Fusion Democrats
At Cato Unbound, Harold Meyerson is continuing the Libertarian Democrat tact that Kos started. It wasn't very promising when Meyerson admitted he's a social democrat.
There were some good responses to the post. Smilerz points out the biggest issue - initiations of force from corporations come either at the urging or with the permission of the government. I especially enjoyed this one from Kip, because he pointed out the contradiction between substantive due process of Lawrence (you can screw whomever you wish) and the substantive due process of Lochner (people can set their own terms and wages of employment). Coyote pointed out the absurdity of the last paragraph's call for a government renewable-energy jobs program that would create 'millions' of jobs (thus satisfying two pet left causes in one, at more than double the cost).
Unfortunately, both Kos and Meyerson refuse to drop their own precepts and prejudices in approaching libertarians. They're basically trying to woo libertarians without offering much more than agreement on some civil liberties (sort of) and sex. Their one real compromise is on the Second Amendment - which didn't thrill anybody with Meyerson's comment that basically they'd still be gun-grabbers in states where they had the power to do so. If it's a constitutional right, how can it exist in Wyoming and not exist in Rhode Island?
But trying to blame freedom itself is not going to win libertarians, only hold onto Democrats. To quote Meyerson:
Second, is privacy an individual freedom? Not exactly. Now, if you give somebody your information and you have a contract guaranteeing they won't give out information, then you have a contractual right to privacy. But there's no right to not have people gossip about you or spread commercial info about you. Just as we wouldn't put blanket privacy laws on the town gossip, we shouldn't put blanket privacy laws on businesses or other entities. (As a sidenote, an enormous amount of information is public record, like voter lists and court records, and that's government-sponsored.)
Third, pollutants? Pollutants?
Fourth, the ultimate problem is the focus on the dangers of free choice, rather than on its benefits. It's like the glass half-full/half-empty situation. An authoritarian looks at a situation of freedom and sees all the opportunities for abuse, for powerlessness, for chaos, and for non-centralized authority - and seeks to interfere. A libertarian looks at that same situation and sees the opportunities for advancement, for individual happiness, for competition and for non-centralized authority - and jumps for joy.
It's quite annoying that the representatives for fusion Democrats (libertarian plus leftist) aren't even free-trading DLCers - in fact, they're anti-DLC and represent the 'progressive' wave of Democrats that started to turn on free trade agreements like those with Chile, Australia, CAFTA, FTAA and the rest.
What's insulting is that they aren't trying to convince us that Democrats are pro-market (normally, when you try to sell somebody something in this kind of situation, you spend more time meeting their needs and expectations than trying to alter them to your own tastes), but rather that being anti-market is, OH SO REGRETTABLY, necessary. Just adding on an intellectual step of being hesitant to coerce action and conformity among free peoples isn't going to cut it. ZenPolitics makes a great point:
A loveless arrangement of convenience makes a lot more sense and could be handled a lot more easily than a fake marriage without any real basis. Plus, it would allow the freedom for libertarians to negotiate as an independent subset of a larger unit, instead of just being absorbed into the maw of a socialist alliance.
From personal reflection and empirical observation, I have to say that a left-libertarian alliance is not usually sustainable. It's far better to focus on winning over support from conservatives -freedom's fair-weather friends- than from leftists, who are its all-weather enemies.
There were some good responses to the post. Smilerz points out the biggest issue - initiations of force from corporations come either at the urging or with the permission of the government. I especially enjoyed this one from Kip, because he pointed out the contradiction between substantive due process of Lawrence (you can screw whomever you wish) and the substantive due process of Lochner (people can set their own terms and wages of employment). Coyote pointed out the absurdity of the last paragraph's call for a government renewable-energy jobs program that would create 'millions' of jobs (thus satisfying two pet left causes in one, at more than double the cost).
Unfortunately, both Kos and Meyerson refuse to drop their own precepts and prejudices in approaching libertarians. They're basically trying to woo libertarians without offering much more than agreement on some civil liberties (sort of) and sex. Their one real compromise is on the Second Amendment - which didn't thrill anybody with Meyerson's comment that basically they'd still be gun-grabbers in states where they had the power to do so. If it's a constitutional right, how can it exist in Wyoming and not exist in Rhode Island?
But trying to blame freedom itself is not going to win libertarians, only hold onto Democrats. To quote Meyerson:
...regulation is often the only way to protect encroachments on individual freedoms. To argue, as a classic libertarian might, that a consumer is as free to switch banks as a bank is to sell its data neglects to note that a bank that doesn’t sell its data is at a competitive disadvantage with one that does, and a consumer who can’t find a privacy-protecting bank is simply out of luck. In short, the free play of markets can be a threat to individual freedom, unless individual freedom is a term that applies only to businesses and not to their consumers or employees or the people who must breathe their pollutants.First, banks are like other institutions, competing for your patronage. The first thing that comes to mind is advertising. Why do banks have to advertise, differentiating themselves, if they are immune from competition? One of the better examples to illustrate this point is the WaMu ads (featuring the confident, youngish black guy in a blue shirt and the gaggle of exasperated, old white men in conservative suits) - here's a good one at YouTube.
Second, is privacy an individual freedom? Not exactly. Now, if you give somebody your information and you have a contract guaranteeing they won't give out information, then you have a contractual right to privacy. But there's no right to not have people gossip about you or spread commercial info about you. Just as we wouldn't put blanket privacy laws on the town gossip, we shouldn't put blanket privacy laws on businesses or other entities. (As a sidenote, an enormous amount of information is public record, like voter lists and court records, and that's government-sponsored.)
Third, pollutants? Pollutants?
Fourth, the ultimate problem is the focus on the dangers of free choice, rather than on its benefits. It's like the glass half-full/half-empty situation. An authoritarian looks at a situation of freedom and sees all the opportunities for abuse, for powerlessness, for chaos, and for non-centralized authority - and seeks to interfere. A libertarian looks at that same situation and sees the opportunities for advancement, for individual happiness, for competition and for non-centralized authority - and jumps for joy.
It's quite annoying that the representatives for fusion Democrats (libertarian plus leftist) aren't even free-trading DLCers - in fact, they're anti-DLC and represent the 'progressive' wave of Democrats that started to turn on free trade agreements like those with Chile, Australia, CAFTA, FTAA and the rest.
What's insulting is that they aren't trying to convince us that Democrats are pro-market (normally, when you try to sell somebody something in this kind of situation, you spend more time meeting their needs and expectations than trying to alter them to your own tastes), but rather that being anti-market is, OH SO REGRETTABLY, necessary. Just adding on an intellectual step of being hesitant to coerce action and conformity among free peoples isn't going to cut it. ZenPolitics makes a great point:
Do any of them really believe that they are going to convert libertarians to Democrats at Cato Unbound? That we are going to see the miracle that is the Democratic Party?Actually, I'd prefer if the KLDs (Kossack Libertarian Democrats) would drop the pretense of adopting libertarian modes and ideas (at least fusion conservatives were at times something like economic and structural libertarians - most Democrats make fairly poor libertarians, whatever the adjective you slap in front of the word). Instead of arguing for a marriage of leftists and libertarians, where each has a valuable and equal role to play, the KLDs should be more blatant about the relationship: the libertarians would be the whory girlfriend to the millionaire playboy democrats. The whory libertarian gets paraded around at times for the benefit of the democrat playboy, gets some nice toys and jewelry that couldn't be gotten without the playboy's money, and then gets screwed over when it comes time to make the big money deals.
A loveless arrangement of convenience makes a lot more sense and could be handled a lot more easily than a fake marriage without any real basis. Plus, it would allow the freedom for libertarians to negotiate as an independent subset of a larger unit, instead of just being absorbed into the maw of a socialist alliance.
From personal reflection and empirical observation, I have to say that a left-libertarian alliance is not usually sustainable. It's far better to focus on winning over support from conservatives -freedom's fair-weather friends- than from leftists, who are its all-weather enemies.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Libertarians On Liberty
- Fusion Democrats
- Good Effort, No Forethought
Posted by neolibertarian on
October 12, 2006 at 1:31am