Going somewhere I don't usually

[dianeduane]

I came across this comment about me a little bit ago, and it started me thinking:

Next you'll be telling me she's not really a libertarian.

This made me go look up "libertarian", as I wasn't sure that the world presently meant by the term what I think I mean by it. (For me, the word instantly brought up an image of Thomas Jefferson, along with accompanying images of Monticello, and of the vegetables and various European soft fruits that TJ imported to the US for his garden to experiment with and get commerce started in them.)

The Wikipedia entry has all kinds of too-damn-fascinating crossreferences hooked into it...including a link to the page on paleolibertarianism, which I had never heard of before and which immediately conjured up images of some kind of Free the Dinosaurs movement.  (I'm sorry, but these weird sideways associational flashes happen to me constantly, all day, every day. In the psychiatric community they would often be categorized as either "looseness of association" or "flight of ideas", depending on how fast they happened and how logical the connection of the secondary material to the primary material that seemed to be associated with it. But for this writer, at least, they're an invaluable tool of the trade.)

Anyway, I read through the article, thought a bit, and found that the following phrases pretty much described my attitude toward what seem to be the primary issues in question:

(1) I prefer just enough government to protect me from having other political entities fall on my neighborhood with fire and sword. 

(2) I prefer a government that does not behave in such a way as to cause other political entities to want to fall on my neighborhood with fire and sword.

(3) I prefer a government that does not fall on other political entities with fire and sword unless they (a) are falling on mine with fire and sword or (b) can clearly be shown to be in the process of doing so.

(4) Anybody falls on my neighborhood with fire and sword, they're going to find that they've got my sword to deal with. (And a lot of Peter's.) And I know exactly where to insert that sword to best advantage. (This being one of the things that having been a nurse is good for.)

(5) (That's enough formulating for one day. Ed.)

Do those make me a libertarian? Then guilty as charged, I guess. But there were a lot of things on the shopping list of necessary opinions and traits that I wouldn't necessarily hold with.  (From the Wikipedia entry, and this essay, the term "minarchist" would seem to be a closer match to what goes on inside my head.  And even in the description of that term, there would be things I'd have to argue with, or would reject.)

So probably the simplest way to find out whether I'm a libertarian or not would be to name me Queen of the World, and see what I did. If I really am a libertarian, I'll abdicate, right? Q.E.D.

Then again, I might just keep the title for a few years to see how it worked out. And as regarded everything else in the definition, like any other good psychiatric nurse or responsible sf/fantasy writer, I would have to handle each issue that came up on a case-by-case basis. This being the case, when I am Queen of the World, I foresee a lot of long days spent in the adjudicating chair, sorting out all the messy details like free trade (suddenly I hear Jed Bartlett's voice saying, "Unless a war breaks out, I'll be spending the rest of my day talking about bananas...") and the minimum wage (needs raising just about everywhere, if you ask me. And if you made me Queen of the World, then you did).

But generally, I would suggest that you really don't want to see me being Queen of the World, as even my considerable patience does have limits, and when events take me past those, my management style will most closely approach that of Mrs. Oscar Gordon ("This problem will clear up if you take that man -- you, what's your name? with the goatee? -- take him out and shoot him. Do it now."), though without either (a) the accumulated wisdom of the Egg of the Phoenix or (b) the PMS.  ...I do, however, promise in advance to boost funding to every sensible space program, as it strikes me as a good way to give the fire-and-sword types something to occupy their time. And of course I get to decide what's "sensible." What good would being the Queen of the World be otherwise?...

...But no...I'm sure the world will work better if I stay right where I am and continue to exercise benevolent tyranny over the houseplants and the cats. And attempt to exercise it over the computers. (Hah.) And vote.

(...Though the thought of running for the European Parliament [obviously, as an independent] has occasionally crossed my mind. Wow, just think, the opportunity to eat out in Brussels every night...

Naaaaaaaahhh.  I need to lose ten pounds, and with Le Cirio just around the corner and Den Dijver just down the road, it'd never happen.

(snort) Back to work. I've got worlds where I'm queen already, and they're calling.

Comments

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

I know exactly what you mean about the weird sideways associational flashes. I, too, get them all the time.

I'm also pretty much with you on the politics; that's about the most sensible summary I've ever seen. The only exception is that I frankly wouldn't know what to do with a sword, but I do know what to do with a pen, and that is said to be mightier. :-)

[barberio.livejournal.com]

As a description "Government should only do the few things Government is supposed to do" is a null-description. No one thinks "Government should do the things government shouldn't do."

To me, and I think some others, the defining difference between Libertarian and Liberal is,
a) A Libertarian believes you can have all the rights you can defend.
b) A Liberal believes we should protect other peoples rights.

Personally, 'Social and Fiscal Libertarians' scare the hell out of me. On the extreme end, I've had people try to tell me that we should have a privatised police force and judiciary. On the less extreme end are people who don't want to "Continue the Ponzi Scheme we call Welfare Benefits" but *do* want to fund "Missile defence, and walls on our borders".

In my view, Libertarianism breaks down when you get to the rights that can not be protected individually and only by group effort.

As an aside, there are quite a few Libertarian SF writers. However, it's very common for them to write their universes so each planet has a single unified government. This seems to be a slight conflict...

[madfilkentist]

Anarchist libertarians arguably are saying "we shouldn't protect other people's rights"; limited-government libertarians certainly don't say that.

[barberio.livejournal.com]

"Limited Government Libertarians" tend to want to restrict Government's ability to do things that a Liberal would consider protection of rights. For instance, a Liberal view is that national health care and welfare protect the right to life and well-being.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

>"Anarchist libertarians arguably are saying "we shouldn't protect other people's rights" "

As an anarchist, I'd have to disagree; I would not consent to be part of a state (or quasi-state) that was not protective of the rights of all - by supporting a common principle of maximal liberty for all, you are automatically also protecting the rights of others.

It would be gross hypocrisy to insist that I had the right to do X by libertarian principles, if my doing X limited the freedoms of others; my exercise of individual liberty would result in an overall decrease in liberty.

If you advocate liberty, it must be liberty for all, not just the rich or the strong.

[barberio.livejournal.com]

One interesting thing I've found when talking to several self described Anarchists about 'how things should be run', is that if you talk it over long enough you end up describing a liberal representative democracy with an independent judiciary and a separate volunteer police force and volunteer milita.

I guess "Small state liberal" (Or even "Small state socialist") is less cool sounding than "Anarchist" ;)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

And if everyone agreed with you on that, it would work. But then, if everyone agreed with the principles of any political system, it would work. Given people as they are, I find it impossible to imagine any attempt at an anarchist-libertarian society that would not immediately degenerate into a tyranny of the most and/or biggest guns. Just because you (or I) wouldn't be wielding them doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

'...if everyone agreed with the principles of any political system, it would work. '

Which is a criticism that can be levelled at any political theory going.

The faulty enthymeme is to assume that 'not not-A' is identical to 'A'

Or, to clarify, to assume that:

1. If everyone agreed, it would work.
2. Not everyone agrees.

Therefore...

3. it cannot work.

We're not dealing with a simple work/fail situation; any reasonably self-sustaining society has a certain amount of leeway; of ability to cope with dissent and free riders and stuff just happening.

When it comes down to it, if there is a sufficient will to overcome problems; and the overcoming of societal problems is perceived to be a benefit over and above the level of personal politics, then problems will tend to be sorted out; maybe not to the complete satisfaction of all concerned, but functional solutions will tend to occur.

If there is no will to find such solutions, or no penalty for 'defection' (in the sense of the Prisoner's Dilemma), then there is no reason to suppose that any society will function correctly, whether it be based on people being 'nice' or people being ruthlessly selfish.

Any society will fail to achieve utopia to some degree; because utopia is an abstraction; but to assume that our current form of democracy is unimprovable is, well ...

Additionally: something similar the criticism above was levelled at democracy 200 years ago; if I remember correctly, George III said that it was a lovely idea, but that it wouldn't work, because the common people couldn't possibly know enough to direct their own lives.

I think that people are ultimately characterised by their adaptability; and the best society is one in which this adaptability is encouraged towards positive ends.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

My personal experience of Libertarianism (based on some 10 years' worth of political discussions arguments with people who self-identify as such) is that most of it can be boiled down to some combination of:

"But I WANNA!!!" and
"All the freedom you can pay for."
"... unless you're the wrong color, in which case people are free not to sell freedom to you."

When I first heard about Libertarianism, I thought it souunded like a pretty good idea. Not any more.

[syberghost.livejournal.com]

I quit the Florida Libertarian Party after discovering that most of them weren't Libertarians, they were Libertines.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe they just couldn't spell. :-)

[gmh.livejournal.com]

"Do those make me a libertarian? Then guilty as charged, I guess. But there were a lot of things on the shopping list of necessary opinions and traits that I wouldn't necessarily hold with. (From the Wikipedia entry, and this essay, the term "minarchist" would seem to be a closer match to what goes on inside my head.

Funnily enough, that's the term that was springing to mind when I read the top half of your post.

The problem with 'libertarianism' is that it's a very broad term with a number of passionate advocates; all of whom will happily put the boot in to each other at the drop of a hat.

So 'libertarian' is used by people from Montana seperatists to Nozick-worshipping Thatcherites to anarchists of various shades (the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA1.html#seca13) equates anarchism to 'libertarian socialism'; as far as I can tell, the only thing that can really be held as a commonality is the overall resistance to taking orders.

(I would say that the Wikipedia article is slightly slanted towards the US libertarian right, but that's possibly just me.)

A couple of questions: how would you view the rights of the individual when it comes to a) joining a trade union (or guild) or b) joining a syndicate?

If you're after maximal individual liberty, then the individual has to have the freedom to form working groups or companies with others; but these can then present a threat to the individual liberty of others (see also 'gangster capitalism').

To deal with that, you need something capable of restricting the freedom of such collectives to oppress others; and then you're effectively talking about some form of state.

(I think that there's a fair variety in the form of state model capable of holding such groups in check, however; anarcho-syndicalist, minarchist, ad-hoc working groups, etc, etc.)

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

"The problem with 'libertarianism' is that it's a very broad term with a number of passionate advocates; all of whom will happily put the boot in to each other at the drop of a hat."

*nod* not to mention that I find a lot of young people who don't really understand all the true theory behind it embracing it because of a devotion to South Park and its creators, who espouse it. Political theory as pop culture, as it were.

[madfilkentist]

They say that if you ask ten libertarians, you'll get eleven different answers. Some libertarians insist that the complete abolition of government is the only consistent libertarian solution, others say it would be disastrous. I'd rather have a broad level of agreement to start with, and then quibble over specific issues afterward. If someone were to ask me, "Do you think Diane Duane is a libertarian?" I'd want to know more about your views than that brief summary; but I'm glad for that much agreement. I very much like your four-point summary. And I mean very much.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Hmm. if you believe that there needs to be legislation to dictate a minimum wage, that kind of militates against the libertarian thing, I'd have thought.

I think "all the rights you can defend" is a null phrase as well. There are no rights that can be defended individually, except the right to die trying. Sooner or later, a force will come along that you can't stand off even if you spend all your time, energy and resources on defence (in which case "freedom" becomes something of a moot point from where I'm standing). The only way to survive indefinitely in a libertarian society would be to have nothing worth taking.

But that's just my view of it, and many would disagree.

[dduane.livejournal.com]

Re the minimum wage: Logically, of course you'd be right. But I was speaking in Queen of the World mode, and legislation would not have been required.

...Now there's a motto. "'Fiat.' It's not a car, it's a lifestyle." ;)

[barberio.livejournal.com]

I need to translate that into Latin now...

[dduane.livejournal.com]

I did the first word for you. :)

[barberio.livejournal.com]

"'Fiat' non plostrum sed vitae"

[barberio.livejournal.com]

Altho 'carpentum' might be more appropriate.

[barberio.livejournal.com]

Ah, and further looking finds someone created a latin word for the automobile at some point. 'autocinetum'

[barberio.livejournal.com]

Further further to this, I also ended up translating this...
"Vero! Conventus est habeo nullus pallidus obuncus fructus. Habeo nullus pallidus obuncus fructus hodie."

[dduane.livejournal.com]

(snort) If Jed Bartlet appears to you in a dream and tells you to cut it out, don't blame me.

[barberio.livejournal.com]

I've been steadily working my way through all the West Wing episodes on DVD. That Sorkin fellow knows how to write dialogue.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

And it really shows when he stops...

[dewline.livejournal.com]

For all that they did their level best after he left(and oftimes proved considerably good in its own right), yes, it did.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

Check out SportsNight next, then. And Studio 60, of course, though you may prefer to wait for DVD.

[barberio.livejournal.com]

Studio 60 has been a little patchy, and it's taking Sorkin a while to get into his stride. Mostly because none of his staff had the guts to tell Sorkin he couldn't write good sketch comedy. It does look like he might have realised this now tho.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

I suspect that part of the problem, too, is that putting too much of the sketches in the show itself, which they did in the first few, is confusing and distracts from what we're actually there for, which is the backstage workings and characters. Having both turns a one-hour show positively dense.

Neither sports nor politics were like comedy that way, so I guess he's learning on his feet.

[barberio.livejournal.com]

He's also being rather un-subtle over the personal digs against people he's written into the show.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

You have my vote for Queen of the World!

I also get those sideways associations, and they are useful. Most of them anyway, and the ones which aren't useful are usually entertaining, at least.

[sharikkamur.livejournal.com]

Mine too. Sideways associations are the root of creativity, both scientific and artistic. How else are you supposed to come up with original ideas?

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I have a similar but slightly different problem. I did a post a while back call "You say that like it's a bad thing" about being a liberal. What I and the OED think a liberal is and what the US political establishment claim a liberal is are totally different.

Generally I think every time politicians make a speech and completely misuse a word they should have a copy of the OED dropped on them. Starting with the smallest size available and working up one size at a time each time the mistake is repeated. Given that the largest version runs to twenty volumes this would fix the problem eventually.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

Generally I think every time politicians make a speech and completely misuse a word they should have a copy of the OED dropped on them.

In which case, Bush would have a completely flat head by now. But I figure, why wait 'til they misuse a word?

[steve-roby.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered why there's so much overlap between libertarians and the science fiction community. I think it's all about wishful thinking. Libertarianism, at least the more or less organized American variety, is built on a fantasy of people behaving as rational actors. There's no need for a government to create or enforce environmental safeguards because companies will understand that people won't buy from a company that pollutes their air and water, so it's in the company's best interest not to pollute. Unions aren't necessary because everyone's able to enter into contracts as equals and no one will exploit anyone else because people are free to move to other less exploitative jobs. It's exactly the same kind of "this would work perfectly if only humans would behave the right way" ideology as communism.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Bingo! The root of SF Libertarianism is the belief that, given total freedom of action, the vast majority of people will act from "enlightened self-interest". Corollary: the few who don't will be relatively easy to spot and neutralize... whether that means by virtue of a prison cell or a bullet.

Where it falls down is that word "enlightened". Many more people than one might expect will act strictly in accordance with short-term self-interest, with no thought for the longer view. And that creates a HUGE problem, when you don't have an author standing there enforcing the One True Way.

Also, a lot of Libertarians believe in "absolute rights". The problem with this is that, as soon as more than one person is involved, there ARE no absolute rights. I have a "thought experiment" which demonstrates this, but it's on the long side, so I won't trot it out unless asked.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

I agree with both these comments. SF embraces it out of idealism and a wish for utopia. They forget that the equation involves humans.

[handworn.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the core of libertarianism (which has fourteen letters, not fifteen, so Jed Bartlet is shading in the extra box) can be expressed in Abraham Lincoln's idea that the purpose of government is to do for the people what the people are incapable of doing for themselves. Clearly, protecting people and the environment from the excesses of big business would fall under that category.

[murdergeisha.livejournal.com]

If you want the minimum wage raised, you're probably not a libertarian. People who ARE libertarians edit wikipedia with the intention of explaining why their philosophy is so great. Get into a conversation with one where they inform you that it's people's own fault if they're poor and if they'd just stop being so black/pregnant then the world would be a better place and the seamy underbelly shines through. (Note: for literalists, no, I do not think all libertarians are racists. Or anti-pregnantists. But imagine trying to get a reliable picture of neoconservatism from www.whybushrocks.com. There's a whole nother side you have to be aware of.)

I have long felt that the current political spectrum is short a very vital classification, because there are many people out there who feel that a smallish government, with moderate economic protectionism, a hands-off foreign policy, and strong internal social justice is a great idea, and they don't fit comfortably anywhere. I mean, it's not like it's a synaptic stretch to see a place like that working, nor can I possibly believe it's that new an idea. The natural place for the concept is on the right, but the right's a little broken right now. Plus, the way it's usually worked in this country is that the 'left' (the Democrats) have nurtured a semi-contentious community of moderates, single-issue, and multi-issue liberals who band together (kind of) for the greater good of defeating the right but start squabbling immediately after that. This is both a blessing, in that they always have healthy dissent, and a curse, in that it's sometimes hard for them to act in concord. The right being the opposite is a benefit when it comes to winning elections--just look at the breakdown of Presidential political parties--but means those who fundamentally disagree with a few core fashionable precepts feel very left in the cold. A genuinely multiparty system would of course obviate this fault, and who knows? Maybe it's coming. Like everyone has said it has been coming. For the last fifty years.

[batyatoon]

I like your definition of paleolibertarianism.

"We will rule over this land! And we will call it ... this land!"

Jeffersonian Democracy

[ravhowie.livejournal.com]

Diane,

I've always styled myself as a "Jeffersonian Democrat" (yes, there is actually a "collection" of us :) ), treasuring his statement ...

"That government governs best which governs least"

.. which to my mind, sums up all the things you said.

[talon.livejournal.com]

I'm a moderate on every political scale I've ever encountered.

But at the same time, I believe a good person with little restrictions could change a lot, as long as he didn't become corrupt. Sort of the wishful thinking that makes communism good in theory, I suppose; I guess this is my way of saying fascism is good in theory too.

I have to say though, your last line made my day, Diane.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Minimum wages are pretty much incompatible with any form of Libertarianism I know. It's even one of the things they're right about. But then I live in a place where fast-food restaurants pay significantly above the minimum wage.

There are certainly an uncomfortable number of kooks and idiots who shelter under the Libertarian umbrella, including a lot who seem to want mostly freedom to abuse people to their heart's content.

[ex-mightygo.livejournal.com]

Libertarianism is like the opposite side of Marxism. Both are predicated on believing that a given economic strategy (and both of them, incidentally, reduce almost everything to economics, which is dumb) will reap great benefits without any actual evidence backing up their respective theories, and both are completely unrealistic regarding their core beliefs (Marxism's core belief is that altruism and collectivism alone can make a society run; libertarianism's is that self-interest and individualism alone can do it).

The only difference is that Marxism's policy directives are fairly focused at one point on the Marxism-libertarianism axis (right at the end), and libertarianism's are all over the place. This is mostly because being a Marxist has been reduced to an insult whereas being a libertarian is sort of complimentary. But, boiled down, they're both very stupid, extremist ideas.

[txvoodoo.livejournal.com]

btw, Diane? I would totally vote for you for the position of Her Wisdom, Empress of the Twenty Universes.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

I've taken to claiming I'm a Red Tory, which offers me the pleasing option of someday being given a comfy chair in a museum somewhere as the last of a species...

Meanwhile, I'm voting for you too.