Why libertarians have little political impact:

U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims.

Sometimes you have to just let go of "theory" and help people.

(Via Joshua Micah Marshall and Matthew Yglesias)

Comments

[John T. Kennedy]

With other people's money?

[David Sucher]

Yup.

[Brian Miller]

Are the Randites really typical of/the mainstream of libertarianism? If so, my skepticism/outright dislike of libertarianism is justified (I am being somewhat facetious. I hope)

[John T. Kennedy]

So robbing Peter to pay Paul is your idea of helping?

If you want to help people why not simply do it with your own money?

[TM Lutas]

A small correction is in order. The randites have long fought to keep themselves out of the libertarian label, styling themselves objectivists. Lumping them together isn't particularly fair to either.

The randite argument in the link is also done badly. The proper argument against government relief is at least partially accepted by the Bush administration, and that is that government aid is uniquely susceptible to diversion to unauthorized uses because when you have a big enough gang around you with enough guns, you can get away with theft.

The $21B UNSCAM fraud is fresh enough in our memories that we have the Bush administration launching an alternative 4 nation coordinating council for those who care about aid effectiveness. The solution is not libertarian but the recognition of the problem marches down the libertarian path.

At their best, private organizations do wonders far exceeding the ability of government to stretch charity dollars and aid more people. The government role in an ideal world should be limited to applying violence to looters and other criminals trying to insert themselves between the charitable giver and the receiver of charity. We would maximize positive aid impact that way and minimize follow on deaths and injury. And who is against minimizing death and injury from all the horrors that surely will follow the tsunami?

The problem, in practice, is that we're not in an ideal world and the infrastructure to do this sort of thing wasn't set up years ago (just like the tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean basin) so you go with what you've got and do the small shifts you can like minimizing the power of the most obviously corrupt government institutions in doling out aid. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't start looking at ways to improve things starting now.

[Joe]

>>At their best, private organizations do wonders far exceeding the ability of government to stretch charity dollars and aid more people.<<

At best, this statement is not even theoretical. It is, rather, purely speculative.

As an example, the U.S. military is currently dispatching seven ships to south Asia. Each ship can produce 90,000 gallons of fresh water each day. Can you think of a private organization that can quickly produce that much water while the country tries to rebuild its desalinization plants?

The people there need water. What's the private market going to do? Send Perrier?

[Nicholas Weininger]

As TMLutas said, the ARI should absolutely not be taken as representative of the larger libertarian movement. Even some Objectivists consider them too rigid and extreme. One of their officers, Peter Schwartz, is best known to libertarians for writing a vicious screed called "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty". Moreover they tend to be against private altruistic behavior too on the grounds that "self-sacrifice is immoral" or some such thing.

OTOH, the principled argument that it's not the proper job of government to engage in charitable endeavors with other people's money has better defenses, and a better historical pedigree, than the ARI folks' ranting would lead you to believe. Grover Cleveland, who was very conservative by modern standards but no extremist ideologue, famously vetoed in 1887 a bill to appropriate federal funds for disaster relief in Texas on this ground.

[David Sucher]

I stand corrected (and relieved) if the ARI folks are not libertarians.

As to robbing Peter to pay Paul: I don't look at tax money that way. Stupid as much government spending may be -- and a lot of it is foolish -- it genuinely reflects our own foolishness as I believe that, over time and in the largest perspective, we get the government we ask for and so we have no one to clame but ourselves when our government does something dumb. So it's not robbing anyone.

[Nicholas Weininger]

The problem is that "we" don't exist; only individuals exist. I for one don't get, have never gotten, and am likely never going to get a government remotely like what I ask for. If others outvote me, and I'm right and they're wrong, I don't see how I have only myself to blame for their error. Likewise, if five folks from down the street break into my house and take my stuff, I wouldn't think much of someone who claimed that they "weren't robbing anyone" because their decision reflected the collective foolishness of the six of us.

Oh, and just to forestall iteration #162747 of the Endless Anarchism Argument, let me make clear that the above is not, at least in itself, an argument for anarchy. It may be that, in order to sustain civilization, there are *some* purposes for which dissenting individuals unfortunately must be forced to give up (some of) their property when a majority thinks it necessary. But it's a long way from believing that to believing that the majority ought to be allowed to use that forcibly-taken property for any ends at all that it wants. You might call Grover Cleveland stingy, but you couldn't reasonably call him an anarchist.

[David Sucher]

Only individuals exist?

I'd be interested in what your parents think of that sentiment.

The very fact that we use language, even to disagree with each other, is pretty dramatic evidence that "we" individuals exist as part of a larger entity...a "community," if you will.

[Murph]

David, the "what would your parents think" statement is simply beautiful. Thank you.