We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “Freedom is participation in power.”
– Mike Gravell, on Thom Hartmann’s Air America show.
“O, RLY?”
– Commenter Sunfish, when he heard that.
Yes, Sunfish, ‘Freedom’ is the freedom to join a gang and fight over who gets plundering rights on ‘your’ turf, I thought everyone knew that!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Where do I start? Oh, yes…
The current Governor of Alaska is Sarah Palin, and there has never been anyone named “Gravell” as governor of that state. There is one “Gravell”-like guy related to Alaska, their former Senator (1969-1981), but in that case, it is “Mike Gravel”.
Either Air America or the Samizdata Illuminatus really need better fact checking.
You know, this is sort of the issue with libertarianism. Freedom is good, and people see it as a good thing, and that is great. The issue is that the vast majority of people want a libertarian approach to everything but their own issues. I have to give the Nolan test the blame (or credit) for this. People take the short little quiz and find that they are libertarians, they were all along, and didn’t even know it. I’m reminded of one girl I gave the test to.
“So this says I’m a libertarian, what does that mean?”
“Well it means freedom from government and from coercion, and….” (went on at length)
“Well so what about like gay marriage?”
“Libertarians are for gay marriage”
“What about gun control?”
“Libertarians are against gun control.”
“I like gun control….what about welfare?”
“Libertarians are opposed to welfare.”
“Why? Everyone needs healthcare and money”
“OK, you’re not a libertarian.”
“What am I then?”
“A socialist”
“No, what would you call someone who likes the government to help people but doesn’t want the government interfering in your personal life?”
“Except for gun control and your health, you mean?”
“Well, yeah”
“Yeah we call those Democrats.”
“OK, then I’m a Democrat”
She left happy. The point of that is that I worry about the very word libertarian being hijacked and taken over. It’s much more of a danger from those on the Left, because conservatives don’t change what they call themselves. Whereas the socialists have continually apply new lipstick to their pig. So we get progressives, liberals, and the always lovely “I don’t like labels”. How long until socialists try to redefine freedom (again) as “freedom from want” and hijack “libertarian”? Remember, liberal used to mean someone in favor of limited government. Then the left hijacked the word. Because liberal, like libertarian, just sounds nice. You don’t want to be against freedom, do you?
I think Mike Gravel, who is basically just a conventional left wing Democrat, is the first effort to take “libertarian”. Chomsky has referred to himself as libertarian as well and you really can’t find anyone who is less libertarian. Socialists redefine words, and I rather like the word “libertarian” I don’t want to have to come up with a new one to describe a supporter of limited government and laissez faire capitalism.
Britt is right; Mike Gravel is a conventional Democrat who was frustrated in his presidential aspirations and thought he could dupe the naifs in the Libertarian Party. The good news is that he failed. The bad news, though, is that he actually got some votes at the convention. So maybe Britt is also right that Gravel is the opening wedge in an attempted socialist hijacking of the libertarian name.
Back to the original Gravel quote, though: I have a theory (actually, I have many theories!) that the aggregate amount of power in any society is relatively constant, and (like matter/energy) it can neither be created nor destroyed, only shifted around. The goal of politics (broadly written) is to amass as much of it as you can. The goal of libertarianism is to disperse it as widely as possible, by limiting governmental power, pushing authority down to lower/local levels, etc. So from this perspective, if everyone “participated” in power equally it would be a pure libertarian society and we really would be free. Not precisely what Gravel meant, probably, but one possible interpretation of it.
Maybe, but how long until the Left said “money is also power, as a result we have to redistribute money equally,” and we end up with all the redistributive economic policies they always propose.
Sorry but no; freedom and (power) equality are mutually incompatible, for when you are free to excel equality cannot be maintained, and if equality is to be maintained, then freedom has to be limited.
That is what went wrong with the French Revolution. Equality and Fraternity ganged up on Liberty, and kept out-voting it.
Perhaps a ‘freedom’ party should be very specific about which freedom to endorse, since freedom can be attached to lots of things (freedom FROM poverty, FROM class, etc.) Those Freedoms invite governments to do something. Neil Smith, in ‘The Probability Broach’ talked about a ‘Propertarian’ party, presumably standing for the freedom to own property.
‘Libertarian’ is also a broad term. Anarchists use it, because they think we’ll be free without property to tie us down. In practice this becomes a micro-statist society, like a kibbutz or commune.
I think of myself as a Co-Monarchist, because we should all be entitled to be monarchs of our lands, and co-sharers in public lands and properties.
Other times, I use ‘PanSecessionist’- every land-owner should be able to secede from their surrounding society, if they choose. “Let Locals Rule!”
And statists would have a hard time distorting ‘Pansecessionism’ to mean ‘Pro-statism’!
Freedom is not a value conferred upon us by the state.
Freedom is not a value created by man.
Freedom is not really even a value at all.
Saying that freedom is a value is like saying that not being robbed, raped, and murdered is a value.
People who prattle nonsense such as “Without government welfare, people cannot enjoy the leisure and comfort that freedom is for.” suffer from the delusion that freedom is really “for” anything at all.
To have only freedom, and nothing else, is to have nothing at all. However, in the political context, “freedom” means freedom from coercion, and this is a necessary precondition for the pursuit of values. Freedom is empty, but contains the endless possibilities that a man needs to pursue happiness.
Alas, with all the opportunity it holds, freedom is nonetheless empty, and a nonvalue in itself. Thus, to hold freedom as a primary is to completely neglect true values, and a philosophy that holds freedom as its axiom is an empty philosophy.
It is this intellectual emptiness that allows a mongrel philosophy such as Libertarianism to be hijacked by socialists. With freedom as its highest value, Libertarianism is an empty philosophy, without any meaningful identity, built upon a yawning void, a void which socialists may cheerfully fill with any kind of intellectual garbage they please.
If we are to defeat socialism, we need a philosophy based on value, and not on freedom. Socialist looters and thugs cannot hijack a philosophy of value, since they have no values, no way of producing values, no sense of value, and no right to values.
Freedom is a precondition to the pursuit of value. However, it is something we have by natural default, and can only be taken from us by coercion. Therefore, the defense of freedom can only become an issue in cases where we are under attack by thugs. Worrying about our freedom when it is not under any impending attack is as pointless as worrying about whether or not there will still be air to breathe tommorow, and, ironically, it may even be contributing to the climate of fear in which socialism thrives.
Excellent comments here.
n005, there’s one bit of your comment that I’ll disagree with:
“However, in the political context, ‘freedom’ means freedom from coercion, and this is a necessary precondition for the pursuit of values.”
In the political context, it is liberty that stands for freedom from coercion. Freedom is a physical condition. Liberty is a political ideal.
And I’ve never thought of Libertariniasm as a mongrel philosophy. It has more body and soul that you would otherwise suggest. Perhaps I’ve read too much Rothbard, but there is a dynamism here that cannot be denied or redefined down.
TM
n005, stop that. You’re making me dizzy.
Whilst we can treat freedom as an abstract concept, unless we define ourselves as free for something, then the word becomes a vessel of chaos, something our philosophical enemies can use against us. It is better to think of freedom as like money, something which can be converted into any one thing, but which has no other value, or purpose. How do you feel about money n005?
Frederick: the error in question was probably mine. I was driving, trying to remember where the nearest Sixbucks was because I needed coffee, and also trying to see if the month sticker on the license plate on the car in front of me was “2” or “7.” I heard “Mike Gravell,” “Alaska,” and the quote itself. Although normally I’d agree that Err America Radio needs to improve their fact-checking, this time it’s my bad.
Laird: The interpretation you offer, I suspect, is not the one that most-accurately describes Thom Hartmann or most of his guests. Especially since I googled the quote and got a bunch of links to Ralph Nader, who I had not previously thought of as having any real use for freedom.
n005: That looks like Ayn Rand channeling Gabriel. Your post makes my brain hurt.
What struck me about the Gravel quote was, when power is used against you, you are still a (possibly unwilling) participant in its exercise. And even when you aren’t necessarily the target: look at California. California practices direct democracy (a broadly-decentralized exercise in power) to an extent not often seen in the civilized world. Is California free, relative to, say, CO/WY/MT/ID? “I am governor Jerry Brown. My aura smiles and never frowns…”
Approached another way: By virtue of my employment, I have a piece of laminated paper with my name and a really bad photo and a pretty logo that says that I have a little more latitude than the average Coloradan to deprive people of their freedom or their lives. I guess that’s power. Does that make me ‘free?’ Considering the constraints on my life[1] as a condition of that employment, does that power cause a net gain or loss in my freedom?
Which means, for this discussion to be meaningful, we need a single consistent definition of ‘freedom.’ n005, if I read him correctly (by no means guaranteed!) seems to take Janis’ definition.[2] I think there’s more to it than that.
[1] As a minor example, I’d basically be screwed if I were to use my real name here.
[2] ‘Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…’
I’ve never before heard libertarianism described as a “mongrel philosophy”, built upon a “yawning void” and containing nothing but “intellectual emptiness.” That’s rather depressing. I shall have to ponder it.
On first glance, though, it doesn’t seem to be entirely accurate. n005 views “freedom” as a sort of “hygiene factor” (in the Herzbergian sense), sort of a given which is noticed only in its absence. Perhaps so, in an ideal world, but in this world freedom’s absence is everywhere, and it’s palpable. Freedom is constantly under attack. On a numerical “freedom scale” we’re so far into the negative range that we can barely even see zero. So from this perspective the attainment of some increased quantum of “freedom” is itself a positive goal. When we get a little closer to zero we can start worrying about other values.
He is right, though, that we should be alert to the possiblity of the libertarian framework being hijacked by “socialist looters” (someone’s been reading Atlas Shrugged recently!). However, I don’t think that’s today’s problem.
Sunfish, with all due respect to Janis, that line was written by Kris Kristoferson.
The government promises freedom. To fulfill that promise, it require resources, which it must take from the citizenry. When government has taken all – when the citizens have nothing left to lose – the promise of freedom can be completely fulfilled.
Looks like Kristofferson and Gravel are on the same page.
The Rubber Duck wrote it? I learn something new every day.
n005:
?Que` quiere decir, estas palabras ‘true values?’ I’ve re-read the post again, both fatigued and rested, both drunk and sober, and I’m still lost.
Sunfish: yes, and his version is much better. He is also much better looking, not to mention much more alive.
You could actually say that about any value, n005.
Hey, I like Janis’ version! In fact, I like that whole album. But I will concede that Kristofferson is much more alive.