On the 27th, which was 8 days ago, now, Jon Stewart had Andrew Napolitano on The Daily Show. I am a self-described libertarian. I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 (yes, I know he wasn’t on the ballot). I also love The Daily Show and Mr. Stewart; I think he’s insightful, wise, and funny.
Here’s the first part of the interview I’m going to be commenting on, I encourage you to click-through to see the next two parts.
During the interview, Stewart asks Napolitano several questions which challenged libertarian ideas, and which do so in a fair, straightforward way. These are the sorts of questions that intelligent friends ask each-other, not the sort of traps that politicians lay during debates. These are the sorts of questions that need to be more prominent in politics, and which deserve the most thought-out replies.
Here are some examples:
- Doesn’t government-provided infrastructure or safety-net increase freedom, rather than remove it?
- “What should we do with the losers that picked by the free market?”
- Since we live in a society where the work of the many made some grow rich, should we not give back some of the riches to the many?
- How is government oppressive, when we live in a government chosen by the people?
- If we agree that some government is necessary, how can government be inherently evil?
- Why do libertarians trust corporations more than governments who are accountable to voters?
- If markets are supposed to be so good, why do we see so many problems in the market (e.g. healthcare)?
- Would the free market have abolished slavery and segregation; would it have established women’s rights?
- If judges and courts are vital for freedom, and judges and courts are part of the government, isn’t government vital for freedom?
Napolitano answered most of these in what I would consider the worst way possible: with an extremist soundbite. My brother suggested that for a minority group, like libertarianism, there’s a tendency to discard moderate statements for controversial ones in the interest of getting attention. Consider the following exchange:
Stewart: “[Market regulations] came out of an interest in helping those who had been victimized by a system that they couldn’t fight back against…”
Napolitano: “I’m going to blow you away. Selfishness is a virtue. In the free market, when you are selfish, you make the most money…”
I think this rage face is appropriate:
Way to promote psychopathy, dude.
This sort of response is the way to lose public support, not gain it. To convince moderates (and promote sane governance), we libertarians need to acknowledge that helping people is desirable, and a system which leaves people homeless, hungry, or sick is sub-optimal. We need to acknowledge that politicians may be coming at a problem with a sincere belief that they’re doing the best thing. We need to acknowledge that markets don’t magically solve everything. We need to acknowledge that we might be wrong.
Only after admitting that roads improve freedom can we make our case that private roads improve freedom more. Only after admitting selfishness is *not* a virtue (Napolitano is celebrating *ambition*, not selfishness, imo) can we talk about making systems which are robust, and can thrive in the face of selfishness. Only when we admit that it’s important to care for the poor can we ever have a hope of convincing a democrat that the inefficiencies and conflicts of involuntary redistribution of wealth outweigh the benefits. Only when we admit that some government is important and good, can we stop driving away those who smell hypocrisy.
In short:
![[LIBERTARIANS: Y U NO APPEAL TO MODERATES?]](http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/10/10903/11165304.jpg)
One Comment
I think the real problem is that people mistake the government for culture. Culturally, the British were ready to give up slavery, but the Americans (some of the States) were not. In Western European culture women have always had (even Classical Roman women) many many more rights and freedoms than in the rest of the world. In more fluid societies of pastoral people or nomadic people, women always have had more rights, same with lower caste men. So this meme was part of culture and rich women had more freedom than poor men. Part of a culture is that the rich always had more freedom than the poor.
None of this is part of government, nor should be. Government should not enforce the MORALS or MEMES of a people, only insure that justice can be addressed. I don’t even think that government should protect people from each other, but only provide a way for victims to get some attention and even the score with those who attacked them. This has to be in a public forum, which is what I think government should be. A public forum where people can go and get attention about whatever is hurting them. Then, again in public, DISINTERESTED parties as well as interested parties should fight and argue in the open about the situation brought up by the victim(s) in order to publicly enforce some kind of cultural shunning on the perpetrators, whether it is a fine or some kind of moral/memetic shaming.
We get way, way too tied up in thinking that government is a greater family, to take care of the members of the clan. That is a job for a family, not a government. With the loss of family and clan, trying to invent an adoptive family and mix those responsibilities in with law and order gets really messy really fast. Moral rules such as who should marry are not a part of law and order, but a preference of a clan. My grandmother should be able to try to keep me from marrying someone, but not a band of strangers set up to address my need for justice should it arise.
Government fails when it’s expected to do things that it is not designed to do. Like using a bed as a table, sort of works, but ultimately has problems. Government and common law and group enforcement of justice are invaluable parts of a society. Let’s not force government to do the job of our mothers.