Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Flyover Country #33: Admeyerin’ your Reasonable Libertarianism
See what we did there? It’s a play on words, regarding a man we all highly admire, this week’s guest: Tom Meyer. Tom sticks around for the whole show to discuss libertarianism, social conservatism, as well as his own personal climb up the ladder of influence at Ricochet.
I think what you guys are talking about with Liberals is that there seems to be a very narrow eye-hole through which behavior and positions must pass.
Everything which isn’t prohibited is mandatory.
It seeks to force everybody’s behavior into a very narrow canyon without much room for maneuverability or exception.
You realize I am supposed to get some work done today.
What strikes me about this podcast is that it once again brings into the forefront the fact that only on the Right do you have genuine debate about important issues of the sort that we routinely fight about.
Compare that to the left where practically every issue is subject to groupthink, and if you don’t agree with the left’s orthodoxy you are not going to be welcome.
To the discussion on ultimate force being behind every law, of course this is true and I’ve been one of those that have argued this in the distant past. Maybe there have been more recent posts on this with knuckleheads insisting that it invalidates all law but it was made clear by myself and others on the threads I participated in that that wasn’t the point and doesn’t follow. But it is a simple and obvious truth. A continuously repeated refusal to accept any punishment for even the slightest infraction necessarily leads to dangerous consequences. How can it not. That is the power we give the state and it is a good argument for not making frivolous law. It isn’t a difficult train of logic to follow.
Shhhh! It’ll go to Ryan’s head!
Also, my apologies to everyone for my hesitations and stuttering; the latter wears off a bit after the first few minutes.
You aren’t suggesting that we don’t follow that train of logic, are you?
I was referring specifically to the discussion had on Ricochet, where that ends up being the fall-back argument. I obviously don’t accept it as persuasive in most contexts, though. I’m not suggesting that a person cannot bring up coercion as the state’s means of enforcement, but frivolous laws should be opposed on the grounds of their frivolity, no? I see no reason why we need to resort to “would you kill a person for jaywalking?” if you have a perfectly legitimate argument that jaywalking should not be a crime in the first place.
Well, we don’t get to be Ricochet’s #1 podcast without bringing a few important facts to the forefront, eh? See that little “C” banner by my… wait… ok, no, no risk of anything going to my head just yet. :)
Tom, you were a fantastic guest and I didn’t notice any hesitations or stuttering… there is generally a silence that follows many of my jokes, but I’ve always just figured that this was people having to mute themselves because they’re laughing too loud. Good audio is important with these things.
Pfah – you young punks! 33… I thought those issues were just an effect of Skype.
When am I going to get invited to be on somebody’s podcast???
Perhaps we’re looking at the issue of crime/poverty in the wrong way. Perhaps there is an element of “crime inoculation” to being part of the ownership society. If you have a nice home to return to with a happy family structure, those are things that incentivize you to go to them and things which you risk losing if you decide to rob a bank for what ends up being the equivalent of a paycheck or two. We know that the pain of losing is roughly 10 times as great as the pleasure of gain (psychologically speaking.)
The topic of terrorists coming from materially affluent backgrounds is a different thing: that is ideological. The people who would do such a thing place a higher value on intangible goods (renown, adherence to religious strictures and the like) than the majority of western society. Their priorities are different.
This was in response to your saying that some logical fallacy was involved in asserting that all law is backed by ultimate force. Which I believe is what you said.
If you meant that tying that to the conclusion that all law is invalid, then I misunderstood and you are correct.
But those advocating frivolous laws don’t see them as frivolous. That it puts an onerous burden on law enforcement versus the good it accomplishes isn’t a bad argument.
I think you’re going to just have to bite the bullet and have some people who at least entertain the idea of anarcho-capitalism on. Explaining it in written words just doesn’t do it justice, takes a long time, and completely obscures the tone. If you would talk to someone like Fred in person you’d realize he’s just a big teddy bear and all that stuff that sounds like crazy angry wide-eyed idealism has some level-headed rationalism behind it. That, and all he wants is a big bear hug and to be well-liked.
This is the consistent report that I’ve gotten from a lot of people and I have no doubt that it’s true. The trouble is that when you place yourself so far outside of the confines of where American politics is conducted that both “teams” are engaged in brokering just how much “slavery” we’re going to vote ourselves into, you’ve lost everybody, including some people who might otherwise listen to and endorse some Libertarian concepts.
This is more about having people who I like and respect and who I see as some of the most intelligent, rational, and level-headed people in the world be exposed to new ideas to the point where they don’t personally see the ideas as crazy anymore. I don’t agree with Fred’s rhetoric all the time, but this is why it should be in verbal conversational format. Talk about voting ourselves slavery and how much you’re willing to kill to stop jaywalking is much more unlikely to happen, or at least require much better and complete context to flesh out the idea beyond a soundbite.
So if Frank owes his promotion to contributor status to his appearance on this podcast why have I been languishing as a mere member for almost a year after my appearance?
Because Troy doesn’t want any contributors who are more good-looking than he is.
I wonder who it was gave this a like?
People whose name starts with M?…
On the subject of coercion and law I’d like to say something I have said before on previous threads: I think of the lot of the disconnect between social conservatives and libertarians when discussing coercion on ricochet is due to misunderstanding. Yes, libertarians are fond of pointing out, accurately, that all law is ultimately coercive. However, by saying that we do not mean that all law is illegitimate. It seems as though conservatives frequently confuse coercive with illegitimate in the libertarian lexicon because they have accurately noted that we tend to be quite skeptical of coercion. Libertarians might be more skeptical of the use of coercion, but we are not categorically opposed to it. In fact, one way of describing libertarianism is as a political philosophy primarily devoted to delineating the scope of legitimate coercion by the state.
It seems to me that legitimate Anarcho-Capitalists would say that the limit is “Zero.” If you read material which the Ludwig Von Mises institute publishes, that is.
In defense of anarcho-capitalists, there’s a fair point to be made regarding timelines. The world might not be ready for its implementation yet, but as a project to work towards…
As I pointed out in my review of “A Market for Liberty” the trouble is that the A-Cs may not be utopian in their desire for outcomes – but they are utopian in their input expectations regarding how rationally people would act given a differing set of societal constraints. I’m not sure that man will ever be up to the task which the A-Cs have put us up to.
Right. I’m absolutely comfortable coercing — at the threat of force — all sorts of things from traffic laws, to taxes for defense, etc. etc.
…the nature of firms.
Coase once asked why the government doesn’t run everything as a gigantic super-firm. He could only ask that question because he saw that government has a firm-like nature.
And after all, how much difference is there, practically speaking, between a larger homeowners association (all-private) and a smaller town (public, but local)?
If the practical answer is, “Not much,” then there may not be much difference between the anarcho-capitalist ideal and nominally public governments that embrace a high degree of subsidiarity.
Anarcho-capitalism would almost certainly lead to something less than the libertarian ideal. It would also certainly be unbelievably more libertarian than the status quo.
In regards to coercion, I don’t have a problem when the state coerces in a morally correct fashion. That is, if it would likely happen under an anarcho-capitalist system, it doesn’t make it wrong just because a state does it.
Can you libertarians and social conservatives just admit you are both pretty so we can move onto the important issues around here like what is the edicate of displaying a Thatcher/Reagan badge? I see Mike H and Ryan have turned their display on. Is this an honorable statement on the importance of supporting Ricochet or tacky showmanship? I’m not making a judgment, the only reason mine is not on is I’m too lazy to dig up the post from Max on how to turn it on. Thanks guys!
OK then, never mind, looks like the default is for it to be on as I now see mine is on. On to solving the SSM debate I guess
I would nominated myself if I trusted my brain to find words at a wittily quick rate while being recorded for consumption by the most intelligent people out there. I’m not a lawyer or someone who’s naturally comfortable on the spot. I trust myself more when I can think as long as I want and choose when to post.
I also trust myself less with speaking than with writing. (Also, I hate my speaking voice.)
I think it’s been turned on automatically in the last couple hours. I don’t agree with the badges.
Same here. But are SoCons pretty?
I don’t see why you have to be substantially better than we are in order to qualify as a guest… ;)