Fallacy, State, and Utopia
By Thoreau
A common statement regarding the incompetence of the Bush administration is that people who don’t believe government can solve a problem shouldn’t be in charge of running it. Whatever the merits or demerits of that statement, let’s get one thing straight: The Bush administration does think that the government can solve problems. They just don’t feel like using it to try to solve the problems that you care about. They’re more interested in solving such problems as their cronies’ need for easy money.
Whether or not libertarians are competent to run a government program may be a fascinating discussion to have, but it has no bearing on the Bush administration. They may have tossed out a few lines of libertarian rhetoric here and there, but they never acted on it. Now, some might say that when I disclaim any similarities between Bush and libertarians I’m being like a Communist who says “Oh, we’ve just never seen real Communism.” To them, I would respond that if you want to accuse me of ideological blinders at least find a better example of attempted libertarianism than the Bush administration. Those guys are probably the worst example you could pick if you’re looking for attempted libertarianism. Pick a better example, argue that it is indeed an attempt at libertarianism, and then if I say “No, we just haven’t seen real Libertarianism” we can debate the Commie analogies.
Incidentally, I’ve heard this statement about Bush many times, but my posting on it today was prompted by somebody in a Hit and Run thread who claimed that the idiocy of the TSA is a direct consequences of Bush’s alleged libertarian sympathies. (Yes, lots of dumb things get said in Hit and Run threads, but this one is common enough that I felt like blogging it.) There are many, many reasons why the TSA is as awful as it is, and libertarianism doesn’t even come close to making the list. Hatred of the TSA is probably one of the few things that adherents the many strands of libertarianism (and self-described libertarianism) could all agree on. (Leaving aside a few bed-wetters who call themselves “libertarians” for reasons that completely escape me.)
Comment by Leonard —
March 29, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Just FYI, this is referred to as the “no true scotsman” fallacy.
Comment by Avram —
March 29, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
So we have seen real Communism?
Comment by Thoreau —
March 29, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
I don’t know if we’ve seen real Communism, but we’ve seen a bunch of examples of bad things happening when people try it.
Comment by mds —
March 29, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
I don’t think Bush or his posse have any particular libertarian principles, but some outcomes of their crony capitalism writ large are nonetheless consistent with the desires of some flavors of libertarian. Gutting of government regulation, outsourcing of governmental functions to the private sector, setting the budget on the course to a meltdown where we’ll have no choice but to scrap those ghastly entitlements; do the ends justify the means? Since some view taxation as theft anyway, what difference would it make that it’s currently going into the pockets of even worse thieves, especially if the end result is the bankruptcy and destruction of most current functions of the federal government?
Now, this crew are basically just feathering their own nests, and are really glad that a big federal government exists for them to fleece now. But when they’re loaded down with loot and no longer actively in charge, they’d probably be perfectly satisfied with the breakdown of national and federal government. After all, they have Blackwater. That’s more private “security” than I’m likely to come up with.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
March 30, 2008 @ 12:51 am
One can look at a lot of what movement conservatism does as what you get if you take libertarian views about the supremacy of commerce and yank out all the parts about individual rights. You’re then left with pretty much exactly Gilded Age social darwinism.
I think that this Teresa Nielsen Hayden comment on blowout scams is likely to be the truest thing any outsider has written about the Bush/Cheney administration’s fundamental motives.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
March 30, 2008 @ 12:55 am
How can anyone with claim that TSA is an example of libertarianism with a straight face, without quotes, and a wink at the end of their post
I got to fly through Kansas City International Airport today, and was treated to a choice of 1 packaged food vendor and 1 bathroom without going outside the “sterile” zone and having to go through security for a connecting flight.
Because obviously KC is a target, and they had to split each terminal arc in half lengthways to prevent them from being destroyed in an attack, even though anyone with rudimentary knowledge of physics, security, and/or explosives would realize that an OK City curbside would likely take out everyone in the adjoining terminal on either side of the secured area.
I have never felt the absurdity of TSA more than today, nor less secure, especially as I forgot my quart bag in my carry-on again, and wasn’t stopped again (about 3rd time in past year, for a 50% miss ratio by screeners).
TSA, 100% effective at stopping non-existant threats for the past several years.
Comment by bryan —
March 30, 2008 @ 2:35 am
‘To them, I would respond that if you want to accuse me of ideological blinders at least find a better example of attempted libertarianism than the Bush administration. ‘
In other words, your response to someone that says that you are just arguing that: ‘we’ve never seen real communism’ is to argue that we’ve never seen real communism.
In order to make the statement even seem serious you would have to make a big long demonstration that the attempts at communism in the past were much closer to Communism as defined than Bush attempts at Libertarianism were close to Libertarianism as defined.
Finally, another common complaint about Libertarianism is that is sees government as a swindle and a process whereby the corrupt accrues unfair powers over the population and its wealth. One could just as easily argue that Bush and company are pursuing the understanding of libertarianism by:
1. not solving problems.
2. fulfilling the real and underlying purpose of government by satisfying their cronies’ need for easy money.
Thus the argument for an anti-liberalism view using Bush as an example that the Libertarian view of Government is that it is a corrupt process for self-enrichment and oppression that is incapable of doing real good for the people. Obviously anyone who holds that view of Government will, when elected to office, fulfill it.
On the other hand, the perfect argument for a Libertarian view of Government is to say: Look at Bush.
Comment by Barry —
March 30, 2008 @ 7:55 am
Mona, in 2000, which of Bush vs Gore were most libertarians perferring? That’s what leads others to make conclusions about libertarians and libertarianism.
Comment by John Emerson —
March 30, 2008 @ 9:16 am
At the beginning the Bush administration was ideologically mix of little-government free-traders, social conservatives, militarists, and (yes, really) racists.
But it was led and controlled by pragmatists: country-club Republicans, and mercenary operatives.
By now all the ideologues have been betrayed except for the militarists — and the militarists are jumping ship so that they don’t have to take the blame for their disastrous war. On tariffs, immigration, civil liberties and limited government, and fiscal responsibility they have egregiously violated the most basic principles. The smart social conservatives (from the White House staff, Diulio and another guy more recently) realized that they were being played — though most Christian conservatives are not smart and have stayed on board in order to bring on Armageddon.
So who won? The hawks, even thought they whine. People who wanted tax cuts even with deficits. Authoritarians, above all.
And the operatives. The bulk of the Bush administration is now made up of grafters selected entirely for loyalty. When Bush appoints an incompetent buddy like Brownie, he’s not really giving a gift to a friend. He’s appointing a mobster whose loyalty he can count on — a personal buddy who will be grateful for having been raised far above where he deserves to be.
Government always have its Mafia aspect, but at the end of the Bush administration that’s become especially clear.
Comment by Walter —
March 30, 2008 @ 11:00 am
No, there’s plenty of standard government-can-fix-everything ideology among the Bushistas. NCLB anyone?
Comment by abb1 —
March 30, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Somebody had to do somethin’ about ‘em muslims…
Comment by mds —
March 30, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
As implemented, with its ever-upward requirements, it’s a means to bankrupt even decent school districts as a means of fatally weakening public education. Another dream of the latter-day robber barons and their social conservative minions.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 30, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
it’s a means to bankrupt even decent school districts as a means of fatally weakening public education. Another dream of the latter-day robber barons and their social conservative minions.
It may be the dream of some, but I don’t think many libertarians like the idea of spending a bunch of money to centralize control of schools so they can eventually disintegrate.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 30, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
I mean, some might like the last part, if it happens, but the steps leading up to it would make most libertarians queasy.
Comment by Detlef —
March 30, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Thoreau,
It may be the dream of some, but I don’t think many libertarians like the idea of spending a bunch of money to centralize control of schools so they can eventually disintegrate.
I mean, some might like the last part, if it happens, but the steps leading up to it would make most libertarians queasy.
Care to tell me who is going to pay for schools in poor districts once “the last part happens”?
How are poor people supposed to pay for private schools? Can´t be vouchers cause that would involve tax money?
Not being an American, I´m really puzzled how American Libertarians want to ensure a “level” playing field?
Comment by Donald Johnson —
March 30, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Would recent events on Wall Street have something to do with libertarianism? I’m asking, not making a statement.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 30, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
I admit that I don’t follow Wall Street events closely, so no doubt there are all sorts of intricacies that I’m missing, but my libertarian take is that enterprises that make bad decisions should be allowed to fail. A market economy can only work if bad business decisions have consequences and badly run enterprises are allowed to fail. It sucks for those affected, but we already have personal bankruptcy for individuals and limited liability for shareholders, so there are ways for those who made bad financial decisions to pick up the pieces.
So, my libertarian take would be that the feds shouldn’t have offered any guarantees to companies picking up the pieces of Bear Sterns.
Comment by Glaivester —
March 30, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
‘To them, I would respond that if you want to accuse me of ideological blinders at least find a better example of attempted libertarianism than the Bush administration. ‘
In other words, your response to someone that says that you are just arguing that: ‘we’ve never seen real communism’ is to argue that we’ve never seen real communism.
No, the argument is not that we have never seen real libertarianism, but that this particular administration is not an example of libertarianism - real or fake. The argument here is not that Bush’s libertarian leanings are not perfect, it is that he really isn’t even attempting libertarianism. This isn’t like looking at the USSR and saying “they never attempted real communism.” This is like looking at some fascist regime we supported because they were anti-communist and saying “they never attempted real communism.”
In order to make the statement even seem serious you would have to make a big long demonstration that the attempts at communism in the past were much closer to Communism as defined than Bush attempts at Libertarianism were close to Libertarianism as defined.
The attempts at communism succeeded in wiping out the bourgeoisie, equaliziong large portions of the populace, and virtually wiping out the profit motive. What exactly has Bush done to actually limit the growth of government?
Finally, another common complaint about Libertarianism is that is sees government as a swindle and a process whereby the corrupt accrues unfair powers over the population and its wealth. One could just as easily argue that Bush and company are pursuing the understanding of libertarianism by:
1. not solving problems.
2. fulfilling the real and underlying purpose of government by satisfying their cronies’ need for easy money.
Thus the argument for an anti-liberalism view using Bush as an example that the Libertarian view of Government is that it is a corrupt process for self-enrichment and oppression that is incapable of doing real good for the people. Obviously anyone who holds that view of Government will, when elected to office, fulfill it.
On the other hand, the perfect argument for a Libertarian view of Government is to say: Look at Bush.
So libertarians say that goverment is corrupt and evil, so by being corrupt and evil Bush is proving their point, thus he must be a libertarian in disguise? This makes no sense. One might as well argue that he is a non-interventionist, using the Iraq War to prove that interventionism backfires. Besides, if you argue this point then you implicitly agree that Bush has not actually been pursuing libertarian policies.
Comment by matthew hogan —
March 30, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Not being an American, I´m really puzzled how American Libertarians want to ensure a “level” playing field?
This one’s easy: we don’t. (Ensure, that is)
Comment by ajay —
March 31, 2008 @ 5:14 am
15,19: quite. From the Lib point of view, unequal treatment for the poor is a feature, not a bug.
Comment by Derek Copold —
March 31, 2008 @ 9:51 am
I’m no libertarian, but I agree that the Bush Administration is a poor choice to make the case against them. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” was pretty much a refutation of the libertarian wing of the party. Why he felt compelled to make that refutation should more interest anti-libertarians.
The biggest problem most libertarians have is that they treat libertarianism as a hard position instead of a general vector or default position. This is why I tend to recommend John Stossel as an exemplar of libertarianism. He harshly criticizes government overreach, but he’s also willing to admit that there is a regulatory role for government.
In favor of libertarians, despite the bad press, deregulating a lot industries (something both Carter and Clinton did, at times more than the GOP) has had positive benefits. Does anyone want to go back to the days of Ma Bell, or regulated airlines, or the ICC?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
March 31, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I don’t know that that’s so, Bruce, just as movement liberalism doesn’t really resemble what happens when you take libertarian views about individual rights and rip out all the dangers-of-government bits.
You’d have to really rip out everything related to the free market to approximate the mainstream conservative view. Whether neocons or theocons or generic goons like McCain, they’re status freaks, and wealth makes a nice metric to look down upon lessers with. The elements of conservative thought that are running the show hate the free market as an uncontrollable force. Watch them scream and rant and threaten to regulate any trend in business they dislike. They like the rich, not the process by which people get richer.