In einer Rede zum bayrischen Landestreffen der libertären Plattform hat Gérard Bökenkamp eine zentrale Frage der libertären Weltanschauung angesprochen. Die Frage, ob es sinnvoll sein kann, sich in der Politik zu engagieren oder ob man mit seinem Handeln dann nicht genau den Prinzipien widerspricht, die man zu fördern beabsichtigt. Seine Lösung bestand darin die Prinzipien des Libertarismus einem Idealbereich zuzuordnen, aus dem sie in der realen Welt nicht unmittelbar umgesetzt werden können. Für die Praktischen Konsequenzen dieser Überlegung kann ich mich durchaus erwärmen, aber die Konzepte auf den sie ruhen steht in Widerspruch zur Moral, wie ich sie denke. Bökenkamp auf dieser Ebene zu widersprechen ist ein Wagnis, denn die Konzepte, auf die er sich beruft, stehen in absoluten Einklang mit der neuzeitlichen Geistesgeschichte. Ich will es dennoch versuchen.

Seit Hume wird in der Philosophie streng das Seien, also die Beschreibung der Welt, vom Sollen, den moralischen Urteilen, getrennt. Wie das eine beschaffen ist, kann keine Auswirkungen auf die Beschaffenheit des anderen haben. Begründet hat Hume diese Barriere damit, dass um auf einen Satz zu schließen der „soll“ enthält, ein „soll“ in mindestens einer der Prämissen enthalten sein muss. Eine Schlussregel die ein „ist“ in ein „soll“ umformt gibt es nicht. Mit diesem Hintergrund ist es plausibel idealen ethischen Werten die reale Welt und ihre  Gesetzte gegenüberzustellen.

So weit muss ich mit der Tradition mitgehen. Dass es eine Wirkung von unserem Erfahrungsschatz (Seien) auf die moralischen Überzeugungen (Sollen) gibt, wird jedoch offensichtlich, wenn wir nicht von einem abstrakten Ich ausgehen, das auf das reine Denken beschränkt ist, sondern von lebendigen Menschen, die eine Entwicklung durchmachen. Die moralischen Überzeugungen eines Kindes sind andere als die eines Jugendlichen und dessen Überzeugungen sind wieder andere als die eines Erwachsenen.

Die Hintertür durch die das Sein in das Sollen eingeschmuggelt werden kann ist der Wille, um einen Moment bei Humes formal-logischen Überlegungen zu bleiben. Jedem Sollen liegt ein Willen zugrunde. Der Wille der Eltern, dem das Kind ausgeliefert ist, ist für das Kind das zu Befolgende. Verantwortung ergibt sich aus der gewollten Identifikation mit einer Sache. Im kategorischen Imperativ ist der Schluss vom Wollen aufs Sollen besonders transparent: „Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.“ Daraus folgt, dass wenn sich das wünschenswerte ändert, sich auch die moralischen Überzeugungen ändern können.

Die ethischen Ideale und die reale Welt liegen in der so gewonnenen Perspektive nicht nebeneinander, vielmehr müssen sich auch moralische Kriterien dem Test an der Realität stellen. Nahliegende Fragen die sich an moralische Kriterien richten, sind ob sie in der Praxis konsistent sind oder sie Annahmen enthalten, die sich nicht aufrechterhalten lassen. Die Brisanz solcher Fragen liegt darin, dass unsere Handlungsfähigkeit von der Konsistenz unserer Handlungen abhängt. Man kann einen Realitätstest für moralische Kriterien auch so formulieren: Können sie zur eigenen Handlungsfähigkeit beitragen oder führen sie in Dilemmata, die dazu zwingen die moralischen Kriterien weiter auszudifferenzieren.

In einer Moral die sich auf die dargelegte Weise versteht gibt es keinen Widerspruch zwischen Verantwortungs- und Gesinnungsethik. Ziehen Moralvorstellung Konsequenzen nach sich, die man nicht bereit ist in Kauf zu nehmen, ist das ein Anlass die Moralvorstellungen zu überdenken. Für das Dilemma, ob sich ein Anarchokapitalist an der Politik beteiligen soll, bedeutet das, dass man sich überlegen muss, ob durch die Beteiligung das NAP gefördert wird oder geschwächt. Zu keinem anderen Schluss ist auch Bökenkamp gekommen. Viel gravierender ist die Frage ob der Staat notwendig ist, denn dann ist der Anarchokapitalismus mit der hier skizierten Metamoral nicht vereinbar.

Murray Rothbard’s seminal but often overlooked work, America’s Great Depression, is especially enlightening since the 2007 financial crisis.  If you want to read the entire 400 page book (which I highly recommend), here it is.  If you’re short on time, here’s a 12 page summary of the main arguments in the book with some additional context.  Enjoy.

Traigo aquí un texto de Wally Conger, destacado militante y pensador agorista y una de las figuras importantes en la Alliance of Libertarian Left. Es una entrada de su interesante blog: “Out of step”, de obligada consulta para quien guste de estos temas.

Una visión personal de como entiende él el concepto libertarian left, término que incluye a anarquistas individualistas, agoristas, mutualistas, voluntaristas e incluso socialistas voluntarios.

Cualquier error en la traducción es achacable a mi persona.

Sin más:

DEFINIENDO “LEFT LIBERTARIANISM”

La blogosfera ha producido algunas interesantes discusiones en los días pasados sobre qué es izquierda y que es derecha en el cosmos libertario.

BW Richardson, se pregunta, por ejemplo, si todos podemos ser ambidiestros. Qué es izquierda y qué es derecha parece cambiar con el tiempo, escribe. Quizá todos somos ambidiestros al final. El verdadero y eterno tema parece ser el individuo frente al estado. Voy a confiar en la persona cercana a mí en lugar de en la amorfa burocracia en todo momento. El post de Richardson es terrible y les recomiendo leerlo.

            Mientras tanto, Roderick T. Long, editor del Journal of Libertarian Studies, responde a la pregunta de por qué se define a si mismo como un Left Libertarian. Consultar directamente su post por la variedad de enlaces existentes:

            “En primer lugar, en muchas de las cuestiones sobre las que los libertarios mainstream se encuentran divididos, yo la termino en el lado izquierdo del asunto: anarquista, anti militarista, anti propiedad intelectual, contra el castigo y por consiguiente contra la pena de muerte, contra las grandes corporaciones, pro inmigración, pro aborto, pro secularización, pro derechos gays etc.

            Pero más allá de eso comparto muchas de las inquietudes culturales izquierdistas que no se ven en la actualidad como temas libertarios (aunque históricamente lo fueron) como una preocupación por el empobrecimiento de los trabajadores y la oposición a la supremacía del sexo masculino.

            Además, creo que la raza y el género son, en gran parte, construcciones sociales; reconozco la existencia de formas de opresión no estatales (aún cuando no defiendo el estatismo como solución); he tenido palabras amables para el multiculturalismo, el postmodernismo, la corrección política, el ambientalismo y la propiedad colectiva; y considero al libertarismo como firmemente enraizado en el igualitarismo.

            Sin embargo, para todos soy un Rothbardiano ortodoxo al 90% sobre la teoría de los derechos y la economía. (De hecho a veces me defino a mí mismo como un Rothbardiano de izquierdas, aunque no específicamente en el sentido de Konkin en esta expresión). Mientras que extraigo mucha inspiración de los autodenominados socialistas voluntarios  como Benjamin Tucker no estoy en absoluto atraído por las limitaciones tuckeritas sobre la propiedad privada de la tierra (dejando al margen a los georgistas); no busco la eliminación del trabajo asalariado (aunque me gustaría ver más cooperativas de trabajadores disponibles como una alternativa competitiva); no acepto los derechos de los animales (aunque creo que tenemos serias obligaciones morales con ellos); y no tengo paciencia con el relativismo filosófico y/o materialismo que a veces se encuentra en la izquierda académica”.

            En respuesta a Long, James Leroy Wilson añade algunos puntos a su percepción de la izquierda libertaria.

“Si la lucha se define como la libertad frente a la igualdad yo siempre estaría a favor de la libertad y caería en la derecha por eso. Pero debatir eso es similar a debatir entre esclavitud contra jerarquía”

            “La libertad y la igualdad están en el mismo lado, la izquierda. Ambas están en contra de la jerarquía jurídicamente protegida. Libertad frente a coacción, igualdad frente a jerarquía, de cualquier manera que se enuncie es la misma batalla. Una libertad igualitaria es la única forma verdadera de libertad, y la única forma deseable de igualdad”.

            Adoro toda esta discusión filosófica sobre etiquetas políticas. Realmente me encanta, pero mis razones para contarme entre los libertarios de izquierda son mucho más simples.

            Soy de izquierdas porque estoy de acuerdo con las definiciones de Karl Hess de izquierda y derecha, que amplió las definiciones de Murray Rothbard de los años 60.

            Soy de izquierdas porque creo que históricamente la izquierda se remontó primero a nuestros antepasados liberales clásicos lo que a menudo significa anti-stablishment y oposición.

            Soy de izquierdas porque todos mis ancestros políticos, incluyendo HL Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Randolph Bourne, y George Orwell son todos hombres de izquierda.

            Y por último soy de izquierda porque George W. Bush, William F. Buckley, Jr., Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Novak, y Sean Hannity (algunas de las prima donna del movimiento neocon. Nota del traductor.) son hombres de la derecha.

In libertären Veröffentlichungen ist mit Milton Friedman und Murray Rothbard die Aussage populär geworden, dass Steuern Diebstahl seien.

Für Nicht-Libertäre ist dies eine der Aussagen, die so stark vom Konsens abweichen, dass sie geeignet ist, Libertäre in die Ecke von Verrückten zu stellen.

Sehen wir uns die Aussage deshalb in Bezug auf das deutsche Recht etwas genauer an:

Im Sinne des § 242 StGB (Strafgesetzbuch) begeht Diebstahl, wer eine fremde bewegliche Sache in der Absicht wegnimmt, sie sich oder einem Dritten rechtswidrig zuzueignen.

Man könnte in diesem Sinne argumentieren, dass Besteuerung als Diebstahl einzuordnen ist, weil dem Bürger eine bewegliche Sache (Geld) weggenommen wird, um sie sich (dem Staat) oder einem Dritten (Umverteilung) zuzueignen.

Falls diese Argumentation schlüssig ist – was ist der Grund, dass Steuern Steuern genannt werden, und nicht unter den Tatbestand des Diebstahls fallen?

Wichtig ist in diesem Zusammenhang der Begriff “rechtswidrig”. Eine Besteuerung ist im Sinne des Gesetzes nicht rechtswidrig, weil der Staat die Gesetzlichkeit der Besteuerung durch Definition der Steuergesetzgebungshoheit im Grundgesetz festgelegt hat. Der Staat hat in den von ihm definierten Gesetzen also für sich selbst festgelegt, dass die Wegnahme von Geld durch den Staat zur Erfüllung der selbstgegebenen Aufgaben nicht unter Diebstahl, sondern unter den Begriff Besteuerung fällt.

Es handelt sich dabei um ein selbstreferentielles System. Die begriffliche Unterscheidung zwischen Besteuerung und Diebstahl ist nur möglich, weil der Staat Recht in Zivilrecht und Öffentliches Recht unterscheidet, d.h., dass für den Staat und die in seinem Auftrag handelnden Bürger ein anderes Recht gilt als für die restlichen Bürger. Im Auftrag des Staates handelnde Bürger können deshalb unsanktioniert Handlungen durchführen, die für andere Bürger einen Straftatbestand darstellen und deshalb verboten sind. Nach der “Einheitlichkeit der Rechtsordnung” kann Staatsdienern strafrechtlich nicht verboten sein, was ihnen anderweitig erlaubt ist.

In einer Gesellschaft mit einheitlichem Recht müssten der Staat und seine Bediensteten denselben Regeln unterliegen wie alle Bürger, er dürfte selbst keine Methoden anwenden, die er generell als schädlich definiert. Mit diesem stringenten Ansatz würde der Staat aber seine eigene Existenz delegitimieren. Wünschenswerte Strukturen könnten nur noch durch Vereinbarung erzielt werden; hielte sich der Staat selbst an die Regeln, die er für seine Bürger erlässt, wäre ein staatliches Gewaltmonopol ausgeschlossen.

Das staatliche Gewaltmonopol entspringt deshalb aus dieser unterschiedlichen Definition, was Recht ist – die Bürger, die den “Staat” ausmachen, dürfen Zwang anwenden, wo es den anderen Bürgern nicht erlaubt ist.

Wir stoßen damit auch auf ein fehlendes Element der oben angeführten libertären Aussage “Besteuerung ist Diebstahl”. Eine durchführbare Besteuerung setzt voraus, dass der Staat diese auch per Zwang durchsetzen kann. Wer sich der Besteuerung entzieht, kann mit Entzug der Freiheit bestraft werden, die Steuern werden zwangsweise eingezogen.

Ergänzt man die gesetzliche Definition von Diebstahl um dieses Element “Zwang” (im juristischen Sinne “Nötigung”), kommt man vom § 242 und dem Delikt Diebstahl direkt zum § 249 StGB, der “Raub” definiert: Tatobjekt des Raubes ist wie bei Diebstahl die Zueignung einer fremden beweglichen Sache, jedoch unter Anwendung von Zwangsmitteln.

Bezahlt der Steuerpflichtige in Erwartung des drohenden Übels die Steuern schon, bevor andere Bürger ihm diese im Auftrag der Staatsorgane entziehen, wäre der Sachverhalt als “räuberische Erpressung” einzuordnen.

Die libertäre Aussage, dass Besteuerung Diebstahl sei, ist deshalb vor dem aufgezeigten juristischen Hintergrund nicht vollständig.

Bewegt man sich innerhalb des Systems und akzeptiert, dass Staatsbedienstete nach anderen Regeln handeln dürfen als der Privatmann, kann Besteuerung weiter Besteuerung genannt werden.

Für diejenigen, die nur solches Recht für Recht halten, das ausnahmslos für alle gleich gilt, wäre eine Besteuerung mit dem Begriff “Raub” und “räuberische Erpressung” statt “Diebstahl” besser kategorisiert.

La creación de este nuevo partido ha suscitado un interesante debate en el que han participado desde liberales minarquistas hasta todo tipo de ocupantes del espacio conocido como “libertarian left“, es decir, una miríada de individuos que se mueven en el espectro anarco individualista, agorista, mutualista y similares y en el cual me incluyo.

También ha suscitado debate entre ciertos liberal conservadores de la órbita Red Liberal, pero ese es otro debate que no quiero emprender, temerosos de que un partido autodenominado liberal proponga cosas tan sensatas como que religión y política son ámbitos diferenciados y que no se puede, desde el liberalismo, intentar imponer al resto de la población una visión moral concreta.

Victor Koman resume la postura agorista sobre el tema en su polémico panfleto “Death to the Party” que consiste básicamente en que no es legítimo moralmente participar en política pues si realmente se desea disminuir o eliminar la coacción estatal, haciéndolo se está participando del sistema que se dice atacar.

Lo correcto sería practicar la Contraeconomía, todo tipo de intercambios voluntarios entre individuos, sean estos tolerados o prohibidos por el estado. Desde compraventas hasta el tráfico de drogas.

Guerra cultural, ideológica y pequeños sabotajes que vayan minando la capacidad del Leviathan para obtener alimento a la vez que se le deslegitima. Llevamos años clamando por un Gramsci libertario.

Víctor L. desde la imprescindible página mutualista en la que participa también está en contra . Todos sus argumentos son correctos, a mi entender, como la desmovilización y conformismo en la que caen los que participan en política y la apelación a la lucha cultural.

Propone la siguiente secuencia de actuación: 1) difusión cultural; 2) asociacionismo y economía social 3) agorismo y contra economía; y 4) huelga de contribuyentes, que considero otra vez muy acertada, culminando en esa fase de desobediencia explícita cuando la fruta estatal esté madura para caer del árbol.

Pues bien, compartiendo todos los argumentos en contra expuestos, he de decir que tras meditarlo mucho, luchar contra mi “yo sensato” que me instaba a no ensuciar mis manos en el lodazal de la política he tomado la decisión de pedir mi alta en el partido, por varias razones:

-El altavoz mediático que supone un partido, con posibilidad de convocar a la prensa o espacios electorales gratuítos entre otras cosas, que hacen que una idea pueda llegar a gente totalmente ajena a la blogosfera libertaria.

-La renuncia expresa que se hace en sus estatutos a aceptar financiación pública, donándose inmediatamente a la organización que se decida, el fruto del expolio. Además, de llegar a darse el hecho de obtener un cargo público el acto de renuncia será muy comentado si se maneja hábilmente y el ciudadano empezará a cuestionarse sobre la justicia de la financiación vía impuestos de partidos, sindicatos y confesiones varias.

-La posibilidad, meramente estadística, de que al darse a conocer un ideal basado en la libertad (aunque en este caso minarquista) a gran parte de la población surja interés por profundizar en el mismo en un cierto número de gente que ahora no existe.

-El hecho de que a pesar de compartir todas las objeciones, no es incompatible la práctica de la contraeconomía, la difusión cultural y la guerrilla ideológica con la idea del partido siempre que se tenga claro hacia donde se va y cuál es el objetivo último y nuestra actividad partidista no vaya en dirección contraria.

Mi actitud allí dentro será un poco, permítaseme el símil, como la de los batasunos con respecto a E.T.A., una ambigüedad calculada con respecto a los crímenes sin víctima. El sistema actual condena al traficante, al evasor fiscal, al que pretende la secesión pacífica de un territorio y nosotros, aún estando dentro del sistema no marcaremos distancias con ellos sino que se tratará de explicar al público por qué se condenan ciertas conductas aún no existiendo víctima real. NO A LOS CRÍMENES SIN VÍCTIMA, no son legítimas construcciones jurídicas como los llamados crímenes contra la sociedad.

Una vez dentro, trataré según los cauces correspondientes,  de luchar por modificar ciertas cosas que me chirrían sobremanera como esa apelación a la intervención militar humanitaria o para extender los ideales democráticos.

El liberalismo (no hablo ya de anarquismo) en el S.XIX era aislacionista en aventuras militares exteriores en gran parte (luego llegaron aberraciones como el liberalismo imperialista británico que contribuyó a demoler esa ideología al ceder terreno a los estatistas).

Como dijo Randolph Bourne, “La guerra es la salud del estado” puesto que todas esas medidas extraordinarias que se adoptan en tiempo de guerra difícilmente se revierten al acabar los conflictos, ampliando así el estado su poder de coerción masiva.

Las víctimas inocentes que se provocan no son asumibles, salvo si se ha caído demasiado profundamente en el dogma estatal.

Dejo como muestra de mi postura sobre el tema el “Who we are” de la imprescindible página libertaria Antiwar.com.

También me gustaría luchar por que la apelación que se hace a la privatización de lo público no se convierta en conferir favores a los plutócratas de siempre, manchados de origen sus negocios por los favores, protecciones y prebendas estatales. Sus propiedades no son legítimas.

En su caso, la idea sería que, dada la ilegalidad de la ocupación estatal, se devolviera a sus trabajadores la propiedad de la industria o servicio, dividiéndose en las entidades más pequeñas posibles con capacidad funcional.

En la línea de lo argumentado por Rothbard en “How and how not to Desocialize“

Tras estas pequeñas pinceladas de futura línea de actuación no me queda más que esperar no haberme equivocado con esta decisión, reversible en cualquier caso, y que la experiencia sirva de algo aunque lo veo complicado dado el panorama actual.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been listening to Murray N. Rothbard’s For a New Liberty thanks to the folks at Mises.org.  I’ve got to figure out how to get my wife to listen to the series.  If only Rothbard were more interesting than tweener vampires. ¹ 

¹ My wife is currently enthralled with the Twilight book series.  I think she’s reread the whole series four times over by now.  I have no idea how I’m going to get her to listen to over 15 hours of libertarian theory and philosophy.

Una banca centrale, anche se nominalmente posseduta da individui privati o da banche private, è sempre diretta da funzionari demandati dal governo. Di qui la necessità di riformulare — ammesso che siano mai state formulate — le nozioni di “pubblico” e “privato”.

La posizione di comando della banca centrale deriva dal privilegio monopolistico, concesso dal governo, nell’emissione delle note (banconote).

Le banche private non sono autorizzate a emettere note. Le banche private sono autorizzate solo a offrire depositi. Tra i depositi oggi facciamo rientrare anche quelli che chiamiamo quotidianamente conti correnti (transactional account, checking account, Negotiable Order of Withdrawal account). Se il cliente di una banca desidera convertire il suo deposito in note, la banca deve rivolgersi alla banca centrale, va dalla banca centrale — istituzione convalidata, regolarizzata, giustificata e avvalorata dal governo — per avere le note.

dimoites@gruppopigreco.it

I’m a “pure” mathematician by training, meaning that the math I studied was incredibly abstract and totally divorced from application outside the realm of ideas.  My job is the other side of that coin, essentially applied mathematician in engineering and science applications.  So when it comes to thinking mathematically about various fields, I have pretty good perspective.

Murray Rothbard rejected, as Austrian economists tend to do, what he called Mathematical Economics:

The mathematical method, like so many other fallacies, has entered and dominated present-day economic thought because of the pervading epistemology of positivism. Positivism is essentially an interpretation of the methodology of physics ballooned into a general theory of knowledge for all fields.

The reasoning runs like this: Physics is the only really successful science. The “social sciences” are backward because they cannot measure, predict exactly, etc. Therefore, they must adopt the method of physics in order to become successful. And one of the keystones of physics, of course, is the use of mathematics.

The positivists tend to separate the world into the truths of physics on the one hand and “poetry” on the other; hence their use of mathematics and their scorn for verbal economics as being “literary.”

If we grant Rothbard his terminology, it’s pretty easy to see what he’s driving at.  Mathematics (and what he really means is the “applied mathematics” style of math) is misapplied in conventional economics, in an effort to bolster it up with greater scientific rigor.  He goes on to explain that the very feature of physics that makes mathematical descriptions so fitting breaks down in the comparison to economics — economics is governed axiomatically by human behavior, by motivation, whereas physics is not.

But I don’t grant Rothbard his terminology.  Like most physicists, he has mathematics all wrong.  So-called “verbal economics”, and Austrian economics in particular, seems to me far more mathematical than the “mathematical economics” of the physicists.  Beginning with a set of axioms, and rules for interpreting logically and for defining concepts, conclusions in Austrian economics are in fact logically proven, mathematical proofs in verbal form.  Just like most “pure” math is.

In economics, … we know the cause, for human action, unlike the movement of stones, is motivated. Therefore, we may build economics on the basis of axioms — such as the existence of human action and the logical implications of action — which are originally known as true.

From these axioms we can deduce step by step, therefore, laws which are also known as true. And this knowledge is absolute rather than relative precisely because the original axioms are already known.

This is the nature of mathematical proof, not of demonstrated correlation between mathematics and physical reality (as in physics).  Even his discussion of the use of calculus, with its reliance on the infinitesimal, demonstrates the point — the infinitesimal in physics is just a convenient tool for simplifying the consideration of massive discrete systems.  In reality, as in math, the infinitesimal only applies to ideas.

It’s no wonder that as a mathematician I am so strongly attracted to the Austrian school.  I find their axioms intuitive.  I find their arguments compelling.  I find their conclusions reasonable.  I find their distrust of shoddy math reassuring.  I find their impact on my wallet convincing.

Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Unfortunately, it’s a remark taken (heavily) out of context from an article called “What’s wrong with libertarianism” with the subtext “”The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of other people.” — Abraham Lincoln”. As you can imagine, I raged pretty hard at this one. Lets being to see who exactly he’s attacking, why, and the core fallacies of his(her?) argument.

First off, the link to the article , note he called the article “Libertos” and the extremely anti-immigration banner

Ignoring the Abraham Lincoln quote because it’s too large a topic to be  addressed quickly, we’ll move on to who he claims to be speaking to. He states that, after two re-writes, he isn’t talking to any libertarians that

“have never heard of (or don’t think much of) Rothbard, Rockwell, Rand, and von Mises, accept that the FDIC is a pretty good idea, and want a leaner, more efficient government, but don’t dream of getting rid of it”

and follows that up by supporting anyone who agrees with those three things.

Clearly, he’s talking to me.

While I appreciate that on a list of the front runners of intellectual libertarianism that Rothbard comes first, he puts Ayn Rand in the same list. This seems to be the popular anti-libertarian argument, to brand us as a collective under the objectivist movement, which I and most others clearly are not. Rand wasn’t much more then an author in my opinion, and it’s shameful how quickly a news anchor will shove irrelevant “Atlas Shrugged” jokes and references at anyone who begins to support a libertarian argument.

Also, Objectivism is clearly for a limited government, Objectivism being the movement Rand founded. Other then making his first and third qualification of who he is talking to contradictory, it also proves that he see’s any “radical”  libertarian philosophy as an unthinking borg. A borg he suspected wouldn’t find his article and meticulously rebut it.

The statement of addressees  is followed up by a suggestin for those not listed, “On the other hand, you might want to stick around to see what your more fundamentalist colleagues are saying”. Clearly he is using the term fundamentalist to call people who think like me unreasonable. However, the meaning of fundamentalism is just someone who believes strictly in a set of principles. The difference between me the fundamentalist and the pejorative fundamentalist he tries to label me as is that one of my principals is that I will never try to force my principals on anyone else, something that couldn’t be said of him.

His arrangement after that is that libertarianism sprang from an anti-communist movement and flipped their ideals around.  It’s not a bad argument. I would say the libertarianism begat communism and therefor could not have been in reaction to it, but essentially it is almost the opposite of communism. The problem with how this author puts it isn’t in the center of that argument, but misstating the principals of a libertarian. The first being that, in opposition to the “anti-capitalist” views of the communist that we think “Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes”. Assuming he’s not referring to the nihilist race of people from the TV show Andromeda, I figured he meant Nietzschean. It’s important to realize that libertarians (of the truest sense) don’t see capitalism as a political idea but a means of trade. Capitalism at it’s simplest is using a medium of exchange to make easier the process of trading goods and services. Capitalism is not Corporatism, which is what this guy is trying to make you think. Also, referring to libertarians as Nietschean’s is clearly an ad hominem attack and is not at all based on logic.

I’m going to take a break here and continue to address this article either later today or next weeks post (it’s quite a large article to cover). Be sure to leave comments here (and on any of the articles mentioned here) to be sure to make your thoughts heard!

This is a subject I am incredibly interested in, one that I hope to someday explore with hours of research.

Up to this point, I haven’t had much time to really dive into it, but articles like the one I found on the Mises Institute’s website yesterday keep my interested spark alive.

Carl Watner wrote Libertarians and Indians: Proprietary Justice and Aboriginal Land Rights [pdf] in 1983. It is a short essay, only about 8 pages, but it’s a great introduction to the issues surrounding American colonists’ first not-so-legitimate land grabs, taken from the aboriginal people on the east coast of what is now the U.S.

In my opinion, most of the issue can be summarized by what Watner says on page 6 (coincidentally italicized in the .pdf):

The main question to settle is whether they rightfully owned the land upon which they regularly or sporadically hunted.

Now, in analyzing the horrendous injustices that caucasian settlers have carried out upon the native people of our geographic area now called the U.S., one must go back to the beginning of the taking of native lands, that’s why I intoduced an essay on centuries old property issues first. There is no question that our government’s current stance on native rights is less than ideal, but before speaking of current problems, we must look at how settlers originally dealt with property allocation and claims way back in the 17th and 18th centuries.

In doing so, I found this paper, and I was pleasantly surprised when the preceeding quote popped out at me from Watner’s paper. There is no question in my mind (or most other private property rights-oriented people I imagine) that the east coast native peoples rightfully owned all land they actively farmed, utilized as foundation for dwelling areas, or otherwise used on a regular basis.

However, the question that scholars disagree on is whether or not people can lay just claim to land they sporadically use, hunt on, or otherwise do not regularly use, or cultivate.

Two thinkers in particular, which Watner immediately mentions after the aformentioned sentence, are Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, two giants in classic (although differing greatly) libertarian theory.

Watner says:

Lysander Spooner in the mid-nineteenth century asserted that those lands which the Indians merely roamed over in search of game, could not be said to have been rightfully owned by them.

And:

Similarly, Rothbard has written that the bulk of Indian claimed land was not settled and transformed by the Indians, and that the new European settlers were justified in ignoring the Indians’ vague abstract claims because they knew they were the first to actually cultivate and enclose the lands upon which they settled.

The source material for the Rothbard reference is on page 187 in Volume 1 of his monumentous work Conceived in Liberty, available here [pdf], and I quote:

While the Indians were certainly entitled to the land they cultivated, they also (1) laid claim to vast reaches of land which they hunted but which they did not transform by cultivation, and (2) owned the land not as individual Indians, but as collective tribal entities.

His first point is somewhat valid, I think, and it hits at the heart of the entire arguement, though I think it’s incredibly simplified. Moreover, it serves as the opined basis for one of the weakest topics in libertarian circles: aboriginal land rights in America.

The most important word in the first point Rothbard makes is cultivate. American Heritage defines it as such:

cul·ti·vate // (klt-vt)

tr.v. cul·ti·vat·ed, cul·ti·vat·ing, cul·ti·vates

1.

a. To improve and prepare (land), as by plowing or fertilizing, for raising crops; till.

b. To loosen or dig soil around (growing plants).

2. To grow or tend (a plant or crop).

3. To promote the growth of (a biological culture).

4. To nurture; foster. See Synonyms at nurture.

5. To form and refine, as by education.

6. To seek the acquaintance or goodwill of; make friends with.

For me, the key (thanks to my linguistics teacher last semester) lies in the word’s root:

[Medieval Latin cultvre, cultvt-, from cultvus, tilled, from Latin cultus, past participle of colere, to till; see k^wel-¹ in Indo-European roots.]

The root of, and still most common definition, of cultivate is “to till.”

There’s no way to know exactly what Rothbard meant by his use of the word (unless he defines it somewhere else, which I am unaware of), but I would hope he meant to improve the land in a number of ways, not just farming techniques or other agricultural activities.

So, if we accept that his definition of cultivate would encompass a wide range of activities, why wouldn’t hunting be included?

I think the key lies further in Watner’s essay, when he comments:

If and where the Indians attempted to bound off their hunting lands, so that no one else could enter and game could not escape, and where they made efforts to help propagate game, then their ownership would be valid.

This is Watner’s opinion, and I don’t completely agree with it.

Say I own (according to our modern rules of title, etc.) a large piece of the prairie here in South Dakota, maybe 20 acres, yet I only farm half of it and wish to keep the other 10 acres in a natural, untilled state for the sake of area wildlife, or to simply sit on my porch and paint a picture of my beautiful untouched land; do I not still own my full 20 acres? Do I need to put up a fence around the natural 10 acres in order for it to be mine? What if I would like white tail deer, raccons, muskrats, pheasants, and all other wildlife in the area to pass uninhibited on to and off my land? Why should I have to “ma[k]e efforts to help propagate game? I don’t like the idea of game and fish department employees setting up game feed areas on their public hunting areas, so why should I have to set up similar areas on my land in order to retain ownership?

On Rothbard’s second claim, the fact that the Indian’s land claims were invalid because they were collectively owned, I say this: If the native people were voluntarily and peacefully organized into tribes of their choosing, no force or coercion involved, wouldn’t that mean their collective ownership would be valid? I say that reluctantly, because I’m sure a myriad of literature on that very question exists, but right now at 5 p.m. on this Saturday afternoon it seems like a legitimate claim to me.

In short, I don’t have any sort of an answer for this dilemna, but I think it’s an incredible subject. So much work has been done in libertarian institutes, “think tanks” and intellectual circles on issues of private property, yet the list of literature on this specific issue is tiny, as far as I know.

Anyone have any other quality research material out there that could help in resolution of some of my questions?

C’è una parola che in Italia, e non solo, viene spesso martoriata, stuprata nel suo significato; questa parola è libertà.

La libertà è poter fare quello che si vuole? No. La libertà è qualcosa di molto più profondo.

Con molta semplificazione potrei dire che esistono due grandi approcci al concetto di libertà: la libertà positiva, o  libertà effettiva (di scegliersi una vita cui, a ragion veduta, si dia valore), in un senso assai vicino a quello della real freedom di Philippe Van Parijs, e la libertà negativa tanto cara ai libertians americani di “destra”, cioè gli anarco capitalisti, i libertari conservatori o i minarchici (per citarne alcuni). La sostanziale differenza tra i due approcci è proprio sul concetto stesso di libertà. Il liberalismo di “destra” così come quello classico concentrano l’attenzione sull’estensione dei diritti di proprietà, sia sulle cose che sulla persona (self ownership) mentre trascura la distribuzione dei diritti di proprietà stessi. Ciò avviene soprattutto a causa dell’idea monistica della proprietà che viene intesa come un insieme dato e fisso di caratteristiche. La teoria funzionalista del diritto ha posto in discussione questa visione interpretando la proprietà come fascio di prerogative che non necessariamente sono presenti in ogni circostanza. Un esempio di tale impostazione si ha nella scuola di analisi economica del diritto che adotta il criterio dell’efficiente utilizzo delle risorse economiche come guida per modellare il contenuto dei diritti di proprietà. In tal modo si apre la strada per aggiungere ai due elementi classici dell’approccio libertario alla proprietà, cioè quello della sicurezza (“esiste una struttura di diritti di proprietà ben definiti”, sottratti quindi all’arbitrio) e quello della proprietà su se stessi (self ownership), anche l’elemento caratterizzante della opportunità concreta per l’individuo di perseguire la propria concezione della vita, il che è reso possibile da un’appropriata struttura del sistema dei diritti. E’ questo l’elemento che introduce un tratto sostanziale, che riempie l’idea della libertà negativa di un contenuto positivo, detto altrimenti la rende effettiva rispetto alla sola idea della assenza di coercizione propria del libertarismo classico. Il premio nobel per l’economia Amartya Sen introduce il concetto di capabilities cioè quell’insieme di funzionamenti ( stadi di essere a cui gli individui attribuiscono valore: mangiare, ad esempio) che un individuo riesce a compiere. 
La combinazione dei funzionamenti effettivi di una persona rispecchia la sua riuscita reale, l’insieme delle capacitazioni rappresenta la sua libertà di riuscire, le combinazioni alternative di funzionamenti tra cui essa può scegliere. Un uomo che non ha la libertà di riuscire a nutrirsi è libero? Io penso proprio di no.

La libertà positiva è fondamentale per comprendere l’approccio del socialismo libertario che vuole rompere il monopolio liberale e capitalista che considera esclusivamente i diritti di proprietà.

Nel titolo ho voluto, provocatoriamente, citare il nostro presidente del consiglio e penso che, in questo momento, il lettore si stia chiedendo: “ma Berlusconi cosa c’entra?” Belusconi non c’entra niente. Penso che un vero libertario (ma anche un vero liberale) innoridisca tutte le volte che il cavaliere parla di libertà. La libertà di cui si riempe la bocca il nostro presidente del consiglio consiste nello schedare i bambini rom, nel perseguitare le persone che sono clandestine, nel difendere con leggi e leggine la sua proprietà e le varie corporazioni contro il libero mercato. Berlusconi, in un famoso discorso a Tripoli, ha affermato che Gheddafi, dittatore da 40 anni, è il paladino della libertà, suscitando l’iralità nel pubblico presente.  Ha senso parlare di libertà in questi termini? Penso di no.  Giocate a sistemare il Pdl nello schema creato da David Nolan.

Sen, A. K
La libertà individuale come impegno sociale, Roma–Bari, Laterza
Etica ed economia, Roma-Bari, Laterza
Sviluppo è libertà, Milano, Mondatori

Van Parijs, P.
Real freddom for all, Oxford University Press

http://cygielski.com/blog/2009/08/05/another-take-on-rothbard/

La maggior parte delle banche degli Stati Uniti sono ubicate nel New England, territorio avverso all’entrata in guerra del Paese. Queste banche si rifiutano di prestare denaro per scopi bellici. Quindi, il governo decide di prendere a prestito da nuove banche in altri stati. Queste banche emettono nuova cartamoneta per fare i loro prestiti. L’inflazione è così smodata che le richieste di conversione sommergono le nuove banche. Le richieste provengono soprattutto dalle banche non inflattive del New England, dove il governo aveva speso la maggior parte del denaro in prodotti bellici. Risultato: sospensione dei pagamenti dal 1814 al 1816, oltre la fine della guerra. In quel periodo, spuntano banche emittenti esenti dalla copertura in oro o argento.

dimoites@gruppopigreco.it

In una prassi competitiva tra banche, esistono tre importanti argini all’inflazione:
1. l’ampiezza della clientela di ciascuna banca;
2. l’ampiezza della clientela del complesso bancario, cioè l’estensione dell’utilizzo di sostituti monetari da parte delle persone;
3. la fiducia dei clienti nelle loro banche.

Meno clienti ha una banca, meno inflattivo è il sistema.

I privilegi e il controllo sulla compagine bancaria ottenuti dai governi hanno soppresso questi argini.

Il fondamento di questi argini è uno e uno solo: il dovere delle banche di pagare a vista i propri debiti. E una banca a riserva frazionaria non è in grado di rifondere tutte le proprie passività.

Per fare in modo che una banca sia legittimata a non adempiere i propri oneri contrattuali, il governo le accorda il privilegio di astensione dai pagamenti e la continuazione dell’attività.

Mentre qualunque soggetto, se non salda i debiti, fallisce, le banche sono esenti dal riscatto delle proprie ricevute e al tempo stesso sono autorizzate a esigere dai loro debitori il rimborso dei prestiti alla scadenza.

Tutto questo ha un nome: FURTO.

dimoites@gruppopigreco.it

Il monopolio coniativo e (la legislazione sul)la valuta forzosa furono le chiavi di volta dei governi per ottenere il controllo delle monete nazionali. All’interno di ciascun Paese, era autorizzata solo la moneta di quel governante; mentre tra Paesi, erano utilizzati oro e argento non coniati. Così il mercato mondiale si smembrò, inceppandosi la divisione internazionale del lavoro.

Tuttavia, l’esistenza di una moneta metallica non permetteva al governo di inflazionare a volontà.

Il controllo statale della moneta divenne assoluto, e la falsificazione incontrastata, solo con la ribalta dei sostituti monetari. L’avvento della cartamoneta e dei depositi bancari, doni straordinari se coperti in toto da oro o argento, diedero ai governi il potere totale sulla moneta, e quindi sull’intero sistema economico.

dimoites@gruppopigreco.it

I was debating the issue of anarchy and was directed to this article (pdf) by Prof. Moshe Kroy which highlights some fundamental differences between Rand’s philosophy and Rothbard’s including the scope of free will.

According to Rand’s theory of human freedom, man’s only fundamental freedom, the sole domain in which he is capable of being a “first cause”, the only realm where he can exercise absolutely unpre-determined choice, is his own consciousness. Man’s basic choice is between identifying the facts of reality through an act of consciousness, and evading the knowledge of these facts. This freedom does not extend to man’s decisions and actions: Your decisions and actions are the necessary product of your values and premises, Rand claims.
…
Rothbard’s theory of man, however, assumes another dimension of freedom in man: the freedom to make decisions, to originate action. For Rothbard values, and their hierarchy, are not the product of perception alone, though, clearly, his writing implies that awareness of the facts is highly relevant to your choice of values.

In Rand’s words (also look at the related concept of focus)

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.
…
In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make.
…
Psychologically, the choice “to think or not” is the choice “to focus or not.”
(Emphasis mine)

I am not quoting Rothbard because I have not read his works. Aristotle The Geek has directed me to this article by Rothbard but the focus of that article is more on refuting determinism than the scope of free will.

How does one decide which theory is correct? The existence of a choice to focus or not (ranging from no focus to full focus) is immediately available to introspection. When I am solving a difficult problem, I am consciously choosing to be fully focused. When I try to go to sleep, I consciously suspend my focus. But does free will extend beyond that? Am I free to choose the object of my focus or the subject of my thoughts? Am I free to choose the outcome of my thoughts? I don’t think so.

Firstly, there are occasions when I get distracted. This is an indication - though not a proof - that I lack control over the object of my focus. There are occasions when I want to stop thinking about something but cannot. This is an indication – again not a proof – that I lack control over the subject of my thoughts. There exist such things as mental habits and character. These concepts would surely be meaningless if I were free to choose the outcome of my thoughts.

Secondly (and less importantly), one can apply Occam’s razor. The freedom of choice to focus is necessary to explain human behavior. It is also sufficient. Why assume a greater freedom without evidence - especially when free will sits uncomfortably with known physical theories? And until we discover physical theories that can explain free will, I don’t think this issue can be proved either way.

On these grounds, I agree with Rand’s position.

How is this relevant to anarchy? I will deal with that in a separate post.

Só para lembrar, nos EUA, “liberal” é sinônimo de “social-democrata”. Já “conservative” é algo como “conservador” mesmo. Logo, os liberais americanos se chamam de “libertarians”. Bem, vamos ao caso. Tyler Cowen criou uma taxionomia sobre os libertários dos EUA:

1. Cato-influenced (for lack of a better word).  There is an orthodox reading of what “being libertarian” means, defined by the troika of free markets, non-interventionism, and civil liberties.  It is based on individual rights but does not insist on anarchism.  A ruling principle is that libertarians should not endorse state interventions.  I read Palmer’s book as belonging to this tradition, broadly speaking.

2. Rothbardian anarchism.  Free-market protection agencies will replace government-as-we-know-it.  War is evil and the problems of anarchy pale in comparison.  David Friedman offered a more utilitarian-sounding version of this approach, shorn of Misesian influence.

3. Mises Institute nationalism.  Gold standard, a priori reasoning, monetary apocalypse, and suspicious of immigration because maybe private landowners would not have let those people into their living rooms.

4. Jeff Friedman and Critical Review: Everything is up for grabs, let’s be consequentialists and focus on the welfare state because that’s where the action is.  Marx is dead.  The case for some version of libertarianism ultimately rests upon voter ignorance and, dare I say it, voter irrationality.

5. “Hayek libertarianism.”  All or most of the great libertarian thinkers are ultimately compatible with each other and we have a big tent of all sorts of classical liberal ideas.  Hayek and Friedman are the chosen “public faces” of this approach.  “There’s a classical liberal tradition and classical liberal values and we can be fuzzy on a lot of other things.”

Acho que fico entre 1 e 5 tendo simpatia pela abordagem de David Friedman que eu não classificaria como Rothbardiana já que o fundamento não-austríaco de Friedman costuma ser rejeitado por boa parte dos seguidores de Rothbard.

Como toda taxionomia, esta é sujeita a críticas, mas eu gostei. Gostaria, na verdade, era ver uma classificação liberal para o Brasil. Aposto que quase não existem tendências.

Aristotle The Geek has written a partial response to the debate on my previous post. He writes

What is an “unfree” market? Let me ask the question the other way round – what is a “free” market? It is a market in which the State does not interfere (the only “interference” would be of the enforcement of contracts kind). Political/ economic freedom is always defined in terms of the State, not in terms of non-State actors. The latter don’t lay any claim to morality when they engage in fraud, theft, murder, confinement etc. It is the State which does that. So, an “unfree” market would be one with State interference.

At this point I would ask “What is the State?” Ayn Rand defines government (which I will use interchangeably with State) as
A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area. (emphasis in original)

I will modify it to make one aspect of it more explicit
A government is an institution whose exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area is generally accepted.

Compare that to a modern democracy. Modern democracies are characterized by the lack of acceptance of any fundamental rule for social conduct. Any rule or law (no matter how fundamental) passed by a legislature may be repealed, completely modified or contradicted in its next session. Read this very illuminating article about how Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in a famous case has served to create a legal orthodoxy that believes that the American constitution does not contain any fundamental principle. In a modern democracy, there is no inviolate fundamental principle that the state or its members are bound by. This means that the modern state lacks an identity. The state is a collective and the identity of a collective is determined by the identity of its constituents. But the modern democratic state is highly disparate. The only thing that is generally accepted is that there are no fixed rules.

The state in a modern democracy is an ever-changing group of men who enforce certain ever-changing rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

This is about as close to anarchism as I think (and hope) we will ever get. Anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard (based on some quotes by ATG) write of competing (while also cooperating with each other) private defence agencies. If these competing-yet-cooperating private agencies bind themselves by fundamental principles and refuse to allow other private agencies that do not accept those principles, then they together form an entity which is remarkably similar to a state. If they do not bind themselves by any fundamental principles but still cooperate among themselves, then they are remarkably similar to a modern democracy – a disparate set of power wielders that manages to avoid open warfare.

The only difference between anarchism and modern democracy is the issue of the size of government. But the size of the government is an inessential characteristic. What is essential is the principles that make up its identity. Modern democracies are constantly increasing the size of government and at the same time destroying its identity. But no entity can last long without an identity, especially large ones. A large government devoid of any fundamental identity is just waiting for some autocratic group to seize it (something that seems to be beginning in the U.S.). Anarchists want to do away with government altogether. But that is something that can never happen. Anarchy must degenerate into smaller states (waiting to be conquered by a more powerful state intent on conquest) or into a democracy for the reasons in the paragraph above.

The call in I did to the David Angelo show. I call in at about 20 minutes, but the whole show is funny so check it out. David Angelo goes live at DavidAngeloRadio.com Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7pm CST.

Hot air: We are all full of it which is what makes this situation so difficult. Ideology gets in the way of practicality. The fact is that the U.S. has slipped from #1 to unimaginable depths in quality, accessibility of health care, while we have gone to #1 (by a factor of 50% on average) in its cost. We now rank off the list in longevity, hospital beds per 1000 populations, doctors per 1000 population etc. But the argument somehow seems to be change versus no change instead of HOW to change it so that our star begins to rise again.

If people like their health care system in other countries and would never want to trade it (including the doctors and hospitals that work within it) why would you want to change it. That is a goal, not an obstacle nor something to be avoided.  Nobody likes the American health care system except the people profiting from it. We are over medicated, under fed in terms of nutrition safe from harmful diseases, overfed in terms of quantity, dying sooner than most other modern countries and actually getting shorter in our height. These are facts not opinions. Many doctors in our system make less money and have less money at the end of the month than their European counterparts. They also have less room for judgment and are likely to be sued for a perceived or actual bad result even if they used their best judgment. Small wonder that most of the world considers our system to be utterly ridiculous.

Practical fact. add up the cost of medical care for everyone who gets it — including people on or off some health care plan (thus including all those ER visits for a sniffle) and we are already paying enough to cover everyone pretty well — but we are not. “Personal responsibility” is an ideology that has its place and is very important to our culture, our future and our national character. But this is like prohibition of criminalizing drugs — nobody thinks alcohol and drugs are a great thing to do that should be promoted in opur society. But look what prohibition and the war on drugs produced. Failure. And a lot of profits for the now privitized prison system. So many people are making so much money on both sides of the war on drugs that they are incentivized to continue it — and that means putting out brainwashing information scaring the shit out of people so the status quo is maintained while our society becomes incarcerated (1 out of 10) and thugs make billions. Alternatives exist around the world that point to a better way.

It would be nice if everyone velieved and behaved according to your concept of personal responsibility. But here is the catch — first, they don’t do it. So if you make retirement subject solely or partially the responsibility of the citizen that is a good ideological goal. But we already know that most people won’t do it. So what are as a society going to do with all those people that can’t afford food or housing or medical care? Government plans are imperfect to say the least, but they are all we have as a safety net not for the people who receive money but for our economy and our society. It costs far more to deal with hundreds of thousaonds of homeless families than to prevent it. Simple arithmetic. And if it offends your ideology that some people will take advantage — where is your outrage over the farm subsidies, the bloated military budget and medicare PArt D which brought us to the pinnacle of writing a blank check to the Pharmaceutical industry? There is far more expense in their than anything proposed for health care.

We now spend 15% of our GDP on healthcare compared with around 9-10% in other countries. Just using the actually current figures, that percentage is going up under the present system while it stays the same in other countries. Your idea about the citizen paying for the first $15,000 sucks — but not because it isn’t a good idea. It sucks because the only way it could work in theory is if you fabricate available discretionary spending for individuals and families. They don’t have the money. It is one of the many tricks we play on ourselves when we boast lower unemployment than other countries. we have lower unemployment because we count it differently than they do. Our unemployment now sits at just under 25% counting apples to apples — that’s why we have a recession so deep and why the entire society is changing. If our real unemployment was only 9.4% it wouldn’t really be that bad. We have lower taxes because we only count the income tax. When you add up the taxes everyone pays, it is regressive, and it amounts to well over 70% depending upon what you call a tax — which to me is any government enforced payment from the citizen. At the end of the month the average American is broke and under water. Our european counterparts with “higher unemployment” and “higher Taxes” have more money, less debt and less stress at the end of each month. If you want to play with statistics, count the ones that count, not the ones that fit your preconceived ideology.

If you want more personal responsibility start with education and public information programs to change the culture. Don’t expect people to simply change. They don’t do that. You are a perfect example. Your kids are learning about personal responsibility and consequences because that what theya re being taught. So life will come as no surprise to them when they realize that it is up to them. But most people in our culture (which is why you are home schooling) are being taught the reverse. it isn’t right, but that is what theya re growing up with. The current work ethic is that the employee is doing you a favor if they show up — don’t expect any work too. That isn’t going to change through government inspried economic coercion. we have tried both ends of the spectrum on that and it didn’t work — the left produced the welfare multigenerational culture and the right produced homeless people in the streets. On the level of the society as a whole these thigns are true: Most liberals don’t liberate anyone. Most conservatives don’t conserve anything. Most libertarians do nothing to preserve personal liberties. When the day comes that the conversation shifts what we can do practically speaking, maybe that will change. Right now everyone is sticking to their ideological (fabricated) rhetoric and acomplishing nothing.

Everyone wants to stick their hand in the pot of taxpayer dollars and the ones who usually get it are the ones closest to the microphone necaucse they have the most wealth and power. They are also the ones that least need it. take a look at the banks that made trillions off-shore and had the audacity to collude with Paulson in the overnight creation of the TARP legislation. $700 billion pledged mostly under the control of Goldman Sachs which basically has its past leaders and significant officers in most areas of government. These banks didn’t hold troubled assets so they were not entitled to relief even if you put the more sophisticated policy conflicsts aside. The troubled assets were owned by investors who didn’t get very much TARP money. Most of it went to bank holding companies that (a) had no troubled assets and (b) didn’t lend money but owned banking insitutions that did lend money.

So the reality check here is not what is “right” it is what will bring our situation under control against a backdrop of people spending hundreds of millions of dollars to preserve their cash cow at the expense of the medical profession and the quality of our health care.