Reponse to Mike Meredith (and all libertarians out there)

Here is a comment left on my blog by Mike Meredith:

Comment by Jameson Graber on 23 November 2010:
I mostly agree with the views you all are espousing, but I think some commenters here are simplifying the issue far too much. The criticism that the government is “doing things to other people they could never justify if they were in the private sector” is, upon a moment’s reflection, not good enough. The government has the right and even the responsibility to punish offenders of the law, whereas private citizens have no such right. Unless you intend to argue that this is not the way things ought to be (which would be arguing for anarchy) you’d better put forth a more reasonable principle which forbids the government from taking these invasive security measures. The fourth amendment should suffice.

I ran across this post on the Freeman website today and thought a couple of things odd and one humorous. First, how is it that any government has rights? As far as I can tell only people have rights. Second, from whence does government's authority to act derive? I fail to understand why anarchy is implied unless government has power that the people don't. The humor is in supposing that the constitution has force. It hasn't been worth the paper it is written on since the ink dried. Or at least since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. It has had no force of restraint to speak of on government. And what little it has had diminishes with each passing day.

Mike

And here is my response:

Two years of blogging

Today marks the second anniversary of this blog. This post is the 310th post I've written. I suppose that's an average of one post every two or three days, though I certainly haven't been that consistent.

I don't know that blogging actually does the world a great deal of good, but if it's true that ideas matter, and that thinking critically about what you believe and why you believe it is important, then this blog at least does me a great deal of good. It's motivated me to essentially continue my liberal arts education, reading more about topics ranging from theology to economics to the interaction between science and faith. It's helped me to at least start down the path to developing a more coherent philosophy of life, all the while giving credit to that which has most influenced my thinking.

Some small part of me hopes that because this blog is public, it will have some positive influence on people I have never met, yet remain connected to through this vast incomprehensible network known as the World Wide Web. I have occasionally been surprised to find my blog being referenced in a wide variety of places on the Web, but I have never taken seriously the prospect of other people actually listening to me. Yet if there ever comes a time in my life when people really want to know what I think about things, I hope that this practice will have prepared me to give clear, intelligent answers.

So if you've been reading this, let me say thank you, and I hope you've gotten something out of it. I know I have.

Hayek Against Rationalism

All political theories assume, of course, that most individuals are very ignorant. Those who plead for liberty differ from the rest in that they include among the ignorant themselves as well as the wisest. Compared with the totality of knowledge which is continually utilized in the evolution of a dynamic civilization, the difference between the knowledge that the wisest and that which the most ignorant individual can deliberately employ is comparatively insignificant.

F. A. Hayek
The Constitution of Liberty

Perhaps the single most attractive part of Hayek's philosophy is, in my view, his epistemology. This is not something that the majority of people are likely to care about. Yet whether most people care about them or not, questions about what we know and how we know it are intensely important to the intellectuals who are often most influential in shaping society. The argument for a free society must have, as part of its foundation, an argument for the right kind of answers to these questions.

Modern Spirituality

see more Failbook
These are the haunting religious questions of our time...

The two party system must go

I am a big believer in ideas. That is to say, I believe the ideas people choose to accept in the present profoundly influence how we live in the future. This is what The Road to Serfdom was all about: it traced the influence of ideas on society in Germany as a warning to Great Britain at a time when things looked quite bleak. The book itself influenced future generations after it was written; Ronald Reagan, for instance, listed Hayek as one of his greatest influences (see the Wikipedia article on Hayek), and this in turn greatly shaped American politics. Ideas have consequences for the future of society, and it follows that if we care about our future, we must be concerned with whether or not good ideas are allowed to flourish in the world we live in.

Hayek on Freedom and Democracy

From The Road to Serfdom Chapter Five:

The fashionable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened is not without danger. It is largely responsible for the misleading and unfounded belief that, so long as the ultimate source of power is the will of the majority, the power cannot be arbitrary. The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the dangers which we face. There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; the contrast suggested by this statement is altogether false: it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary. Democratic control may prevent power from becoming arbitrary, but it does not do so by its mere existence. If democracy resolves on a task which necessarily involves the use of power which cannot be guided by fixed rules, it must become arbitrary power.

Hayek on hatred of the enemy

From The Road to Serfdom, Chapter Ten:

It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program--on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off--than on any positive task. The contrast between the "we" and the "they," the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program.

Makes you think about our own political attitudes, doesn't it? Perhaps I should include the next sentence for impact:

The enemy, whether be internal, like the "Jew" or the "kulak," or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.

The road to serfdom is paved with hatred.