Lew Rockwell interview Naomi Wolf

[billydkid]

The left or "progressives" have never gotten that libertarians are actually their best friends. Libertarians have never been close to the right or conservatism as it is manifest in this country. About the revelation that Naomi has near the end all I can say is - duh. Libertarians have been trying to explain this for years and the thanks they have gotten for it closely resembles contempt, which could not be more undeserved. Try taking the red pill.

http://media.lewrockwell.com/media/2008-10-30_058_americas_slow_motion_fascist_coup.mp3

[Gurdur]

The left or "progressives" have never gotten that libertarians are actually their best friends.


Probably because it simply isn't true.

Libertarians have never been close to the right or conservatism as it is manifest in this country.


How odd, then, that the libertarians should try the GOP so often (try taking it over and/or voting for it; so much of GOP crap is re-cycled libertarian agitprop, though the GOP is noticably less libertarian in actual practice) .

And I don't think much of Naomi Wolf either.

[brodski]

Libertarians have never been close to the right or conservatism as it is manifest in this country.

Yeah, that's why all those libertarians steadfastly refused to spam the INTERNET for Ron Paul, oh, wait...

[ImaginalDisc]

Why don't liberals and libertarians get along? As a liberal, I'll tell you what annoys the crap out of me personally. As a liberal, I want to invest money in public goods, such as the common defense, law enforcement, fire protection, pollution control, finance regulation, product safety, environmental protection, and plenty of other public goods where I feel that not only is government involvement justified, but that only government involvement can possibly do the job thoroughly.

I value thoroughness and public service in those sectors above profit motive in those areas. Libertarians seem to deny the existence of public goods.

[Travis]

*Travis eagerly anticipates a Naomi Wolf interview that isn't akin to Chinese Water Torture*

blah blah Marshall Law blah blah Coup blah blah Blackwater blah blah Infantry Brigade from Iraq to take over the country blah blah

Some asinine Lew sycophantism.

blah blah police state blah blah Jimmy Carter doesn't think the elections are legitimate blah blah screaming in bullhorns should be legal blah blah brainwashed to accept a more limited role blah blah blah BLAH!

Some more overt sycophantism.

blah blah America should be defined as meaning Libertarnism and even more blah!

*Travis is very disappointed*

[SezMe]

The left or "progressives" have never gotten that libertarians are actually their best friends.
Probably because it simply isn't true...or did someone already say that?

"Progressives" see the tragedy of the commons and try to eliminate it. Libertarians pretend the tragedy of the commons does not exist. This is not a minor philosophical difference, it is at the core of both ideaologies.

[ImaginalDisc]

Probably because it simply isn't true...or did someone already say that?

"Progressives" see the tragedy of the commons and try to eliminate it. Libertarians pretend the tragedy of the commons does not exist. This is not a minor philosophical difference, it is at the core of both ideaologies.

I'm glad I wasn't the only who thought that.

[plumjam]

Why don't liberals and libertarians get along? As a liberal, I'll tell you what annoys the crap out of me personally. As a liberal, I want to invest money in public goods, such as the common defense, law enforcement, fire protection, pollution control, finance regulation, product safety, environmental protection, and plenty of other public goods where I feel that not only is government involvement justified, but that only government involvement can possibly do the job thoroughly.

I value thoroughness and public service in those sectors above profit motive in those areas. Libertarians seem to deny the existence of public goods.

Yeah, Billy, or anyone else.. I'd be interested to learn what the libertarian position is on these public goods.

[gtc]

Probably because it simply isn't true...or did someone already say that?

"Progressives" see the tragedy of the commons and try to eliminate it. Libertarians pretend the tragedy of the commons does not exist. This is not a minor philosophical difference, it is at the core of both ideaologies.

I don't think the difference is that Libertarians deny the existence of the tragedy of the commons. I think the difference is in the approach to solving the problem. Libertarians would argue that that if the 'commons' was privatised then the private owner could restrict access to secure the future of the resource. Progressives would also consider regulating access to the common resource.

[gtc]

Yeah, Billy, or anyone else.. I'd be interested to learn what the libertarian position is on these public goods.

Establish clear property rights. The private owner would restrict access in order to secure the long term future of the good.

[Travis]

Why don't liberals and libertarians get along? As a liberal, I'll tell you what annoys the crap out of me personally. As a liberal, I want to invest money in public goods, such as the (1)common defense, (2)law enforcement, (3)fire protection, (4)pollution control, (5)finance regulation, (6)product safety, (7)environmental protection, and plenty of other public goods where I feel that not only is government involvement justified, but that only government involvement can possibly do the job thoroughly.

I'm not an actual Libertarian so I'd thought I'd answer as a stereotype of one.

1) Mercenaries.... if your late with their bills they'll mortar your house to rubble.
2) Private Security firms....with guns, arresting powers, judicial powers and private prisons with execution facilities etc.*
3) Fire Department by contract....if you don't pay their fee your house burns down.
4) Get's in the way of profits and is therefore unnecessary.
5) Get's in the way of profits and is therefore unnecessary.
6) Get's in the way of profits and is therefore unnecessary.
7) Get's in the way of profits and is therefore unnecessary.

* If the Private Security firm is one you have a contract with then the roles reverse and they protect you from being arrested by other security firms regardless of whatever heinous crimes you commit.

[plumjam]

Establish clear property rights. The private owner would restrict access in order to secure the long term future of the good.

So would a private individual have to buy the air in order for it to be possible for air pollution to be regulated?

[gtc]

So would a private individual have to buy the air in order for it to be possible for air pollution to be regulated?

Heh. No idea about how they would do that. No doubt someone has come up with a plan.

Emissions trading is basically buying a permit to pollute the atmosphere but that is different from the atmosphere itself being privately owned.

[SezMe]

I don't think the difference is that Libertarians deny the existence of the tragedy of the commons. I think the difference is in the approach to solving the problem. Libertarians would argue that that if the 'commons' was privatised then the private owner could restrict access to secure the future of the resource. Progressives would also consider regulating access to the common resource.
But privatizing the commons is impossible. How are you going to privatize a river? Air quality? Is it possible to privatize the judicary (justice being a common good)?

There is also the problem of time scale. A private company could charge for access to a resource in the short-term, bail out with the profits and leave the negative externalities for a future generation.

[gtc]

But privatizing the commons is impossible. How are you going to privatize a river? Air quality? Is it possible to privatize the judicary (justice being a common good)?

Firstly, I am not a libertarian (although I agree with them on some points) but I will attempt to answer your questions.

1) What difficulty do you see with privatising a river?
2) Air quality, I've said I don't know how that would work.
3) Some libertarians support government involvement in the justice system, particularly in the enforcement of contracts. Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution are essentially privatised forms of justice.

There is also the problem of time scale. A private company could charge for access to a resource in the short-term, bail out with the profits and leave the negative externalities for a future generation.

The alternatives are - over use it and abandon it after x years or don't overuse it and sell it for y dollars after x years. if you over use it then you don't get the residual value when you sell it.

I recommend the SF novel 'The Probability Broach'. It is a good read and it gives an insight into how some libertarians think a libertarian society could work.

[ImaginalDisc]

OK, I thought I might itemize a list of where and how libertarianism fails.

1) Education. A public educational system where everyone gets a basic education provides us with a workforce more able to enter productive adult life than a society without public education. We all benefit from a society with more educated people. There are too many children of poor and disadvantaged parents - or even orphans, to build a system of for-profit education that educates every child. We all benefit from spending money educating children. For a small investment, we all reap rewards.

2) Common defense, law enforcement, and fire protection. These three areas all exhibit the same problems for a privatized model. They problem is that they're common goods. You cannot have a city where some people benefit from fire protection, and others don't - it's been tried and it's always a disaster.

In the historical district of Charleston, South Carolina, the buildings all have bronze plaques denoting which of half a dozen different fire companies protected them. If you weren't protected, or were late with your bill, they'd let your home burn to the ground, even when that uncontrolled fire threatened the rest of the city. A society where homes can burn freely, some people are denied protection under the law, and some places can be freely invaded makes us all less secure from these threats. You can't deny these services to any part of society without endangering the whole. If you protect everyone, but only have some people pay, you run into a free rider problem and reach a tragedy of the commons.

3) Product safety, pollution control, and environmental protection. These areas have a big problem if you try to identify property rights as the only way to achieve corrective measures here. Deaths from particulate air pollution, smoking, industrial effluent, unsafe medication, and many other sources are impossible to definitively attribute to a specific source.

Let's say I fish in the Everglades, eat my catch daily, and die of mercury poisoning. It's medically impossible to figure out which source of mercury killed me. Was it the coal power plant upwind? Was it the unsafe metal refinery? Was it illegal dumping? There is no way to tell conclusively in my individual case. If the only recourse my family has is "property rights' then they could never have satisfaction, and there's no way to prevent future deaths. The same problem arises when I die of a side effect of a new heart medication, because you usually can't prove someone definitely died of a side effect of a drug, only that users of that drug have a much higher rate of death than the general population.

There's also no way for people centuries from now to sue us today for destroying vital natural resources. If we warm the planet and Miami is inundated, who could we sue, ourselves? Libertarianism provides no way to redress damage caused in the distant past by people who are now dead and, more crucially, no motive to prevent it.

Libertarianism is entirely unable to address many problems societies always face.

ETA: Here's a specific scenario where property rights fail to protect natural resources. Let's say I give you many acres of forest. It's a wise business move, and good stewardship, to log or exploit a fraction of it and protect the rest in perpetuity, or for later limited exploitation. It sounds like a stable balance between environmental protection and profit can be attained, right? However, the rate of return on responsible logging is very low - lower than the interest rates banks offer. You could easily profit more from clear cutting a forest and sticking the money in a bank than being a logger/forestry manager for the rest of your life. In this case, if property rights and profit motive rule you could make the "rational" choice to destroy the entire forest, because there's no incentive to do otherwise.

[SezMe]

Firstly, I am not a libertarian (although I agree with them on some points) but I will attempt to answer your questions.

I recognize that and was responding only in the context of the thread's discussion of libertarianism. I did not see you as an advocate of that position.

1) What difficulty do you see with privatising a river?

They are numerous. First, define a "river". How far upstream does the ownership extend? Suppose the river is ultimately fed by a spring. Does the owner of the property that the spring is on own the source of the river? If so, how far down stream does that ownership extend? If not, why not?

Assume the river is a navigable waterway. Does the owner of the river own the rights to control what ships can traverse the waterway? If so, how far downstream (to the ocean?) does this control extend?

Assume I own a plant that dumps mercury into your river. Downstream, my mercury kills all the clams that the downstream fishermen depend on for their livelihood. Who do they sue, me for dumping the pollutant or you for carrying it to me clam grounds? And does it matter? If a clam fishery is wiped out and a decade or two later they get some pittance of compensation, does that constitute justice.

This is not an imaginary scenario. The Valdez disaster has been in the courts for DECADES and no final resolution is in sight.


I recommend the SF novel 'The Probability Broach'. It is a good read and it gives an insight into how some libertarians think a libertarian society could work.
I'll take a look...thanks.

[gtc]

I recognize that and was responding only in the context of the thread's discussion of libertarianism. I did not see you as an advocate of that position.

Thanks. I just wanted to make it clear.

Rivers do seem difficult to privatise.

[Travis]

I'm waiting for someone to figure out how to privatize air so that the magic of "free markets" can get all this damn smog out of it.


We have fewer than 60,000 people in my whole county but we have some of the worst air in the nation because all the smog from the Bay Area gets blow east and stacks up over us. Ironically this makes it so people in the Bay Area think they are so great environmentally, cause their air is clean, not realizing that the only reason it's clear is because all their crap gets blown to where we are.

[plumjam]

Thanks. I just wanted to make it clear.

Rivers do seem difficult to privatise.

In the UK I believe stretches of some rivers are 'privatised', in that fishing rights belong to certain private landowners. It's a situation I always found pretty bizarre. The same with some beaches (more on continental Europe), where stretches of beach are privately owned and you have to pay a daily fee to sunbathe there (I think Italy's bad for that one).
I heard that the Native Americans couldn't get their heads around the white man's belief that a person could own land. Maybe I'm a reincarnation of Sitting Bull. Perhaps without the Sitting.

[gtc]

In the UK I believe stretches of some rivers are 'privatised', in that fishing rights belong to certain private landowners.


I think water rights are another form of partial privatisation.

[Francesca R]

I'd be interested to learn what the libertarian position is on these public goods.Pretty much it's that "the public" doesn't exist. At least, none of it worth speaking of.

[Moochie]

I find Naomi Klein a better read.


M.

[technoextreme]

3) Fire Department by contract....if you don't pay their fee your house burns down.

Yup. I'd think would just throw this up here since you brought it up. This scenario has happened recently.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051016/news_1h16fire.html

[Travis]

Yup. I'd think would just throw this up here since you brought it up. This scenario has happened recently.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051016/news_1h16fire.html

Wow, that is sad. Our towns fire department is heavily subsidized by a local Indian Casino and as a result we have a much more capable and advanced fire department than a town our size normally would. Of course we get really big wildfires out here too so that comes in handy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Lew Rockwell makes me laugh!

:dl:

[Travis]

Lew Rockwell makes me laugh!

:dl:

I'd say my reaction was more one of nausea than of laughter.

[RandFan]

*Travis eagerly anticipates a Naomi Wolf interview that isn't akin to Chinese Water Torture*

blah blah Marshall Law blah blah Coup blah blah Blackwater blah blah Infantry Brigade from Iraq to take over the country blah blah

Some asinine Lew sycophantism.

blah blah police state blah blah Jimmy Carter doesn't think the elections are legitimate blah blah screaming in bullhorns should be legal blah blah brainwashed to accept a more limited role blah blah blah BLAH!

Some more overt sycophantism.

blah blah America should be defined as meaning Libertarnism and even more blah!

*Travis is very disappointed*:) I'm also a Travis fan.

[SezMe]

Maybe I'm a reincarnation of Sitting Bull. Perhaps without the Sitting.
Maybe? Perhaps? :)

[Travis]

:) I'm also a Travis fan.

Aww gee thanks.

[Beerina]

So would a private individual have to buy the air in order for it to be possible for air pollution to be regulated?

No. It is one of the few perfectly acceptable areas for democratic action.

However, before you scream, "Regulations ho!", keep in mind that industry + pollution >>> laboring on a farm all your life, with respect to longevity.

[JihadJane]

*Travis eagerly anticipates a Naomi Wolf interview that isn't akin to Chinese Water Torture*

blah blah Marshall Law blah blah Coup blah blah Blackwater blah blah Infantry Brigade from Iraq to take over the country blah blah

Some asinine Lew sycophantism.

blah blah police state blah blah Jimmy Carter doesn't think the elections are legitimate blah blah screaming in bullhorns should be legal blah blah brainwashed to accept a more limited role blah blah blah BLAH!

Some more overt sycophantism.

blah blah America should be defined as meaning Libertarnism and even more blah!

*Travis is very disappointed*

Blah, blah, blah.

[tomwaits]

I don't really know anything about Naomi Wolf (isn't she a truther?) but I don't really understand the aversion to libertarianism. Do I have to be in favor of social programs to be pro-choice? Do I have to be against gay marriage to be in favor of low taxes and free markets? I'm not trying to argue that the US is in martial law or that I HATE THE GUBMINT. I'm just in favor of those philosophies towards how government should operate. This is why many libertarians (including myself) specify that they are "libertarian with a lower case l". I don't advocate anarchy, I just generally want small government and civil rights. IS THAT SO BAD????? :covereyes

[dudalb]

I'd say my reaction was more one of nausea than of laughter.

Lew "The Confederacy was the true Champion of Individual Liberties" Rockwell makes me puke and laugh at the same time with his attempts to whitewash Slavery and the Confederacy.

[WildCat]

Heh. No idea about how they would do that. No doubt someone has come up with a plan.
Apparently not. Both Bob Barr and his Libertarian predecessor, Michael Badnarik, have absolutely no position on "environment" on their web site.

[Gurdur]

However, before you scream, "Regulations ho!", keep in mind that industry + pollution >>> laboring on a farm all your life, with respect to longevity.


This is nonsense. Longevity actually went down in the first part of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, and took a while to go up again.

[Beerina]

I'm sure it was the regulations, and not the exploding average wealth, that brought them back up. :rolleyes:

[UserGoogol]

Why don't liberals and libertarians get along? As a liberal, I'll tell you what annoys the crap out of me personally. As a liberal, I want to invest money in public goods, such as the common defense, law enforcement, fire protection, pollution control, finance regulation, product safety, environmental protection, and plenty of other public goods where I feel that not only is government involvement justified, but that only government involvement can possibly do the job thoroughly.

Yeah, that's the problem. Both liberals and libertarians believe that the economy is very important, and they have very different stances about how it ought to be handled.

I do think a Liberaltarian coalition might work, but only by focusing on the more moderate people and trying to find some sort of middle ground on economics. Liberals might be able to seduce moderate libertarians with talk of externalities and public goods as long as they go about it in a "market friendly way" and remove or reform the regulations that are legitimately harmful. But, moderate libertarians are practically a different species from Lew Rockwell libertarians, so that is a very different kind of cooperation from how Naomi Wolf and Lew Rockwell get along.

[dudalb]

I heard that the Native Americans couldn't get their heads around the white man's belief that a person could own land.

You heard wrong. The Plains Indians were nomadic Hunter Gatherers and of did not have private ownership of land, but they had what they considered to be Tribal Hunting grounds, and heaven help a member of another tribe caught hunting on them.
And land ownership did exist among the Eastern Tribes, who , at the time the Europeans came, were moving from a hunting based society to a farming based one.
But then facts do not seem to have much impact on you when they conflict with a belief you find attractive.

[dudalb]

Yeah, that's the problem. Both liberals and libertarians believe that the economy is very important, and they have very different stances about how it ought to be handled.

I do think a Liberaltarian coalition might work, but only by focusing on the more moderate people and trying to find some sort of middle ground on economics. Liberals might be able to seduce moderate libertarians with talk of externalities and public goods as long as they go about it in a "market friendly way" and remove or reform the regulations that are legitimately harmful. But, moderate libertarians are practically a different species from Lew Rockwell libertarians, so that is a very different kind of cooperation from how Naomi Wolf and Lew Rockwell get along.


I disagree. In the end The Liberal and Libertarian view of Government are just too far apart for any meaningful alliance except on very narrow issues like freedom of speech.

[volatile]

I find Naomi Klein a better read.


M.

Aren't some people here confusing the two?