— Eric S. Raymond demonstrates a finely nuanced political sensibility in this post ostensibly listing liberal and conservative values. About 15 of his twenty issues are strawmen, such as the claims that conservatives are creationists and liberals communists.
So here are my Top Ten Reasons for not being a Libertarian:
- America isn’t France: we don’t do runoffs.
- You can’t privatize everything: nuclear power, in particular, needs to be run by government or not at all.
- The Free Market doesn’t give a damn about the environment.
- The social safety net is a moral imperative, so we have to make it work as well as we can.
- Most often, the truths of politics lie in the middle and not at the extremes.
- The only force big enough to control big business is big government.
- Freedom has to be balanced against justice, or the strong will exploit the weak.
- Some truths are self-evident: two-parent families are the best means for raising children that will ever be devised.
- Harry Browne is a libertarian.
- Libertarians are juvenile.
No strawmen, only the facts. Now a much more interesting list would be the Top Ten Reasons Why I’m not a Moderate, since that’s the dominant political point of view in this country as in all developed nations. Reason number one: Moderates are wishy-washy and have no moral compass.
Facts, Mr. Bennett?
Let’s see:
2) Nuclear power can perfectly well be run privately; lack of proper security measures would constitute a threat against the plant’s neighbour’s property and would therefore be illegal.
3) Countries with relatively free markets are the cleanest of them all.
4) The social (not)safety(at all)net is not a moral imperative; it’s an immoral abdomination. Forced “solidarity” isn’t solidarity; morality only applies to voluntary actions.
5) All positions are the extreme of something, including yours.
7) Only anarchists would argue.
8) Tell that to the children who have been raised by single parents or in collectives, and who have become (or will become) far more successful than yourself
I’ll give you (9), though.
2) Dynamics of capitalism – cheap and efficient – are contrary to the public safety requirements of nuke power – overbuilt and overwatched.
3) Only because of gov’t regulation.
4) Some people are genuinely incapable of taking care of themselves, and I’d rather not shoot them on sight.
5) My positions are correct.
7) Libertarians don’t factor justice into the equation, nor do they fear monopolies.
8) There aren’t any.
I tend to side with Richard on most of these. For example, one could argue that it’s not the free market that cleans the environment in West Europe (which compared with East Europe is much better), but the wealth generated by the free market used to enforce gov’t regulations, as well as lifting people above the level where they have to use rivers as latrines. In other words, the free market may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a good environment coupled with high wealth.
I found Teddy’s comment about nuke power interesting: “Nuclear power can perfectly well be run privately; lack of proper security measures would constitute a threat against the plant’s neighbour’s property and would therefore be illegal.” Yes, I’d much rather have to litigate ten or fifteen years after the reactor melts down. Oh, no, that’s right, my family and I would be dead. However, here the libertarians may be more correct: private industry probably wouldn’t have built nuke power, since it isn’t really all that cheap (especially now that we have to contemplate some jackass flying a 747 into a containment tower).
And the comment that all positions are extreme positions was very, very odd….