Good Reading
June 3, 2005
7:27 a.m., MT

Ugh. Too little sleep, and too little coffee for this late hour ... and too much to do (ain't that always the way, though?). So I'm going to be lazy, and point interested folks to some good things I've discovered of late, oldest things first (I've been saving 'em up).

From Law, Legislation, and Lunacy (which'll be added here real soon now), a great little piece titled Law, Legislation and Special Effects. A taste:

Thus Star Wars fans blame Jar Jar Binks for the poor quality of Episodes I and II just as lawmakers blame legal wording for the failure of their laws. But the problem is always more fundamental.

The blog's topics are much more wide-ranging than its name suggests.

Brad Spangler wades into the subject of faux and genuine privatization, a subject getting increasing attention, with There’s privatization, and then there’s privatization:

Where something is removed from the sphere of the State, but the State remains strong overall, instead of being a liberating experience for everybody, somebody’s liberty gets trashed as that facet of life gets constrained for them. Societal conflict ensues. Problems thus arise not from the Separation of Church and State per se, but from the fact that you’ve still got a hulking behemoth of a State on your hands.

[Italics his; and may I interject that it's nice to see someone else putting foreign phrases in italics, as I was taught is proper? ]

My buddy and conspirator Tom Ender did a nice review of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I won't give away anything by quoting here, but will just note that it's a good review of what might be the snolfs' favorite Harry Potter movie thus far.

Last, a typically insightful piece from Butler Shaffer: History Matters (all italics his):

My intuitive sense that vertically-structured leviathan systems are fated to collapse does not depend upon any major change in thinking among people. I regard philosophy not so much as a transforming force in the world but as an afterthought; an explanation for processes of change working, in hidden ways, deep within the fabric of society and life itself. This is not to dismiss the significance of ideas, but to recognize them as our mind’s efforts to express qualities that are already within us. Philosophy accompanies us more than it leads us. It was not a major paradigm shift in thinking among the erstwhile Soviet citizenry that brought about the collapse of that repressive regime. It was the inconsistency of a rigidified state system with the demands of life processes that eventually led to the Soviet demise.

The top-down, command-and-control machinery of state power has run head-on into the forces of spontaneity and autonomy that are life's processes.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why any sort of leashitarian "solution" to the problem of securing greater liberty is doomed to fail from the outset.

Sunni

Replies: 6 people have spoken!

On Friday, June 3rd, Jorge said:

I think I agree with the closing paragraph, but just to be sure, is this an example of "leashitarianism"?

Recently the Movimiento Libertario managed to get a bill through the Asamblea (Congress) which removes all taxes (import and sales) from new cars which are for use by handicapped persons. This reduces the cost of these vehicles by approximately 70%. Unfortunately, to get this passed, some restrictions had to be accepted. Namely, the cars can only be driven three people, all of which must be registered. One of the "designated" drivers must be the handicapped individual, who must be registered as handicapped (a process which already exists). There are also restrictions on the sale and transfer of the vehicle.

As Libertarians make up a bit less than 10% of the Asamblea, it is impossible to get a pure bill passed, at least right now.

This bill both increases freedom, in that handicapped individuals are now able to buy cars without paying taxes, but it reduces freedom as well, because to take advantage of this they must register and accept restrictions on the use of the vehicle.

I should point out that "accept restrictions" means accept different restrictions than those imposed on others, as the state already imposes restrictions on the purchase/use/sale of motor vehicles.

The bill that the ML originally pushed for did not contain any of the restrictions. These were added by others in committee. The ML did vote against the amendments, but lost. They could have killed the bill. Instead, it was decided that on balance, what came out was better than what we have today. Therefore they voted for it when it came to the floor.

From what I understand there was also a lot of back room maneuvering so that a Diputado from another party is listed as the law's sponsor and the Diputados of the ML as co-sponsors. This made it more likely to pass, since most things that the ML proposes are just shelved by the other parties.

So, is this "leashitarianism" or not?

On Friday, June 3rd, Sunni said:

Good question, Jorge. Based on Skeptical Man's original post, I've taken to calling individuals who seem to want slightly more freedom than is currently "allowed" leashitarians. Pro-freedom anarchists, then, wouldn't be leashitarians, but minarchists, LP proponents, and others would under my use of the term. Essentially, I view any pro-freedom person who'd be happy with some amount of state control over individuals' lives as a leashitarian.

So, to get back to your question, I'd have to say ... it depends. Leashitarianism depends upon the intent and goals of the person, not on an act itself.

I imagine that's as clear as mud. I've been thinking a lot about this and related issues, though, and am hoping to write an essay on it soon.

On Friday, June 3rd, Jorge said:

Actually, it is very clear. I mostly agree.

Most of the people in the ML are minarchists, as in: "the legitimate function of government is protecting rights, police and courts are all we need to do this". From my conversations with them, they take this position because they believe the state is a necessary evil. They have not (yet) arrived at the conclusion that it is an UNnecessary evil, but they are on the right road. So I have not counted them out, nor do I want to class them as "leashitarian", because I think they can be convinced.

Of course we have a few Objectivists. For them there is no hope. The label does apply to them, but I am happy having them as an ally until we get the state to the size they are happy with, then we fight. That day is not yet.

We also have many in the party that are not really Libertarian. They are "fellow travelers" in that they want more freedom than there is today in some areas, but are uncomfortable with the concept of total liberty. I have hope for these people as well. Often, when we show them why they want more freedom in one area, we can convince them that it is right in others as well. I view these people the same as I view the minarchists. They are on the right road, going in the right direction. We need to keep them moving on it. They are not like the Objectivists, who have made up their minds.

In the example I gave, no one in the ML, including the Objectivists, is content to stop there. When the bill passed one person commented "At least it was a small advance, two steps forward and one back, but we did move forward." This is as opposed to the fight against the tax package, where we are simply not losing anymore ground. This is important as well, but we must advance if we are going to achieve Liberty.

--jorge

On Friday, June 3rd, Mark Odell said:

Sunni, if you'll permit me, the phenomenon Jorge describes dovetails with an insight I had awhile back: namely that, should the electorate's expressed desire for "liberty" grow "too strong", there's no particular reason for ruling elites not to adopt a strategy of "When the time is right, for PR purposes, let's allow to be elected some trivial number of libertarians: just enough to help our interests (opposition to e.g. environmental regulations), but not enough to hurt us (two votes opposing vs. five/whatever favoring some special-interest porkbarrel boondoggle project). In other words, they help our interests when we want them to; but we marginalize them when we want to so they can't hurt our interests. One way we do this is by carefully crafting in advance the measures which we allow to be put to an up-or-down vote of e.g. city councils.". (Sorry for the run-on sentence. ) *I* would, if I had the political skills ruling elites have, and if all I cared about was minimizing threats to my power. Thus, some basic pessimism impels me to the belief that this may be premature.

So it may indeed be "leashitarianism"--emphasis on "leash"--that's to the liking of ruling elites. Granted, it's a delicate balancing-act to do; but ruling elites didn't get where they are today without being able to successfully pull off balancing-acts.

On Friday, June 3rd, Cat said:

As the guilty culprit (what, me plead "innocent?" who initially coined the term "leashitarian" it seems appropriate for me to put in my two cents here.

As Butler Shaffer pointed out in his LRC article today, cooperation is the opposite of coercion - he expressed it sooner and better than I'd been able to do, although my mind has been plodding slowly along the same track.

It seems obvious that any freedom loving activist is bound to confront the need to work with or against coercive systems and institutions. Supposing an individual finds it possible to work with a coercive institution in such a way as to enhance its cooperative functions, as it appears Jorge may be doing with ML, that seems to be progressive rather than retrograde motion.

On an individual level I'd say that each of us must continually choose whether to focus on similarities or differences with others. It seems to me that a primary focus on differences with others always feeds the coercive political beast, while a primary focus on similarities offers hope of sustaining whatever cooperative social animal exists within all parties concerned.

For me, I guess the term "leashitarian" indicates a preference for certain forms of coercion over others, rather than a prefence for any form of cooperation over coercion. Yet, it also appears that most people unthinkingly accept the idea of coercion as a necessary evil, and that doesn't necessarily make those unthinking people "evil."

People may learn to prefer cooperation to coercion as a matter of principle, but they're sure not likely to learn that principle as a result of mandatory attendence at government schools. Political action is an educational pathway that teaches by means of experience... as that old bumper sticker slogan says, "Good judgement comes from experience - experience comes from poor judgement."

I don't see any benefit in considering "leashitarian" an umbrella term for people who accept the need to work within restraints; it seems more appropriate to apply it to people who find restraints desirable and seek control of the leash over others.

On Saturday, June 4th, Sunni said:

Thanks for sharing your views, Cat. Good stuff to think on in there.

Home
Previous entry: "Always Swimming Against the Tide of Fashion"
Next entry: "Thus Starts the Warsaw Ghetto for Online Adult Sites"