One thing that all Libertarians have in common is a disgust for systems which socialize risk and privatize gain. Most Libertarians take the bailout of the financial system to be the paradigm example. This blog examines a more subtle and destructive instance.

Left vs. Right Libertarianism in Theory

Right-Libertarians, nearly always from the Austrian School of Economics, come in two flavors.  The first and more well-known flavor believes in the Constitution.  They believe that the United States government is a legitimate institution.  But, they believe that the only proper function of that institution is to defend rights.  Therefore, the first kind of Right-Libertarian believes in monopoly of force -- the government's responsibility to own the threat of violence and imprisonment.  That power, according to the first kind of Right-Libertarian, ought to be used only to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

The second kind of Right-Libertarian is the Anarcho-capitalist.  This flavor of Right-Libertarianism believes in the invisible hand of the free-market system so strongly that, by its lights, the government serves no purpose whatsoever.  Damn the Constitution.  Damn the founding fathers.  Damn it all.   (Ironically, the tea-baggers switch between the anarcho-capitalist belief system and the monopoly of force belief system -- without any awareness that this minute-to-minute flip-flop is incoherent at best, clinically insane at worst.)

Left-Libertarians are much more unified -- in theory and in action.  Left-Libertarians are less concerned with the role of government and more concerned with the protection of natural rights -- whether they be endangered by rogue nations or corporate practices.  The government, as seen by the Left-Libertarian (most notably Chomsky), is a neutral institution which can be utilized to protect the people from the abuse of power.

Health Care

The debate over health care elicits a Left-Libertarian argument for the public-option. This argument can be justified by the free-market principles of the Austrian School -- the Right-Libertarian mind-set. 

Right-Libertarians argue that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Opportunity costs always exist.  Therefore, the public-option will do nothing but rearrange costs from the people in the form of premiums to the people in the form of taxes.  Nothing good can come of it.

What the Right-Libertarians miss is that insurance companies are already rearranging costs.  Over $100 billion per year in emergency care doesn't just disappear.  As uncompensated care rises, insurance companies raise premiums.  In 2008, uncompensated care upped the average American family's premium $1,017 over the year.  And yet, the Right would have you be terrified of taxes.

Cost-shifting in the private sector is much more dangerous than taxation because the corporation supposedly calculates the price of their service based on demand and supply.  Yet emergency care is not demand for insurance coverage -- though the price system acts as if it were.  So insurance companies charge a rate which has little to do with the demand for their service. 

The problem goes deeper.  Insurance company A contractually agrees with customer B that A will cover B so long as B pays monthly premiums.  But as soon as B gets sick, A researches B's record to find contract-nullifying-causes.  When A finds a history of domestic abuse, acne, typos on a form, momentary lapses in coverage, etc., then A breaks the contract with B. 

This practice is socialized risk/privatized gain.  The very same concept which underlies the government bailout of the financial sector is present in the health care system.  Only socialized risk/privatized gain was enacted through a bill for the financial system.  In the health care system, socialized risk/privatized gain is the norm. 

Right-Libertarians have difficulty with this application of the concept.  For them, socialized risk/privatized gain is a concept which only applies to the relationship between government and the corporation.  In reality, socialized risk/privatized gain is a concept which applies to the relationship between the corporation and the customer as well.  I suggest that the latter -- because it's more difficult to detect -- poses a much more serious threat.  

Eric Cantor expresses the Right's strategy: this economy belongs to Barack Obama.

Our knee-jerk response is wrong.  We want to say, "No, Bush screwed up the economy," or "No, the banks screwed up the economy." 

This reaction is a trap.

Here's the truth.  An economy does not belong to anyone.  An economy is the sum total of people interacting and exchanging. 

To mis-understand that, is to mis-understand a free-market.  So, our reaction ought to be: Eric Cantor does not know what a free-market is. 

Eric Cantor is a symbol for the far Right.  Let's unify in our critique of this movement. 

(1) The Right champions free-markets.
(2) Free-markets are the sum total of people interacting and exchanging.
(3) The Right believes a single person can own a free-market.
Therefore, (4) The Right cannot conceptualize a free-market.

This post is a short response to the right wing mockery of empathy in judgment.

In order to judge matters correctly, a person must be capable of independence in judgment.  What follows is a simple proof which demonstrates the necessity of empathy and the consequences of its absence. 

(1) Independence of judgment presupposes freedom of thought.

(2) Freedom of thought presupposes the ability to shift perspectives.

(3) The ability to shift perspectives presupposes empathy. 

Therefore, (4) Independence of judgment presupposes empathy.

(1a) The absence of empathy implies the inability to shift perspectives.

(2a) The inability to shift perspectives implies slavery of thought.

(3a) Slavery of thought implies co-dependent judgment.

Therefore, (4a) The absence of empathy implies co-dependent judgment.

(4) and (4a) have something counter-intuitive to say: only through empathy can one think freely, and so, only through empathy can one escape the prison of herd mentality.  As the right wing makes fun of empathy in judgment, they implicitly champion co-dependent judgment. 

 

Frank Rich wrote an article for today's New York Times.  In it, he gives his take on the future of journalism.  He says that "what can't be reinvented is the wheel of commerce," and "we will get what we pay for."  While those comments are reasonable enough, and while he understands--for the most part--the importance of blogging, he does make an assertion with which I take issue. 

...[O]pinions, however insightful or provocative and whether expressed online or in print or in prime time, are cheap. Reporting the news can be expensive.

I don't think that's entirely wrong, but I do think it's misleading.  The essence of a blog is hardly opinion.  To say that, would be like saying: my judgment that 'my hand is on the doorknob' is essentially 'my opinion that my hand is on the doorknob'. 

Opinion is the preference for one event over another; it is also the perception of events that may or may not be a correct perception.  '1 < 2' is an opinion if the reference is apples--and you're really hungry for apples.  '1 < 2' is an opinion if the reference is diseases--and you would like to catch more than one disease.

But what about an example from scoring in the game of golf:  '1 < 2'?  That's not an opinion.  That's a mistake.  That's an incorrect judgment.  Because the lower the score the better, 2 is never better than 1.  So what about this: '2 < 1 in the game of golf--in reference to scoring'.  What do we say about that?  That's not an opinion either.  That's a recognition of the rules.  That's a proper judgment.  It is incorrect to say that this perception may or may not be correct.  It is correct.

And so when Johnny Appleseed declares himself the winner in a golf match--even though he shot an 82 and his opponent shot an 81 (assuming the game is not match play)--we say that Johnny Appleseed is either lying/joking/etc. or he doesn't understand the rules of the game.  But, we're not stating an opinion.  We're presenting a fact. 

And that's what blogging does--not always, but often.  When someone/some group breaks the rules, we say, "that person/group broke the rules."  That's not opinion.  When someone changes the rules without reason, we say, "the rules have been improperly changed."  That's not opinion. Some blogs don't cite specific instances, but just serve as reminders for what the rules are and why they are as they are. 

I like Frank Rich, and I usually love his articles.  But, I resent him misrepresenting blogging as opinion.  While he's correct that many bloggers aren't willing to do the heavy lifting and digging, he's wrong to assume that all or even most aren't willing to do so.  Reference: those who blog here.
 

            This post is designed to address the source of Republican decline.  It focuses on the narrative of personal responsibility as the center of the Republican story.  Then, it examines the inconsistencies and unsoundness of personal responsibility--the concept--as represented by Republican politicians and supporters.  Lastly, it traces the roots of the breakdown--the lack of access to intersubjective thinking--and suggests a path towards rebuilding.

The Narrative of Personal Responsibility

            The Republican Party's meta-platform is personal responsibility.  All other positions are derived from that concept.  Tax cuts are good because they put power into the hands of the productive.  The productive are necessarily responsible people.  Social programs like universal health care are bad because they reward those people who produce nothing.  Those who produce nothing are not responsible people.  When the government lends them a hand, the government encourages them to produce nothing.  Rewarding those who produce nothing gives incentive to produce nothing.  The more people produce nothing, the worse off the country.  Therefore, personal responsibility is the new golden rule: do unto others as they produce.

            But is that the end of the story?  Is that all we have to say about personal responsibility?  I mean, if personal responsibility is about doing things for yourself, then wouldn't that include thinking for yourself?  In other words: doesn't critical thought play a role in personal responsibility?  I can't imagine anyone denying that.  Yet, not relying on the government--which is the Republican definition of personal responsibility--does not entail critical thought.  A robot produced by a private company does not rely on the government, but we don't want to say that the robot is personally responsible until its batteries die.  So I find it awkward for Republicans to suggest that not relying on government assistance is the only presupposition for personal responsibility. 

Republican Responsibility

            What, then, is personal responsibility without critical thought?  Let's back up.  As people, our values determine our preferences.  Our preferences determine our actions.  So in order to act freely, we are forced to scrutinize our values.  We must insure that they are all internally consistent with one another.  We must insure that they correspond to reality.  And we must insure that it would be cool for everyone else to have the same values.  Once we've gone through that process, we can be somewhat--though never entirely--confident in our actions.  Our actions will most likely be rational and as free as we can hope. 

            But what do we say about actions undertaken by individuals who have not examined their values closely, or at all?  In these cases, actions are not free, but instead determined by a system of belief.  That does not mean that the actors are not people.  They most certainly are people.  But it does mean that they are programmed as if they were robots.  And this brings us back to our original question: what is personal responsibility without critical thought?  Answer: strict obedience to an already formed set of values--even if those values are entirely inconsistent, self-defeating, dehumanizing, or simply nonsensical. 

            So how, exactly, has a major party in the United States come this far without coherence?  Let's back up again.  A Democratic Republic is run by lawmakers who represent the majority of voters.  The majority of voters are not always enlightened.  So if a prevailing attitude--the most common way of being in the world--is senseless, then the party which best represents senselessness will run the show.  And the party which can package the senselessness into a heroic quality--whether it actually is or isn't--will run the show for a long time.  Hence, we were, and still are to some extent, preached the doctrine of personal responsibility (without critical thought). 

The Party of (Covert) Non-Intersubjective Thinking

            Until now, non-intersubjective thinking has been overwhelmingly dominant amongst Americans.  We have believed that thinking is something that happens in our head--in a private theater to which no one else has access.  Or, we move to the opposite extreme, and believe that thinking is only what happens in a completely free, open, and unrestrained marketplace.  Non-intersubjective thought is the germ for all disconnection from reality.  The inability to think in this way is a misperception which permeates our lives and our culture.  In a story of amazing irony, even the great conservative--the founder of so-called Objectivism--fell prey to purely subjectivist thought.  According to the Library of Congress, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged has sold more copies than any other book in America, aside from the bible.  And yet even the Objectivist attempt to push a philosophy of critical thinking has proven to be a failure. 

            But this, I would suggest, is the starting point for understanding today's Republican incoherence.  Ayn Rand's characters--Howard Roark, Dagny Taggart, John Galt, etc.--were individually perfect portraits of personal responsibility.  These are men and women who are proud to live for themselves and only for themselves.  Few corporate executives have not read Rand, and few don't fantasize about their inner John Galt.  Yet Rand's theory of knowledge turns man into an "alien-explorer": an entity which cannot gather trust-worthy knowledge through interpersonal interaction: the intersubjective.  (Perhaps this is why many Republicans would not consider waterboarding to be torture: the sense of dying would be welcomed in such a lonely alien world.  From another angle, this may be why torture is thought to be the only worth-while interrogation technique, since interpersonal interaction cannot yield trust-worthy knowledge.)

A Suggested Path to Reconstruction

            These problems are not superficial.  First, non-intersubjective thinking is blinding to reality--especially in the form of non-objective thinking which is masked as 'Objectivism'.  Second, personal responsibility is meaningless without critical thought--especially when it forms the axiom of a Party's storyline.  Until the incoherence is reconciled, the Republican Party will be a collection of hungry ghosts.  If any Republican has followed the argument to this point, I would like to make a couple of suggestions.  First, be honest amongst each other.  Admit you don't have it all figured out.  Your ideas aren't what needs to change.  Your way of thinking is what needs to change.  Some insights are worth keeping.  We will eventually need to repay the debt.  You can trumpet that cause when the time comes, but accept the reality of our current situation.  

Understand that personal responsibility is meaningless without critical thought.  No party has a monopoly on critical thought.  So be assured that if you move past non-intersubjective thinking, critical thinking is present everywhere.  It is available to the right as it is to the left.  It just takes effort and the humility to accept error.  The longer you put it off, the more you will consume yourself.  Do what is best for you and your country.  Aim to touch reality: the intersubjective kind.  

Addendum    

I recognize that the Republican Party is a coalition.  It is composed of different groups with different belief systems.  Ayn Rand's philosophy/economics are championed by only a few of the groups within that coalition.  However, some beliefs must be universal--held constant by all groups within the coalition.  Some of those beliefs are as a simple as: (a) 'the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party' or (b) 'Our group has reason to be in the Republican Party'.  Some beliefs are more substantive: (c) 'smaller government is better than larger government' or (d) 'tax cuts are better than tax increases'.

Every group which composes the Republican Party holds these four beliefs (except, on the one hand, the "cock-tail conservatives" who would accept the first two beliefs, but would consider the second two conditionally true, and, on the other hand, neo-conservatives who like large government as long as its run by them--so it can be used as a tool to leverage power towards the private companies of their choice).  I think then it's fair to say that all groups hold belief (b) because either (1) 'the Republican Party has the most faith in markets', (2) 'the Republican Party represents my social values', (3) 'I hate all the other options', and/or (4) 'my immediate family tells me I'm a loser if I'm not a Republican'.

It is clear that (b) is universal among all groups within the Republican coalition.  It is hardly debatable that (b) equals (1), (2), (3), (4), and/or (5) at least something along those lines.  So, if one accepts that all of (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) entail non-intersubjective thinking, then my thesis holds.

So I wake up this morning and take a gander at the local paper.  I live in Mobile, Alabama.  This paper has a pretty clear perspective.  But this morning, well, this morning, I saw something I've never seen before--and I've lived in Alabama for 26 years--my whole life. 

The front page of The Mobile Press-Register, above the fold, reads this:  AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP.  It's an editorial from the publisher of the paper--Mr. Howard Bronson Jr.  This is what he writes--on the front page, mind you, above the fold.

Easter editorial: America needs to wake up

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Editor's note: The following editorial was written by Press-Register Publisher Howard Bronson Jr.

On this Easter, let's all sit back and look at where we've come from, where we are today and where we're going in the future and, hopefully, get back to our roots and ask for God's help in directing us through these stormy times.

For the past century, America has been the guardian and protector of freedom around the world. We have sacrificed blood and treasure to save Europe twice. We have freed the people of Bosnia. We have freed the people of Iraq. We have stood up against totalitarianism in Vietnam, and stood down the Soviet empire during the Cold War.

We are currently involved in a war on terror that was brought upon us because radical militants in the name of al-Qaida decided that we are the devil incarnate and need to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

We are the most generous country on the face of the Earth -- not only to our own people in remarkable charitable giving, but in an abundance of charity around the world through our foreign aid. We have been the economic engine of the world that has provided not only for the United States the greatest prosperity in the history of the universe, but the greatest growth and prosperity of any land.

We are currently at the most dangerous time in the history of this country. We have rogue states with missiles and nuclear devices that can threaten the world, and our response is to cut back our missile defense.

We have an economic downturn in this country brought on by politicians who are not motivated by the good of the country, but by their greed to be re-elected. Their behavior is just short of treason. Does anyone remember Karl Marx said that we would destroy ourselves from within?

Our economic troubles were brought on by a political class that, in order to buy votes, decided everybody should have a home whether they could afford it or not. It was a nice sentiment, but one that could only lead to a housing bubble when the bills came due. The result has been the collapse of the housing market and the economic downturn.

Now we have an administration whose dream is to install every social program that any liberal has ever dreamed of into our American way of life -- the same programs that have socialized and stagnated Europe's economy for years. The cost of these programs, as analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, would take the sum of all the deficits run by all of the presidents up to this current time, and double it.

The game plan for this administration is clear: Institute all of these social welfare programs, run up a tremendous debt and then let inflation pay down that debt with our savings.

The net result will be that all the people who have worked, been responsible and saved will lose everything that they have accumulated. Taxes on our children and grandchildren will have to be so high to maintain these programs that the standard of living in this country will have to go down.

We are on the verge of possibly destroying the greatest experiment in democracy, free enterprise and wealth creation the world has ever known.

If ever there was a time to ask for God's help and direction, it's now. We need to pray for leaders who will step forward, tell the American people the truth and not just what they want to hear, consistently stand up to the lies that are told by others and be prepared to take the criticism that will surely come, but remain steadfast because they know that they are doing the right thing for the common good -- not only for this country, but for the world.

Once I was done reading it, I read it again--still in shock.  All I could think of was all the angry locals screaming "Amen!"  I decided I needed to write a response.  They probably won't publish it.  But they've published my letters before, so I thought it was my responsibility.  I want to share with the Cafe Community what I wrote.  At least here, I know my work won't be cast aside as liberal bullshit.

Mr. Bronson,

This morning I read your editorial.  I take issue with the two central premises and the conclusion.  Premise 1: The administration's game plan is to "run up tremendous debt and then let inflation pay down that debt with our savings."  You misconstrue the purpose.  Have you seen the unemployment numbers?  We are near 9% right now, and that only takes into account those who report themselves as unemployed to the federal government.  That ignores those who have given up looking for work, those who are under worked--wanting to work more, and those who simply have not officially claimed themselves jobless. 

What you neglect is that free market principles assume full employment.  Without full employment, concepts like 'debt', 'savings', and 'inflation' are worthless.  If unemployment continues to grow, then the customer will continue to withdraw.  If the customer continues to withdraw then more and more businesses will be unable to maintain their employee's wages.  This degeneration produces a cycle which--if not attacked by tremendous force--will spell the end of our social fabric.  Inflation ought not be your primary concern.  If unemployment spirals out of control, then it is deflation which you ought to fear.  As demand for goods and services becomes more and more unaffordable, businesses will be forced to lower prices further and further.  The result will be a supply of goods and services worth near nothing.  Government spending, therefore, is an absolute necessity.  You may disagree with the way in which the administration is spending--and that is fair, but that they are spending unprecedented amounts is quite rational.

Premise 2: "the net result will be that all the people who have worked, been responsible and saved will lose everything that they have accumulated."  Again, you assume that inflation is the great threat.  You must remember that the great threat--because of unemployment--is deflation.  If the government does not spend unprecedented amounts, then the value of all our goods and services will plummet.  If that happens, then everything all the people have accumulated will be worthless anyway!

Conclusion: "pray for leaders who will step forward, tell the American people the truth and not just what they want to hear."  Well then let me start.  The law of supply and demand is the foundation of free market theory.  When demand drops to dangerous levels, the market drops to dangerous levels.  The most rational option, then, is to supply demand.  And the federal government is the only entity which can do that right now.  Once unemployment is under control, then entrepreneurship can retake the helm.  But until that time, the federal government has to take the wheel.

Michael B. Hill

So that's all.  I gave it my best.  I wish I could do better.  But I feel like I've done my part.

The McCain Campaign, following Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama, issued this statement:

Colin Powell may or may not be a terrorist.  The American people have a right to know.  'Colin' is an exotic name -- suggesting an unamerican quality.  His parents are Jamaican.  Jamaica has one of the highest murder rates in the world.  

Colin Powell spent an alarming amount of time in Southeast Asia.  He has, on multiple occasions, refused to discuss his activities -- leaving many to wonder. 

Colin Powell has had extensive involvement with some of the most cold blooded killers and unrepentant terrorists in Iraq.  Reportedly, he not only engaged with them between 1990-1991 but he further deepened his connection with them in 2003.

The American people need to know.... BOO!!!!

NBC Universal,

You just caved.  You just removed Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews from the anchor spot on election coverage, because...?  Because the crowd chanted "NBC" when Sarah Palin vomited up the meme 'media bias'?  Because Brokaw and Williams have difficulty defending the network at their cocktail parties, even while speaking in their charmingly fake deep voices?  Because the high ratings were making you too much money?  Because McCain's people were furious that you announced Palin's plane on its way to Ohio (while not a word spoken about ABC announcing secret service at Joe Biden's house)?  Because, as he advances the Clinton 2012 conspiracy theory (even after Ms. Clinton threw full support behind Mr. Obama), David Gregory is much better suited to anchor? 

Or in all honesty, NBC, did you do it because Olbermann and Matthews are forthright in what they believe?  Because, rather than imply this or that, they have the guts to actually say what they mean?  Because, in your opinion, a real anchor has beliefs which only bleed subtly into their coverage?  Because a confusing broadcast which covertly advances a certain message is more objective than those that are direct?  Because you buy the argument that Olbermann on election coverage is akin to O'Rielly on election coverage?  Because you cannot distinguish between one commentator with a clear cut perspective and another who will say anything to do one party's bidding? 

You probably don't know.  That's the sad part.  You probably just felt a lot of pressure.  You never asked yourself, "Should we sidestep this pressure?"  "Does this pressure come from legitimate sources?"  "In what sense are we advancing objective news by reprogramming based on the McCain Campaign push of their own vested interest?" 

Do you really think those thugs want objective news?  Do you really think that any of this pressure comes from a desire for objective news?  Did you ever stop to think that your two best commentators are controversial precisely because of certain people's vested interest?  Do you think this makes you appear more objective or more vulnerable to pressure? 

Did Rick Davis really have his "sit down" with you, like he promised -- in the same way a parent, without enough time to punish, right then, does to a child after they have broken the parent's shifting rules?  Way to go NBC.  You are a beakon of strength and journalistic integrity.  Or, you are the clown and you just replaced your two best products with the generic brand.

Good night and good luck.

This morning, John McCain -- old man riverboat gambler -- has selected Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.  Several problems with this pick:

(1) The experience argument is shown to be lip service.
(2) Barack Obama will be reframed as a tested veteran.
(3) McCain's judgment looks horrible -- is she ready to be president?
(4) McCain's temperament looks horrible -- he's doubled down on a king of diamonds and a 6 of hearts.
(5) Obama/Biden, as a ticket, now speaks more strongly to foreign policy.
(6) The V.P. debates will be embarrassing.
(7) She uses her power to exercise vendettas.
(8) The experience argument boomerangs.