Fighting Ebola with Freedom

[Martinus]

Well I found out something today.  Adam Smith was a libertarian. And Rousseau was a "anti-libertarian".  No wonder Grumbler is a teacher.  You learn something from him everyday.

This is technically true for a given value of "libertarian". Smith (though I would probably argue for Locke more) was the father of liberalism (which today, especially in America is almost synonymous with a moderate libertarian) and Rousseau was the father of collectivism. The third leg was conservatism with Burke.

[crazy canuck]

Throughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."

... I think you are correct.

I wouldn't word it so strongly.  I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly.  The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government.  You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people.  I'd still take the Western system, though.

The Rule of Law is what gives us Liberty. Without it we would be reduced to the kind of arbitrary form of government to which you refer.  I will let Berkut speak for himself but, given his clarification, I dont think that is what he has in mind.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know if I agree with exactly how you look at those relationships, but as a broad philosophical approach I think it's sound enough. The real issue comes up when "we must start with the presumption that any decrease in liberty MUST be explicitly justified by a objective and measured increase in the greater good" (as you say). Because different people will be convinced more easily, and sometimes a decrease in your Freedom for my Other Benefit is a lot more palatable to me than to you (and vice versa); on the other hand it seems some people refuse a decrease in any kind of value that affect them, no matter how minuscule, if the benefit applies primarily to others, no matter how big.

Jacob,

If I understand Berkut's point, it isnt any different than what is enshrined in our Charter.  All infringements of our rights must be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  That is to say rights are not absolute but any infringement must be justified in the light of maintaining freedom.

[Martinus]

I think people are forgetting that the classic political systems were not a dichotomy but a triad.

Liberalism was about maximising personal liberties of an individual (both from the constraints of the tribe and of the family). It recognised that sometimes you need the state to enforce these individual freedoms.

Conservatism was about the state withdrawing and abdicating its power to families so they can run themselves as they see fit.

Collectivism was about re-organising the society top-to-bottom in a way that was orderly, with the collective taking precedence over both individuals and families.

On reflection, I think a lot of modern-day libertarianism has more in common with conservatism than with liberalism. I do think, however, that Berkut's style of libertarianism/progressivism is classically liberal. I think American politics is about the struggle between liberalism and conservatism, with collectivism taking a back seat. Contrary to continental Europe, where conservatism, collectivism and liberalism are more equally strong. Countries like Russia are, obviously, conservative and collectivist, with very little liberalism.

[The Minsky Moment]

Libertarian = "classical liberal" by every definition I have seen (and that is precisely how the phrase was coined, to the best of my knowledge).  I'd be interested in an argument that Locke or Smith were not classical liberals based on something other than arguments by definition.

Locke's Carolina constitution is a fundamentally illiberal document - it provided for a feudal system where landowners would have feudal rights to dispense justice and a large permanent class of serfs tied to the land by restrictions on movement.  One could argue that it didn't really reflect Locke's views, I suppose, or that he changed his mind.  I would agree that the Locke of the Two Treatises could be considered a libertarian or proto-libertarian but I wouldn't agree that his argument, as least as concerns property rights, is particularly coherent.

As for Smith, he was a moral philosopher who adovocated the practice of virtue, which he defined as a sympathetic approach to others in which one objectively considers the needs, desires and feelings of others in society.  It is not inconsistent with libertartianism, but it certainly does not entail it.  Smith's identification as a classical liberal is thus based on the Wealth of Nations.  But Smith in the WoN is really more concerned with the interference in politics by commercial interests than vis-a-versa.  What WoN really reflects, I think, is an early articulation of knowledge economics - namely that in a system of production where productivity is driven in significant part by specialization - the state is in a very poor position to coordinate economic activity, and the more efficient and effective result is to permit individual actors on the spot to make judgments based on superior information.  This is an argument often made by classical liberals- Hayek famously refined it many years later - but it is not at all unqiue to classical liberals.  It is also pragmatic argument based on what works best, not an a priori argument from economic liberty as a fundamental value in itself.  In other circumstances in WoN, Smith is of the view that state intervention may be desirable.

[crazy canuck]

Conservatism was about the state withdrawing and abdicating its power to families so they can run themselves as they see fit.

That is the first time I have heard Conservatism described in that manner.  I will wait for BB to give us his well used definition as I think he puts it best and he is our resident defender of the faith on that issue.

[DGuller]

Libertarian = "classical liberal" by every definition I have seen (and that is precisely how the phrase was coined, to the best of my knowledge).  I'd be interested in an argument that Locke or Smith were not classical liberals based on something other than arguments by definition.

Locke's Carolina constitution is a fundamentally illiberal document - it provided for a feudal system where landowners would have feudal rights to dispense justice and a large permanent class of serfs tied to the land by restrictions on movement.  One could argue that it didn't really reflect Locke's views, I suppose, or that he changed his mind.  I would agree that the Locke of the Two Treatises could be considered a libertarian or proto-libertarian but I wouldn't agree that his argument, as least as concerns property rights, is particularly coherent.

As for Smith, he was a moral philosopher who adovocated the practice of virtue, which he defined as a sympathetic approach to others in which one objectively considers the needs, desires and feelings of others in society.  It is not inconsistent with libertartianism, but it certainly does not entail it.  Smith's identification as a classical liberal is thus based on the Wealth of Nations.  But Smith in the WoN is really more concerned with the interference in politics by commercial interests than vis-a-versa.  What WoN really reflects, I think, is an early articulation of knowledge economics - namely that in a system of production where productivity is driven in significant part by specialization - the state is in a very poor position to coordinate economic activity, and the more efficient and effective result is to permit individual actors on the spot to make judgments based on superior information.  This is an argument often made by classical liberals- Hayek famously refined it many years later - but it is not at all unqiue to classical liberals.  It is also pragmatic argument based on what works best, not an a priori argument from economic liberty as a fundamental value in itself.  In other circumstances in WoN, Smith is of the view that state intervention may be desirable.

I think many people would be genuinely surprised by what Smith actually wrote, had they managed to make it past the non-benevolent butcher part.

[crazy canuck]

I think many people would be genuinely surprised by what Smith actually wrote

[Berkut]

Isnt the argument that there is no such system and that the best system for giving security, equality and prosperity is one that grants liberty and freedom with reasonable limits.

This is pretty much the basic premise of classical liberalism/libertarianism.

Exactly.  Which is why I was a bit surprised by Berkut's position.

Is my position in contrast to that? It certainly is not intended to be...

Fair enough, I thought you were going so far as to argue that Liberty is so important that even if a system could be created that gave more security, equality and prosperity it should be rejected if it sacrificed Liberty.   

I would agree with that, but it is completely theoretical, since I don't think that it is possible to have all of those things without freedom.

But even if it was possible, I would still reject it since the value of prosperity without freedom is dubious at best, and won't last anyway.

[Berkut]

Throughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."

... I think you are correct.

I wouldn't word it so strongly.  I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly.  The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government.  You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people.  I'd still take the Western system, though.

The Rule of Law is what gives us Liberty. Without it we would be reduced to the kind of arbitrary form of government to which you refer.  I will let Berkut speak for himself but, given his clarification, I dont think that is what he has in mind.

Exactly. Again, history tells us that absent Law you have the rule of the despot, and there is no liberty at all, or the rule of the powerful over the weak.

[DGuller]

I will agree with the notion that Rule of Law pays for itself in terms of liberty, and then some.  Where I differ with most people calling themselves libertarian is that other things other than rule of law have the same effect.  Having liberty from the government is not worth much if you're still under the thumb of entities with enormous economic power over you.  The weak should be protected from all strong entities, not just the strong government.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I think it's possible to have rule of law "calibrated wrong" so to speak; if you have laws that allow for indentured servitude and monopolistic exploitation, for example, it won't do much good.

(Not that I think that's controversial to anyone in this conversation)

[Razgovory]

Throughout human history, if there is one thing that is consistent, it is that people continually restrict liberty for reasons that have NOTHING to do with maximizing your formula about. They might *claim* that is the reason, but mostly it is actually about maximizing some groups share of the pie at the expense of others, or simply forcing people to act in a manner that some minority or majority likes."

... I think you are correct.

I wouldn't word it so strongly.  I think Berkut views government restrictions on liberties too narrowly.  The rule of law is a restriction on liberties itself, and in that regard, pretty much any Western government is far more restrictive than, say, Russian government.  You can perpetually live outside the law in Russia in a way that would be inconceivable to Western minds, provided that you have the street smarts to grease the right people.  I'd still take the Western system, though.

I think Berkut self-identifies as libertarian because he doesn't feel comfortable in the two party system.  His freedoms are typical American ones tempered by Republican virtues and rule of law.  There are many freedoms that exist outside of this.  For instance, the freedom to bribe people is not a protected right.  A contractor can't bribe individuals in another company so they will hire him over his competitors.  At least not legally.  I've never seen anything that indicates Berkut believes this should be legal, but it is a freedom and presumably falls under label of "Two consenting adults", and presumably legal in a society that values freedom over everything else.

[Razgovory]

Well I found out something today.  Adam Smith was a libertarian. And Rousseau was a "anti-libertarian".  No wonder Grumbler is a teacher.  You learn something from him everyday.

This is technically true for a given value of "libertarian". Smith (though I would probably argue for Locke more) was the father of liberalism (which today, especially in America is almost synonymous with a moderate libertarian) and Rousseau was the father of collectivism. The third leg was conservatism with Burke.

No it is not technically true.  Classical liberal is not synonymous with "Libertarian" anymore then it is synonymous with "Social Liberal".

[Admiral Yi]

I think Berkut self-identifies as libertarian because he doesn't feel comfortable in the two party system.  His freedoms are typical American ones tempered by Republican virtues and rule of law.  There are many freedoms that exist outside of this.  For instance, the freedom to bribe people is not a protected right.  A contractor can't bribe individuals in another company so they will hire him over his competitors.  At least not legally.  I've never seen anything that indicates Berkut believes this should be legal, but it is a freedom and presumably falls under label of "Two consenting adults", and presumably legal in a society that values freedom over everything else.

It definitely doesn't fall under the category of two consenting adults.  The recipient of the bribe has been charged with a public trust.  The contract is not his to dispose of as he wishes.