On Your Conservative Friends

 

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

This has unintentionally turned into a sort of “Notes to Mr. Boudreaux” series, but for good reason.  He has regularly touched on what I have found to be the most discouraging (and even shocking) phenomenon of the past year.  I have written about why that surprise, for anyone well acquainted with the history of totalitarianism, is largely unfounded.  But while otherwise right-thinking individuals have always had that one event or set of circumstances that cause them to demand protection from a king, it is still somewhat jarring when it happens with your own friends, while you plead in vain with them to open their eyes and turn around.

In a recent post at Cafe Hayek, Don responds to his colleague Tyler Cowen’s criticisms of The Great Barrington Declaration.  Also posted is a response from another well-respected colleague, Dan Klein.  I do not know the extent of any friendship between Don, Dan, and Tyler (or any combination thereof).  I know that they are all colleagues, and there was a time when I would have placed them all in roughly the same category as being libertarian or classically liberal intellectuals.  Over a year into covid hysteria, this category is now full of people who are all distinguishing themselves in different ways, some respectable and consistent, and some not.

I initially wrote this as a letter to Mr. Boudreaux in response to his column (the “you” in this essay is Mr. Boudreaux), and I will preserve that tone for the sake of convenience (though I would encourage you to stop and read both his and Mr. Klein’s articles right now).

With respect to both of those articles, I strongly relate to the frustration of attempting to converse with formerly conservative or libertarian friends who now seem to speak an entirely different language.  My only small disagreement comes with the closing line used by both.  They say to Mr. Cowen:  “You are better than this.”  Frankly, I am not so certain that this is true.

That someone who has spent much of his career arguing against government interventions should suddenly pivot to what is, in essence, complete centralization and unchecked (and unaccountable) power – what we’ve experienced over the past year has amounted to an elimination of individual liberty, the separation of powers, and checks on authority – because, quite simply, “I’m scared,” makes me question how much he ever understood these ideas in the first place.  As you say, arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, and certainly if I were to go back and read old essays or books or listen to old podcasts with Cowen, I would not pretend that anything he says is somehow wrong because I now question his own understanding (or commitment to truth).  But you made a more personal statement by saying “you’re better than this,” and I, therefore, respond to that statement with a more personal analysis.

I have a handful of former acquaintances (not friends, but people I spent some time interacting with online over the past 10 years or so) who have undergone a very similar transformation.  Among these few, what were once recognized as fairly standard classical-liberal truths, now applied to covid, are met only with ad hominem complaints and dismissal (“COVID broke Ryan,” or “here he is saying the same old garbage, dressed up in lawyer-speak,” or “he has joined the ranks of my crazy mother-in-law, and all because he doesn’t want to wear a mask.”)  Of course, my own ideas never changed, nor were they ever uniquely mine, which means it is Smith and Hayek who are insufferably dense.  But old truths applied to new situations have always been appropriate; as this last year has gone by, I’ve wondered how all of this would read as another chapter in Hazlett’s great “economics in one lesson;” the lesson applied to COVID hysteria.

But there was one thing I noticed among the group of former acquaintances: each one of them had some reason for feeling personally threatened by whatever his idea of COVID was.  One believes himself particularly at risk because he has a certain blood type, another because of obesity.  Another believes himself to be particularly at risk because he has asthma, another because he suffers from insomnia and stress.  But the underlying thread was that, for all of these individuals, their understanding of the world, of the way markets and economies work, of the way governments work, was unable to stand up to something that they perceived to be a personal threat.  I have elsewhere called it narcissism, or in the very least a failure to look around at the world around you and consider that literally everyone else you see has some personal health issue or other consideration … but I’ll leave that psycho-analysis for someone better equipped.

Of course, this is exactly the phenomenon that justifies virtually all totalitarian action, is it not?  You are somehow in danger; you are somehow threatened.  It is real, now, because the threat is at your doorstep.  When you are afraid of guns, you wish them all to be forcibly removed from your neighbors.  When you are afraid of competition, you favor government intervention to limit (or eliminate) your competitors.  I suppose the same could be extended to most areas where individuals demand government interventions.  The form this most commonly takes in libertarian circles is when it deals with social-type interventions that come at the risk of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.  It isn’t a fear of oppression or discrimination, but it is a type of fear nonetheless – of supporting or defending something that is not accepted within your social circles, or that might cause your friends to associate you somehow with them.  As you have observed, his fear was most apparent in conservatives, who, since 2016 and even into today, are eager to contradict anything that might in any way be viewed as “Trumpian.”

I don’t know whether it is possible to get through to someone who has decided that all previously accumulated understanding is rendered moot the minute a threat reaches his doorstep.  It may be that many of these people didn’t really understand the arguments they were making, and it may also be that they utilized conservative or libertarian sounding arguments only because it happened to be convenient or advance their immediate purposes.  There is a possibility of some, who I would only describe as being in the grip of a sort of temporary insanity – who really did understand classical liberal ideas, and who really did believe that those ideas are sound; people who are legitimately afraid of something, whether they have any business being afraid of it or not.  I think the only way to convince a person like that is to get that person to acknowledge his fear and express some willingness to discuss it.  COVID is not uniquely horrible; it is not uniquely threatening.  Our response has caused some individuals – unfortunately, the majority of people in the world! – to lose any sense of context.  But if that was true for some conservatives and libertarians, it is inexcusable one year later; rather, it is not a plausible explanation one year later.

My wife and I were in a grocery store (happily maskless, of course) the other night.  We saw a man at the customer service counter buying cigarettes.  He was probably in his mid-20s; his hair was made into dreadlocks and pulled haphazardly into a rasta-style knit hat, and he wore gray sweatpants, a pair of galoshes, and … an N95 mask covered by a blue surgical mask, and a pair of blue disposable rubber gloves.  A betting man would have decent odds that this individual, in addition to being a smoker, is also a regular user of Kratom and any number of other drugs (I’m basing this on appearance and behavior, as this is a demographic I know well).  When we walked out to our car, he was standing in front of his van, spraying each individual one of his newly-purchased items with Lysol.

My wife was kind enough to indulge in a rant on our way home.  Given his age and weight, this person likely has something like a .05% chance of complications from COVID, if he were to get it.  Given the time of year in this particular town, and our current “numbers,” I have no idea what his percent chance of actually being exposed to COVID actually is, but in a population of half a million, there are maybe a few hundred who might ever be out and about and infectious?  Regardless, these numbers express chances that are extremely low, of even getting an illness for which this man’s chances of survival approaches 100%.

Seemingly lost was a handful of ironies; this man drives, per his social preferences, a vehicle that is decades old and equipped with all the safety innovations of the late 1980s.  He uses at least one substance whose carcinogenic properties are well known and understood.  The list goes on and on and on.  Perhaps it is somewhat fruitless to play the game of “what if we treated X the way we treat COVID,” though it would provide some much-needed context and sense of proportion with respect to everyday threats.  The end result would be ludicrous and would render a person incapable of performing even the simplest daily tasks.

What I’ve found is that the COVID-hysterical, when confronted with that particular “what if,” respond with anger and defensiveness, insisting that (though somehow they are willing to compare mask mandates with laws prohibiting public nudity) the comparison is grossly unfair.  This is because one of the primary defining characteristics of covid hysteria is that COVID is understood – however poorly – to be a threat that is imposed upon us by someone else.

This man, like Tyler Cowen, very clearly feels personally threatened – and it is likely that he also supports government intervention, the purpose of which is to infringe upon my neighbor’s liberty in order to restrict that neighbor’s actions and movement, thus reducing that neighbor’s ability to do whatever it is I am afraid of.

Restrict him –  in order to protect me from my neighbor.

Now, it doesn’t surprise me that the guy in the sticker-covered van, which encourages everyone else on the road to “feel the bern,” believes that covid, like everything else, is a zero-sum game.  If I believe that the rich get richer only because they have figured out some way to make the poor even poorer, it would not likely cross my mind to think that my neighbor’s pursuit of his own self-interest, when faced with a pandemic, might lead him to become educated, and even to take whatever steps he feels would be necessary to protect his own health and the health of those around him.  That he might also desire to keep his friends and loved ones safe.  And Heaven forbid I should ever even countenance the thought that wisdom, thus accumulated, employed, and tested across entire populations might actually lead to outcomes that fail to materialize when governments enforce the views of a small group of self-proclaimed “experts” while silencing open dialogue and new (in addition to old) ideas; after all, who could possibly be better at responding quickly to ever-changing facts than a massive government that is filled with self-interested bureaucrats acting on the advice of attention-seeking egomaniacal … bureaucrats?  That’s how the economy works, right?  That’s why the 5-year plans were such a raging success, and why soviet-era Russian technology and prosperity was the envy of the entire world for … well … so why should it not work for this, too?

But I do at least get why my lemon-lime Lysol, BO, and patchouli scented friend believes that the only solution to a problem that causes him to fear is to hunker down and wait for some powerful and omniscient recess teacher to step in and enforce some rules.  What I don’t get is this complete shift among libertarians and conservatives, or rather, how that mode of thinking could persist over an entire year and a wealth of evidence showing that their formerly-held understanding very much applies in this as ever it has applied to anything.

Unless it is something more than just fear.  If it is not a lack of understanding that the same principles that render governments incompetent in the coordination of whole economies should also render them incompetent in response to complicated matters of health; if it is not a failure to recognize that the same market forces that bring price signals and allow for efficient allocation of resources will also produce the most reliable and responsive actual science and dissemination of information regarding emerging health issues, while a centralized authority will, in the best case scenario, always be several steps behind emerging data and remain extremely hesitant to alter plans or ditch programs that have only taken form after months of planning and millions of dollars spent; if it is not a lack of understanding that more likely, this authority will be perversely incentivized to recommend actions that are most convenient for his employers, that save face, or that serve the purposes of whoever has the privilege of bending his ear; if it is not a lack of understanding that either way, the scientific method, whose primary mode of service is in causing one to say “our hypothesis was wrong,” is extremely unlikely to be employed by this authority with any genuine rigor; if it is none of these things – as it is unlikely to be in the case of someone intelligent and relatively well educated – it is something more than just plain old fear.  It is fear, but now with an acceptance that all of those devastating consequences are likely to be someone else’s problem.  Someone further down the road, someone less equipped than I am to weather the storm that these actions are sure to bring about.

I would argue against the man on the street who holds a sign demanding a $15 minimum wage that such actions are likely to result in an overall increase in unemployment … and he might very well reply that he doesn’t really care who is unemployed, so long as he’s making $15 an hour.

Here I am again tempted to talk about narcissism.  Think about a mass shooting.  In the confusion, one’s true character emerges.  Someone dashes for the exit, trampling over anyone who happens to get in his way.  Someone else grabs his closest family members and covers them with his own body in an attempt to protect them.  Someone else looks around for the shooter, hoping to fight back and end the threat.  Someone else stands absolutely frozen in fear.  And not everybody does what they wish they would do, but everybody does something.

What worries me about the classical liberal, whose understanding of markets, economies, and human action has always been firm, and who is perfectly capable of applying these principles to COVID, is that this person is simply afraid, and is willing to make sacrifices in order to protect himself, provided he is immune from the consequences of those sacrifices.  This man demands a king for protection, and he ignores the advice of Samuel, thinking that somehow this time things will be different.  Maybe he really is foolish enough to believe that the king will voluntarily relinquish his power when the threat has passed (rather than ensure that there is always a threat and always a need).  Maybe he believes that this time, things will be different.  Or maybe he simply believes that the king will not come for him, for his land, for his sons and daughters… and maybe he is willing to sacrifice everyone else for his own personal guarantee of safety.

There’s one important final observation I would add to your thoughts regarding Cowen’s response to the Great Barrington Declaration, and to all of my own former acquaintances who refuse to engage the substantive arguments:  ad hominem is the argument that makes the most sense when I’m frightened, and when I believe that the biggest threat to me … is you.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 81 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-) 

    • #31
  2. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The government’s version of “doing something” will undoubtedly cause far more misery … I’m not looking forward to it.  I’m also not looking forward to the possibility that they pivot on covid hysteria from being something new that they have to defend, to being something that is now settled science and settled law.  Someone pointed out that, in many peoples’ defenses of “vaccine passports,” it is argued that “we already have to provide temp screenings and health questionnaires, and this will make things easier.”  We’ve skipped right past the arguments about whether those measures are in any way acceptable in the first place, and jumped right ahead to acceptance of today’s infringements as being proof that tomorrows infringements aren’t so bad in the grand scheme of things.  It is proving that the slippery slope, far from being a logical fallacy in this instance, is a genuine concern.  I’m worried that when the next big problem hits, we’ll skip past all the niceties and just go straight to “ok, no more argument, we’re legally requiring you to get this virus detecting microchip so we can focus our energy on solving the X-crisis.”

    • #32
  3. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    I doubt inflation is going to get that high. Government handouts don’t cause inflation, the Fed’s monetary stance controls it. They’re trying to increase inflation, and having some success doing it, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on them being “too” successful long term.

    • #33
  4. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Mike H (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    I doubt inflation is going to get that high. Government handouts don’t cause inflation, the Fed’s monetary stance controls it. They’re trying to increase inflation, and having some success doing it, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on them being “too” successful long term.

    They can’t allow it to happen.  If inflation rises, interest rates rise.  And if interest rates hit their historical average, the federal debt enters death spiral territory.

    • #34
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I find myself in fairly strong disagreement with the OP.  I think, however, that some clarification is necessary.

    The OP seems to suggest that the response to Covid has been improper is a matter of principle.  I do not believe that this is true.  If it is true, what is the principle?  That public health and safety regulation is inherently impermissible, as a violation of liberty?

    If this is the principle, then I disagree.  I think that reasonable health and safety regulation is not only permissible, but beneficial in some circumstances.

    In objecting to Covid policies, I think that there are two possible positions:

    1. All health regulations are inherently impermissible.  In this position, Covid policy is wrong as a matter of principle.
    2. Some health regulations are permissible, but the particular regulations adopted in the case of Covid are unreasonably excessive.  In this position, Covid policy is wrong as a practical matter.

    I am in the second camp.  I think that it is the more reasonable camp.

    I am generally dismissive of libertarian ideas, which I typically find to be unrealistic and lacking in nuance.  It is not a matter of ignorance.  I actually used to be a libertarian.  When I was young, clueless, and selfish.

    There are many types of libertarianism, I think.  The most common articulation, in my experience, is something like the concept of the “night watchman” state, in which the government protects people against “force and fraud,” and otherwise leaves them alone.

    Libertarians seem to think that these two exceptions to their opposition to government — force and fraud — are inherently self-evident.  They are not.  Why should there not be other exceptions?  Why should these two exceptions be accepted, but not others?

    This is not an inherent problem with libertarianism per se.  It is a problem with any attempt to adopt a moral or legal system grounded in reason.  In order to reason morally or legally, you must begin with one or more axioms, and reason does not tell you which axioms to choose.

    An example of this is the obvious flaws in the utilitarian theory of J.S. Mill, mentioned in one of St. A’s comments above.  I’ll address that one separately.

    • #35
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    but I imagine they help if

    I think that’s my biggest concern. Efficacy on the one hand and politics on the other. there is no real scientifically valid reason to mandate everyone wearing masks.

    And on top of it all, we see demonstrations against mask wearing, and police wielding batons and charging protesters and throwing non-mask wearers to the ground. And this takes liberty vs. mask wearing into a different focus. What is the purpose of the violence? Protecting the population from a nearly impotent virus? Or the continuance of government control and its own ultimate authority.

    Would that more people would attend to the utilitarian argument for liberty.

    Shameless self-promotion:

    Some comments on this.

    Mill offers no justification for adopting “the multiplication of happiness” as the object of virtue.  There are other important values, and no reason is given for accepting this as the sole axiom of morality.  Frankly, now that I am a grown-up, it comes across as the doctrine of a selfish and irresponsible teenager.

    Mill’s claims that it is only on  rare, exceptional occasions (when a person is in a position to be a public benefactor on a wide scale) are the only times when a person is called upon to consider public utility.  Perhaps he is using a technical definition of “public utility” that is not discussed in this brief clip, but this strikes me as quite wrong.

    It would make me happy to take away your car.  Then I get the car, and you get the payments.  Good for me!  But bad for you, and even a hypothetical as simple as this makes it clear that we must consider “public utility” more broadly.  Because, after all, why is it wrong — from the utilitarian perspective — for me to get your car?  It turns out that the typical utilitarian argument is that such a system would result in people not bother to buy cars at all, which would further cause cars not to be built.  But that is a public utility issue — the private property system generally works better at providing goods and services, because it creates good incentives.

    This is a problem with not just utilitarianism, but all consequentialism.  People seem to think that this solves the problem of selecting between different moral axioms.  It does not.  It simply shifts that problem into the definition of “the good,” which also cannot be simplistically defined — well, except with broad platitudes like “act in accordance with the will of God” or “act properly in the circumstances” that give no helpful guidance in any particular situation.

    As I’ve grown older, philosophers who I found persuasive in my youth have come to seem shallow and unsophisticated.  Mill, Kant, and Rand come to mind.  Others fall in a similar category, such as Hegel, Marx, and Rawls, which seem persuasive to some people, though this group was never persuasive to me.

    • #36
  7. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    There are many types of libertarianism, I think. The most common articulation, in my experience, is something like the concept of the “night watchman” state, in which the government protects people against “force and fraud,” and otherwise leaves them alone.

    Libertarians seem to think that these two exceptions to their opposition to government — force and fraud — are inherently self-evident. They are not. Why should there not be other exceptions? Why should these two exceptions be accepted, but not others?

    This is not an inherent problem with libertarianism per se. It is a problem with any attempt to adopt a moral or legal system grounded in reason. In order to reason morally or legally, you must begin with one or more axioms, and reason does not tell you which axioms to choose.

    An example of this is the obvious flaws in the utilitarian theory of J.S. Mill, mentioned in one of St. A’s comments above. I’ll address that one separately.

    It is not that all health regulations are impermissible, although where I would draw the line, virtually all of them are.  Rather, it is that our default – per the constitution – is in favor of liberty.  If a government is wanting to act in violation of individual liberty, it had better have a darned good reason for doing so.  There are also major restrictions on the government’s ability to thus reduce liberties.  So, you begin with a threat so large that the only possible way to curb that threat is through these intrusive means, and there is a hard limit on how far these intrusions are permitted to go, as well as a hard expiration date.

    But I also do not see that you have really expressed any disagreement with the OP, other than to suggest that it is somehow inherently “clueless and selfish.”  In this, you seem to be taking all of what I say and boiling it down to nothing more than the proposition that all government authority is invalid.  But again, you haven’t really addressed anything that I’ve argued…  If you “strongly disagree” with the arguments in the OP, which would be perfectly appropriate if supported by some form of actual counter-argument, it would be helpful to identify what it is specifically that you object to.  

    All I see above is:  1) I strongly disagree, 2) libertarians are stupid, 3) they claim that there are no exceptions that would favor government force … therefore … what?  If a conservative/libertarian does not begin by clearly outlining when government enforcement of public health measures would be acceptable, he relinquishes any right to claim that what our government has done over the past year is unacceptable?  

    I’d be very happy to address your disagreement, but you really haven’t identified any.

    • #37
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I find myself in fairly strong disagreement with the OP. I think, however, that some clarification is necessary.

    The OP seems to suggest that the response to Covid has been improper is a matter of principle. I do not believe that this is true. If it is true, what is the principle? That public health and safety regulation is inherently impermissible, as a violation of liberty?

    If this is the principle, then I disagree. I think that reasonable health and safety regulation is not only permissible, but beneficial in some circumstances.

    In objecting to Covid policies, I think that there are two possible positions:

    1. All health regulations are inherently impermissible. In this position, Covid policy is wrong as a matter of principle.
    2. Some health regulations are permissible, but the particular regulations adopted in the case of Covid are unreasonably excessive. In this position, Covid policy is wrong as a practical matter.

    I am in the second camp. I think that it is the more reasonable camp.

    I am generally dismissive of libertarian ideas, which I typically find to be unrealistic and lacking in nuance. It is not a matter of ignorance. I actually used to be a libertarian. When I was young, clueless, and selfish.

    There are many types of libertarianism, I think. The most common articulation, in my experience, is something like the concept of the “night watchman” state, in which the government protects people against “force and fraud,” and otherwise leaves them alone.

    Libertarians seem to think that these two exceptions to their opposition to government — force and fraud — are inherently self-evident. They are not. Why should there not be other exceptions? Why should these two exceptions be accepted, but not others?

    This is not an inherent problem with libertarianism per se. It is a problem with any attempt to adopt a moral or legal system grounded in reason. In order to reason morally or legally, you must begin with one or more axioms, and reason does not tell you which axioms to choose.

    An example of this is the obvious flaws in the utilitarian theory of J.S. Mill, mentioned in one of St. A’s comments above. I’ll address that one separately.

    Libertarians do not believe in zoning laws at all. They believe they have a right to destroy the property value of the home next to their home and that such destruction of property value is not a form of “harm”. That is what libertarians believe. I know, because many have told me so. 

    Libertarians do not believe in government using force for any reason at all. They seem to think that all power should be vested in one bad actor who can make the whole community miserable and if they don’t like it they can leave, but he can follow and force them to change, again. That is the behavior of the woke, and it is the self-proclaimed mantra of the libertarian. I know, I have been told so by libertarians. 

    Libertarians live in a fantasy world, where people are no longer people. 

    • #38
  9. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    If most people wear masks due to government mandates, when will the government start mandating the wearing of sunscreen by all people whenever they are out in the sun?  Everyone is aware that staying out in the sun without sunscreen can cause sunburn, which may lead to skin cancer.  So, in the light of the “science”, shouldn’t everyone be required to wear sunscreen while out in the sun?  Same deal.

    • #39
  10. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    It would make me happy to take away your car.  Then I get the car, and you get the payments.  Good for me!  But bad for you, and even a hypothetical as simple as this makes it clear that we must consider “public utility” more broadly.  Because, after all, why is it wrong — from the utilitarian perspective — for me to get your car?  It turns out that the typical utilitarian argument is that such a system would result in people not bother to buy cars at all, which would further cause cars not to be built.  But that is a public utility issue — the private property system generally works better at providing goods and services, because it creates good incentives.

    What I was saying, above, was that even with respect to a “pandemic,” people’s pursuit of their own individual self-interest is likely to result in a far greater public benefit than would government curbs on individual freedom.  These are classic free-market arguments, and they are ones that are generally accepted in conservative and libertarian circles.  They suppose that individuals possess fewer perverse incentives than a centralized authority, in addition to having better access to more nuanced information.  Individual choices, in the aggregate, provide an overall increase of information sharing and innovation and ultimately an increase in public good.  We have seen this work with private markets, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that suddenly those principles will disappear (or the problems with centralization will disappear) when we shift from economics to “public health.”  The interventionist mindset suggests that people are either too stupid to understand what’s best for them or that they should somehow desire the negative outcomes that the interventionists are claiming to be fighting…  we have zero reason to believe that either of these things are true (or more specifically, if we argue that they are untrue with respect to economics, why should we believe that they are suddenly true with respect to health?)

    You are supposing that people are somehow incapable of acting in their individual best interest, or that by acting in their own best interest, they will behave in such a way that is harmful to the public – and harmful enough that the government needs to step in to curb liberties in order to protect the whole.  This argument can be and has been applied in virtually every other area of life in support of centralized planning (marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc… etc…) and conservatives have articulately described why these arguments are so dangerously wrong.  My point is that all of these arguments apply equally well to our present situation, and that there are a great many conservatives and libertarians who have failed to make those arguments (or to vocalize them); and I am asking why.  This essay addresses that question of “why.”

    • #40
  11. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Libertarians do not believe in zoning laws at all. They believe they have a right to destroy the property value of the home next to their home and that such destruction of property value is not a form of “harm”. That is what libertarians believe. I know, because many have told me so.

    Libertarians do not believe in government using force for any reason at all. They seem to think that all power should be vested in one bad actor who can make the whole community miserable and if they don’t like it they can leave, but he can follow and force them to change, again. That is the behavior of the woke, and it is the self-proclaimed mantra of the libertarian. I know, I have been told so by libertarians.

    Libertarians live in a fantasy world, where people are no longer people.

    This is not exactly what libertarians believe – although you would be hard-pressed to pin down a specific “libertarian” principle with respect to any of this.  Generally (see Ronald Coase), people believe that there are private solutions to the problem of waste – if you destroy someone’s property value, you may be liable for whatever damage you’ve caused.

    Again, there are various different versions of “libertarian,” which is why, in my post, I say “conservative/libertarian/classical-liberal” to describe a general position that government intervention is something that ought to be, in the very least, distrusted.  At a bare minimum, among this group, there needs to be a strong argument that government force is absolutely necessary – I am asking why more of the intellectuals that make up this group have failed to speak up more loudly in the face of the greatest removal of individual rights and expansion of government power that this country has ever seen.

    • #41
  12. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I am generally dismissive of libertarian ideas, which I typically find to be unrealistic and lacking in nuance. It is not a matter of ignorance. I actually used to be a libertarian. When I was young, clueless, and selfish.

    Also – this post was not a defense of libertarianism.  None of the arguments I’ve made are libertarian arguments.  They are conservative/free-market arguments, which apply to covid as well as they apply to economics.  The reason I refer to libertarians is because the essay is a response to Mr. Boudreaux, who is generally speaking to his libertarian-minded friends and colleagues.  From a conservative perspective, this government intervention is indefensible – at that point I need not describe how it is indefensible from a libertarian perspective, which purportedly holds the government to an even higher standard with respect to when the use of force is acceptable.

    • #42
  13. Hammer, The (Ryan M) Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)
    @RyanM

    @arizonapatriot:  perhaps a simpler question would be, “why do you demand a king?”

    Or, better put:  “why do you demand a king to solve your perceived ‘public health’ issue when you acknowledge that this same king is incompetent with respect to solving most other issues?”

    • #43
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Libertarians do not believe in zoning laws at all. They believe they have a right to destroy the property value of the home next to their home and that such destruction of property value is not a form of “harm”. That is what libertarians believe. I know, because many have told me so.

    Libertarians do not believe in government using force for any reason at all. They seem to think that all power should be vested in one bad actor who can make the whole community miserable and if they don’t like it they can leave, but he can follow and force them to change, again. That is the behavior of the woke, and it is the self-proclaimed mantra of the libertarian. I know, I have been told so by libertarians.

    Libertarians live in a fantasy world, where people are no longer people.

    This is not exactly what libertarians believe – although you would be hard-pressed to pin down a specific “libertarian” principle with respect to any of this. Generally (see Ronald Coase), people believe that there are private solutions to the problem of waste – if you destroy someone’s property value, you may be liable for whatever damage you’ve caused.

    Alas, is it exactly what libertarians have told me they believe. That roads should all be private, that police forces should be private, that no community standards should exist in law. Libertarians have said these things, right here at Ricochet, and anyone against any of that is called a statist. I, myself, have been compared to Stalin. And before you say “well not all libertarians”, I hasten to add that none of the so called libertarians who don’t believe that at the time lifted a finger to defend me. 

     

    Again, there are various different versions of “libertarian,” which is why, in my post, I say “conservative/libertarian/classical-liberal” to describe a general position that government intervention is something that ought to be, in the very least, distrusted. At a bare minimum, among this group, there needs to be a strong argument that government force is absolutely necessary – I am asking why more of the intellectuals that make up this group have failed to speak up more loudly in the face of the greatest removal of individual rights and expansion of government power that this country has ever seen.

    Libertarians want to put as much as possible outside the realm of politics. They are tyrants in their own right. That is based on reading them and seeing what they call for. The whole point of politics of liberty is to settled what force is necessary. Libertarians want to tell everyone else what force is necessary, and then use force to enforce it. 

    • #44
  15. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    I am not surprised at libertarian conversion. Libertarians have always wanted tyrannical control of others. They demand things like no zoning laws or legal community standards because they may not like them. They have long been tyrants of “I’ve got mine and screw you”.

    Like liberals, libertarians seek to place as many issues outside of the political process as possible, so that a majority cannot have power. They want a minority to have veto over everything. They reserve to them, and their judgment alone what should and should not be the role of government. I cannot think of something better suited for the political process than that.

    So, this makes sense. The libertarian feels afraid, and he is more than willing to use the power of government to force a change in others behavior. It is funny, but the “do no harm ” to another principle always seems open to dictatorial control over the behavior of others.

    As a conservative, I think we should treat epidemics on ways proven to work. This shutdown and mask mandates clearly was a poor experiment. And the leaders of it have lied and admitted they have lied.

    When has a side in an argument who lies, tries to change the meaning of language and suppresses information, ever been the good guys in history?

    @ majestyk that question is aimed at you.

    I know the answer. Heck, I can put it terms you understand:

    Who is nobody?

    I think you might enjoy this quote I stumbled into: “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    • #45
  16. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Mike H (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    I doubt inflation is going to get that high. Government handouts don’t cause inflation, the Fed’s monetary stance controls it. They’re trying to increase inflation, and having some success doing it, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on them being “too” successful long term.

    You are overlooking the major supply deficits that have been caused by the lockdowns and the fear of COVID. As well as the fact that there are other inflationary aspects about to hit the fan, now that Pres Biden embraces Governor Newsom’s plans for Calif as being a great way to run the USA as a whole. Biden has  even stated this is his template for governing.

    Newsom’s immigration policy allows for massive immigration numbers, due to state laws persecuting those trying to get ICE to intervene and detain immigrants. (Those policies were in effect since 2018, while Trump worked at counter measures. Now Trump is gone, and ICE is far more hampered.) California’s H&HS issues full welfare bennies and more for any immigrant applying for them, often worth about $ 2,200 a month. That is before halth care and college tuition costs are factored in. (In Calif all immigrants are to be welcomed at the Univ of Calif system, tuition free.)

    Anyway many people more knowledgeable than I am about economic matters fear we are on a strictly set up  plan to resemble the nation of Argentina.

    • #46
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The next crisis is supposed to be global warming, with perhaps famine.

    • #47
  18. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If most people wear masks due to government mandates, when will the government start mandating the wearing of sunscreen by all people whenever they are out in the sun? Everyone is aware that staying out in the sun without sunscreen can cause sunburn, which may lead to skin cancer. So, in the light of the “science”, shouldn’t everyone be required to wear sunscreen while out in the sun? Same deal.

    When will they regulate the use of salt, and the size of sugary drinks, and discouraging the consumption of dairy products and encouraging the use of hydrogenated vegetable oils.  Outlawing the drinking of coffee (including covfefe) while driving.  Mandating seat belts.  Bicycle helmets.  Walking on the left side of the street.  Wearing masks in public.  Getting experimental vaccinations.  Eating false meat products.  Blocking out the sun (literally).  And a one-child policy for Whites (I’m just extrapolating with this one).

    • #48
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The next crisis is supposed to be global warming, with perhaps famine.

    They might very well cause famine, by trying to “fix” current famine that doesn’t actually exist.

    • #49
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Flicker (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If most people wear masks due to government mandates, when will the government start mandating the wearing of sunscreen by all people whenever they are out in the sun? Everyone is aware that staying out in the sun without sunscreen can cause sunburn, which may lead to skin cancer. So, in the light of the “science”, shouldn’t everyone be required to wear sunscreen while out in the sun? Same deal.

    When will they regulate the use of salt, and the size of sugary drinks, and discouraging the consumption of dairy products and encouraging the use of hydrogenated vegetable oils. Outlawing the drinking of coffee (including covfefe) while driving. Mandating seat belts. Bicycle helmets. Walking on the left side of the street. Wearing masks in public. Getting experimental vaccinations. Eating false meat products. Blocking out the sun (literally). And a one-child policy for Whites (I’m just extrapolating with this one).

    But if whites only have one child, who’s going to support all the children made by non-whites?

    • #50
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Some comments on this.

    Mill offers no justification for adopting “the multiplication of happiness” as the object of virtue. There are other important values, and no reason is given for accepting this as the sole axiom of morality.

    Of course he offers justification for it. It’s just not in this paragraph.

    Mill’s claims that it is only on rare, exceptional occasions (when a person is in a position to be a public benefactor on a wide scale) are the only times when a person is called upon to consider public utility. Perhaps he is using a technical definition of “public utility” that is not discussed in this brief clip, but this strikes me as quite wrong.

    It would make me happy to take away your car. Then I get the car, and you get the payments. Good for me! But bad for you, and even a hypothetical as simple as this makes it clear that we must consider “public utility” more broadly. Because, after all, why is it wrong — from the utilitarian perspective — for me to get your car?

    It turns out that the typical utilitarian argument is that such a system would result in people not bother to buy cars at all, which would further cause cars not to be built. But that is a public utility issue — the private property system generally works better at providing goods and services, because it creates good incentives.

    I neither know nor particularly care what is “the typical utlilitarian argument.” I’m just a loser trying to understand a few good books.  But here’s Mill on the subject in his book.

    This is a problem with not just utilitarianism, but all consequentialism. People seem to think that this solves the problem of selecting between different moral axioms.

    Again, you’re not addressing what’s actually in Mill’s book.  Here’s a hint.

    Golly, those thumbnails look ridiculous up close. Maybe I can adjust them.

    • #51
  22. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The next crisis is supposed to be global warming, with perhaps famine.

    They might very well cause famine, by trying to “fix” current famine that doesn’t actually exist.

    Well, blocking out the sun in a cycle of climate cooling certainly might.

    • #52
  23. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    If most people wear masks due to government mandates, when will the government start mandating the wearing of sunscreen by all people whenever they are out in the sun? Everyone is aware that staying out in the sun without sunscreen can cause sunburn, which may lead to skin cancer. So, in the light of the “science”, shouldn’t everyone be required to wear sunscreen while out in the sun? Same deal.

    When will they regulate the use of salt, and the size of sugary drinks, and discouraging the consumption of dairy products and encouraging the use of hydrogenated vegetable oils. Outlawing the drinking of coffee (including covfefe) while driving. Mandating seat belts. Bicycle helmets. Walking on the left side of the street. Wearing masks in public. Getting experimental vaccinations. Eating false meat products. Blocking out the sun (literally). And a one-child policy for Whites (I’m just extrapolating with this one).

    But if whites only have one child, who’s going to support all the children made by non-whites?

    The Fed?

    • #53
  24. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    I doubt inflation is going to get that high. Government handouts don’t cause inflation, the Fed’s monetary stance controls it. They’re trying to increase inflation, and having some success doing it, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on them being “too” successful long term.

    You are overlooking the major supply deficits that have been caused by the lockdowns and the fear of COVID. As well as the fact that there are other inflationary aspects about to hit the fan, now that Pres Biden embraces Governor Newsom’s plans for Calif as being a great way to run the USA as a whole. Biden has even stated this is his template for governing.

    Newsom’s immigration policy allows for massive immigration numbers, due to state laws persecuting those trying to get ICE to intervene and detain immigrants. (Those policies were in effect since 2018, while Trump worked at counter measures. Now Trump is gone, and ICE is far more hampered.) California’s H&HS issues full welfare bennies and more for any immigrant applying for them, often worth about $ 2,200 a month. That is before halth care and college tuition costs are factored in. (In Calif all immigrants are to be welcomed at the Univ of Calif system, tuition free.)

    Anyway many people more knowledgeable than I am about economic matters fear we are on a strictly set up plan to resemble the nation of Argentina.

    Not Venezuela?

    • #54
  25. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Well, blocking out the sun in a cycle of climate cooling certainly might.

    They’re experts.  They wouldn’t make that kind of mistake.

    • #55
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Well, blocking out the sun in a cycle of climate cooling certainly might.

    They’re experts. They wouldn’t make that kind of mistake.

    Not unintentionally, no.

    • #56
  27. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The next crisis is supposed to be global warming, with perhaps famine.

    They might very well cause famine, by trying to “fix” current famine that doesn’t actually exist.

    Except, of course, for North Korea.  Do our betters want to make America into North Korea?  That is no longer a rhetorical question.

    • #57
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The next crisis is supposed to be global warming, with perhaps famine.

    They might very well cause famine, by trying to “fix” current famine that doesn’t actually exist.

    Except, of course, for North Korea. Do our betters want to make America into North Korea? That is no longer a rhetorical question.

    Well, they know that Kim Jong Un and his friends never miss a meal.  So why not?

    • #58
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    The next crisis is supposed to be global warming, with perhaps famine.

    They might very well cause famine, by trying to “fix” current famine that doesn’t actually exist.

    Except, of course, for North Korea. Do our betters want to make America into North Korea? That is no longer a rhetorical question.

    North Korea will look like the land of liberty in comparison. 

    • #59
  30. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This argument about the virus mitigation measures the government has taken will soon be in the rear-view mirror. We’re heading into headline-garnering inflation. That will put pressure on local, state, and federal government agencies and elected officials to “do something.” It would be great to turn the public’s attention now to that gathering storm to head off government overreach and spending to address the coming public outcry. We should be learning from this experience with the virus that we need to govern the government. :-)

    I doubt inflation is going to get that high. Government handouts don’t cause inflation, the Fed’s monetary stance controls it. They’re trying to increase inflation, and having some success doing it, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on them being “too” successful long term.

    They can’t allow it to happen. If inflation rises, interest rates rise. And if interest rates hit their historical average, the federal debt enters death spiral territory.

    Possibly… fiat government finances are weird. The more I learn about them the less I’m sure I understand. Basically a dollar is a government issued perpetual bond with 0% coupon. It some respects, the government issuing interest bearing debt is a policy and not a requirement. Issuing a bond takes some money out of circulation with a promise of returning slightly more money than they took, which they can just print, kind of like issuing new shares. So all “government spending” does is move money around, consume resources, and displace other spending. GDP is the sum of all spending and also the sum of all income in a given year. When government spending increases, it doesn’t have much of an effect on GDP, which includes government spending. It increases the government’s share of GDP, which then has to reduce private spending (quality of life.)

    I’m also not sure how to think of all these Covid transfer payments. Is it really “government spending” for some people to borrow money from other people, to be paid back by completely different people? I don’t have an answer, nor am I trying to make a point other than this stuff is complicated and most people talk about it with way more confidence than is warranted.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.