. Given the choice, some may choose to again boycott the government-regulated options. Let the market decide - if only the government could tolerate the possibility."

The issue of restrictive states is significant and I'm glad you recognized this. But blaming all of this on government is a "red herring". Consider the logistical difficulties of running a terminal were some passengers are allowed firearms and some are not depending upon their citizenship (your idea, not mine) and their choice of airline. How do you keep the passengers segregated? If you allow them to mix freely, then you allow the flow of armed passengers to "gunfree" airlines. There realy are significant difficulties. You would almost have to have separate terminals and it's not clear that present airports could provide this.

Still the restrictive gun states do pose some problems. Even the airline pilots association recognizes the difficulties this presents to their armed pilots. I don't have a good way of dealing with these restrictive states since I do believe in states rights.

BTW, FYI, I agree with the total boycott of MA. In fact, I see no personal reason not to boycott any state above the Mason Dixon line.

[TopQuark]

By this definition, then "public goods" might be mythical constructs. For example, Firstly, I offered more examples than one.

Secondly, your argument against the public nature of police protection fails on two grounds. (i) You describe cases where the definition of the public, not protection, has been modified. You are correct that in Nazi Germany the Jews were no longer "public," just as Black in the South were similarly excluded, hence did not receive police protection. (ii) goods and services --- both public and private --- may change form after they are produced. An apple may rot, and the police created originally to protect all may be directed to stop protecting certain elements of the public, as you pointed out.

[TopQuark]

>I>Futhermore, consider public bads, like taxes Taxes are not bads: they are goods exchanged for public ones.

[TopQuark]

TQ: I do not disagree with your remarks, but they speak on a different topic than my post.

Coloradan: Sorry, but comments like "try to educate yourself before shooting from the hip" indicates to me some disagreement.

I completely agree. In addition, there is an indication of something else: the route out of the disagrement.

Suppose I came from a remote island and never got any education. Suppose further that I ask you, "When I throw an apple it always falls down, no matter how I throw it. Why is that?"

You would probably give an answer, "This is because of gravity," but if I were to pursue the topic further, you would direct me to read up something on physics. After all, we know the answer to that question since Sir Isaac Newton. There is nothing to debate here.

In contrast, when it comes to economics, there is a grea number of people who debate even what is well known. They build "theories" by misusing notions and words like "contract" and "market." Then they get upset if someone points it our, accusing him of "refusing to debate." There is nothing to debate here: one has to learn first what is already known.

I have no disrespect to those with limited knowlege -- G-d knows that my own is very limtited too. But unwillingness to learn --- or substituting learning with visits to web sites --- is something else altogether.

[tpaine]

Still the restrictive gun states do pose some problems. Even the airline pilots association recognizes the difficulties this presents to their armed pilots. I don't have a good way of dealing with these restrictive states since I do believe in states rights.

I am amazed at how many here at FR can believe that the states can constitutionaly restrict gun rights, thus ignoring the clear words of the 2nd amendment. Can you explain these beliefs?

[DugwayDuke]

In a word, Cruikshank. If you read the case law, specifically the case I cited, you'll find that USSC has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states.

Now, you may disagree with this position, but it is a valid position with much legal precedent upon its side.

I, personally, support this ruling since I believe the US Constitution is a pact between the states and the federal government that limits the federal government and not the states. Just imagine how much mischief we would have avoid had the courts sided with this position in all aspects. The federal government would have been severly limited in meddling with matters within the states.

[tpaine]

Ahhh yes, the good old Cruikshank decision, advocating an 1875 'states rights' version of the US constitution, as being inferior to the states constitutions, despite the clear words of Article VI:
"This Constitution ----- shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

One of the latest decisions on the 2nd, -- Emerson --, had this comment on states 'rights': ---------------------------

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The states rights model requires the word "people" to be read as though it were "States" or "States respectively." This would also require a corresponding change in the balance of the text to something like "to provide for the militia to keep and bear arms." That is not only far removed from the actual wording of the Second Amendment, but also would be in substantial tension with Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 16 (Congress has the power "To provide for . arming . the militia. . .").

For the sophisticated collective rights model to be viable, the word "people" must be read as the words "members of a select militia". The individual rights model, of course, does not require that any special or unique meaning be attributed to the word "people."
It gives the same meaning to the words "the people" as used in the Second Amendment phrase "the right of the people" as when used in the exact same phrase in the contemporaneously submitted and ratified First and Fourth Amendments.

There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."

[DugwayDuke]

I don't know that I disagree with the elements of your post. That said, the question still remains where are the safeguards of our individual RKBA? I prefer a state based version where each state is allowed to establish it's own version. This is a pragmatic decision since I believe it would be more difficult to change all of the state constitutions rather than changing one federal constitution. Of course, if my state changed it's constitution, I would still be free to move to another state. And, I believe this is more consitent with the original vision of the founding fathers. Of course, you mileage may vary, as they say.

[newwahoo]

"Reagan stated that Conservatism is based on Libertarianism.

I'd like to see that quote if you happen to have a cite for it.

"Just because we don't have a LibTar-Party prez don't mean our ideas haven't gotten into that office.

They've had an influence as a part of the main right wing party in America, the GOP. If they stay within the republican party they will continue to influence it. Due to our single member district, winner-takes-all system, I think that the Libertarians and all other 3rd parties are basically doomed to failure unless they can outvote the big 2. This isn't Europe, where you can get 2% of the total representation based on 2% of the total vote across the nation.

[Roscoe]

"I cannot go along with the libertarian philosophy that says that all of the sin laws can be ruled out as simply trying to protect us from ourselves." -- Ronald Reagan

[Chuzzlewit]

You are correct. I came to the Republican party after voting Libertarian in the Dole/Clinton election. Big mistake. I was a life long democrat. And after 9/11 it is clear that Harry Brown is a jack-ass.

Libertarian=Losertarian.

[xdem]

You said your response to libertarians is amusement and disdain.
Were that the common Freeper's response, the arguments in this
thread would have an entirely different character.

Rather the anti-libertarians vitriol comes from knowing most of
the Republican leadership has sold out on many things we freepers
believe. Now you "antis" want somebody to blame for the end of
your dreams. Rather than blame Republican leaders, you guys
blame the "heretics."

[xdem]

> Yep. They hate our states.

I dislike the state of confusion you're in when you post.

[A.J.Armitage]

However, the modern libertarian philosophy disregards the Christian religion in respect to our government and schools.

First, the government: by saying that libertarianism disregards Christianity in respect to our government, you're repeating the assertion that libertarianism and Christianity are incompatible. They're not. I'm not sure what you have in mind by a government that doesn't disregard Christianity.

And schools: government schools should be privatized.

[austinTparty]

You assume a great deal.

[JMJ333]

you're repeating the assertion that libertarianism and Christianity are incompatible. They're not.

Libertarianism is indeed incompatible with Christianity. Why? Because Libertarinaism rejects the authority of the christian church and makes the individual conscience the sovereign judge of religious and moral truth. It also rejects moral absolutes and authority...especially religious authority. It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters, whereas in Christianity, all moral authority comes from God, and if that authority is not excersized in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate. In other words:

Libertarianism= "my will be done"

Christianity= "Thy will be done"

[Texasforever]

I like what we have in Texas also. Texas does not look to DC to keep our rights

The Texas Constitution

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.