Pharyngula

Posted by: JeffreyD | June 30, 2010 6:52 AM

As has been commented elsewhere, one of the funniest things I have seen lately is: Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ayn Rand. I doubt that joke has been enjoyed by the libertarians either.

Civil liberties? Yes! Libertarian? No!

Posted by: Facehammer | June 30, 2010 6:59 AM

Great post, PZ. You pretty much nailed my thoughts on the matter. I'm continually astonished by just how humourless these idiots can be.

Posted by: seanwillsalt | June 30, 2010 7:08 AM

I was fairly tempted by libertarianism when I first encountered it, but then I realized that it's about as naive as any other political viewpoint on either of the more extreme ends of the spectrum. I've since come to avoid discussing politics with most libertarians unless they give me a reason to think they're not going to be annoying.

Posted by: wccrawford | June 30, 2010 7:12 AM

Disclaimer: I self-identify as a libertarian. I think Ayn Rand was a visionary and Atlas Shrugged is a scary book. Even more scary than 1984.

People, in general, get touchy when you insult them. This is just human nature.

Libertarians, being a small group, tend to be comprised of people who believe at least a little fanatically in libertarian values.

So guess what happens when you insult a fanatic? Yeah, they flip out.

I saw the anti-libertarian post and just said 'meh' and went on. I actually didn't even read most of them. The couple I saw weren't funny. I just clicked back right now and saw the Atlas one... Now that's funny. And the missionary one. That's probably me.

But not all libertarians act as you describe, just like not all Christians believe gays will burn in Hell.

Yes, annoying libertarians are annoying. All annoying people are annoying. But don't fall into the trap of thinking all libertarians are annoying.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | June 30, 2010 7:20 AM

Two major disasters in short order: the recession, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico...both the result of poor or no government regulation.

Discovery channel ran a program about failing infrastructure and there are dozens of dams in the country that require repair or replacement, otherwise there are literally millions of lives being endangered, but taxes are evil and nobody should EVER have to pay taxes, riiiight?

Yeah, I see a trend. A heaping basketful of fucktacularly retarded. Government is so evil that every country, district within countries and every town in those districts have governments. Obviously everyone hates them and finds them evil and useless, so they've just put them everywhere at every level of civilization's layers.

I can't imagine what kind of greasy, train-wreck of a blot on the map, shiv your granny for a nickel country the Libertarians would be in charge of if they had their wet dream come to fruition. We've had spectacular foreshadows of that kind of powerless structure...I'll take a pass on that Ein Reich, thanks.

Posted by: whistlepete | June 30, 2010 7:34 AM

I don't think Chomsky is anti-government in general, it's just that our democracy and others around the world aren't necessarily fully functioning democracies. Although the US has democratic structures in place, they are dysfunctional.

When you get to the federal government, we've been sold a line you know for 50 years of intense corporate propaganda that the government is the enemy -- there cannot be a government that's buy for and of the people. Well in practice the description is not inaccurate. The government is to a large extent the enemy, but the reason is that its so largely under the control of the private tyrannies that are excluded from, sort of off in the corner somewhere you know, you're not suppose to see them. But the reason for the anti-government propaganda is obvious enough. The purpose is to remove decision making from the public arena where the public does, in principle, and sometimes even in practice have ways to participate in it and take part in it, and shift it over to the private arena where it is totally out of control. Chomsky.Info

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | June 30, 2010 7:41 AM

I'm beginning to think PZ does stand up monologues for all the little critters in his lab.

Posted by: the bill | June 30, 2010 7:43 AM

I agree that Chomsky is not a libertarian in any sense that the Tea Party would recognise.

He has described himself as a Libertarian Socialist in the past, but I think most such 'humanist' lefties would shy away from the term now. He's also described himself as an 18th Century Conservative!

PZ, that's irresponsible! Burning Libertarians would liberate far too much carbon...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 30, 2010 7:47 AM

PZ:

Atlas Shrugged was fiction, you know. A badly written, pretentious, tendentious, well-nigh unreadable fairy tale.

Word. ^This. QFT. I love books. I'm surrounded by books. I've had an ongoing love affair with reading from a very young age. In spite of that, Atlas Shrugged was one of the very few times in my life the thought of tossing a book into flames didn't disturb me. (I didn't burn it though, I finished it, but it was one hell of a chore slogging through that nasty mess.)

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | June 30, 2010 7:49 AM

Who was it that coined the "Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ayn Rand" zinger? I certainly would never have wordsmithed it into existence; I always thought 'Ayn' was pronounced Anne/Ann because Mike or Joel (can't remember which) on MST3K said it that way.

Posted by: Copyleft | June 30, 2010 7:51 AM

It's no coincidence that most people go through their "libertarian phase" (if they have one) as teenagers, and that teenagers are typically the biggest fans of Rand's dreadful books. That level of self-righteous self-absorption is targeted to a very specific mindset--one that most people, thankfully, grow out of.

Libertarianism is the religion of choice for teenagers who've figured out that religion itself is bunk, but who still want to believe the universe revolves around them.

Posted by: Gerald Snit | June 30, 2010 7:54 AM

Libertarians don't have a sense of humour??

But... but... The Fountainhead is one of the funniest movies ever made!

Posted by: charley | June 30, 2010 7:55 AM

I went to leftycartoons.com before reading PZ's warning about malware. No problems for me. maybe it's fixed.

Posted by: JackC | June 30, 2010 8:01 AM

Oh - and wccrawford - yes, I have - several times in fact (4 I think at last count, the last time being toward the end of my "evangelist for Rand" days, many, many years ago). Like a good Chrandian, I could even quote long bits of it.

I came to realise it is quite what PZ says it is - though I did find it apparently more readable than he does. I do not disagree with his evaluation though - it is bad SF quite on par perhaps with LR Hubbard's "work" (to be overly generous).

Oh - and look up. That thing over you head making that swishing sound?? It's the point sailing over your head.

JC

Posted by: Don Smith | June 30, 2010 8:04 AM

My apologies for the link to the malware site in that post

That's what you get for using a Mac! (Not noticing malware, I mean) All you Windows users could try disabling Java and Javascript before venturing to leftycartoons. That seems to prevent it from redirecting to the malware site for me (but I have a Mac too).

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 30, 2010 8:09 AM

"It's no coincidence that most people go through their "libertarian phase" (if they have one) as teenagers, and that teenagers are typically the biggest fans of Rand's dreadful books. That level of self-righteous self-absorption is targeted to a very specific mindset--one that most people, thankfully, grow out of."

I agree with all but the last part

"And Libertarian does not equal corporatism.
corporatism are the democrats & Republican - the status quo "

And libertarianism supports no quo. What you have is STILL better than nothing.

Posted by: MJP | June 30, 2010 8:10 AM

@8

It was about taxing the hell out of the people who made the country run, and giving it to those who couldn't be bothered.

That's one of the major problems with right-wing libertarianism - it asserts that a small cadre of economic supermen are almost singlehandedly responsible for "making the country run." It's human deification. It's downright insane to believe that anyone might exceed the average man's talents by one order of magnitude. But two, or three, or four orders of magnitude? It's Rich Supremacism, pure and simple.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 30, 2010 8:13 AM

The problem I have with "Big government" is that it's a useless phrase. Something to rally behind without needing to say anything meaningful. Of course we want smaller, more efficient and more effective government. Just what that entails, however...

Posted by: llewelly | June 30, 2010 8:19 AM

wccrawford | June 30, 2010 7:12 AM:

Disclaimer: I self-identify as a libertarian. I think Ayn Rand was a visionary and Atlas Shrugged is a scary book

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 30, 2010 8:20 AM

"The problem I have with "Big government" is that it's a useless phrase. Something to rally behind without needing to say anything meaningful. Of course we want smaller, more efficient and more effective government. Just what that entails, however..."

To paraphrase Hobbs 'the big governments are the ones that aren't being sacked and razed'

Posted by: Seifer | June 30, 2010 8:23 AM

@Ing: I never said you weren't free to call him a moron. Likewise, I am not saying that he is above criticism because "heez sooo smrt!!`" You are strawmanning what I am saying. All I am saying is that when it comes to his political views, he isn't a simpleton.

Posted by: whistlepete | June 30, 2010 8:27 AM

@#16 & #28

I understand that Chomsky is an anarchist, but my understanding is that he is such on the grounds that most governments are coercive institutions. A true democracy, one that has fully functioning democratic structures in place, is something that he speaks of a lot in his books, talks, and articles. He says of anarchism;

Let me just say I don't really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I'm a derivative fellow traveler [of anarchism], let's say. Anarchist thinkers have constantly referred to the American experience and to the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy very very favorably. You know, Jefferson's concept that the best government is the government than governs least, or Thoreau's addition to that, that the best government is the one that doesn't govern at all, is one that's often repeated by anarchist thinkers through modern times.

However, the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy -- putting aside the fact that it was a slave society -- developed in an essentially pre-capitalist system, that is, in a society in which there was no monopolistic control, there were no significant centers of private power.

It may be though that I am conflating a "democratic society" with a "centralized government" a little too much.

Posted by: Franco Cervo | June 30, 2010 8:32 AM

Ehrm, is the reception of libertarians really that bad in the USA? And is that an old thing, or did the Teabaggers taint the brand? Can someone please explain all that hate to me?
And PLEASE remember I am NOT from the USA and have limited knowledge of your own internal political squabbles!
In my country, the so-called "Liberal Party" is just an organization pandering to high earners (by advocating low taxes), and has no real commitment when it comes to questions of personal rights.
One day I stumbled over the Nolan chart and found I score high along the "wants personal freedom" axis and middling-high along the "wants economic freedom" axis. Which makes me, per the Nolan chart, a libertarian - so I went on and took the label!
How does that make me a turd?

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | June 30, 2010 8:35 AM

Annoying libertarians

Yeah, like Noam Chomsky, what a simpleton... oh, wait...

Posted by: Andrew Hall | June 30, 2010 8:38 AM

Libertarians tend to be fundamentalists (not so much with the Social Libertarians like myself)and those fundies have no sense of humor about themselves.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/06/im-actually-rather-new-reader-to-your.html

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 30, 2010 8:45 AM

IE the Atlas Shrugged "Increase my financial liberties by reducing your personal liberties" school of libertarianism.

Oh that and our conservative party pretends to use social libertarianism to bring in militaristic, plutocratic, and fundamentalistic legislation.

In times of economic crisis when the poor are struggling to get by but the rich are just slightly richer? Cut taxes to the rich and cut programs the poor use to live. The most vulnerable take the hit while the most well off are sheltered. Fuck that noise.

Posted by: llewelly | June 30, 2010 8:49 AM

it [Atlas Shrugged] is bad SF quite on par perhaps with LR Hubbard's "work" (to be overly generous).

Posted by: jcwelch | June 30, 2010 8:51 AM

Atlas Shrugged is also hilarious in that it assumes there's some limited number of smart people in the world, and that if they all decide to tell the world to fuck off, everything ends.

Guess what randtards: The world is full of really smart people. Everyone of us is easily replaced, 2-3x over. Steve Jobs decides "Fuck Apple, Ima live in a tree house", someone else will take his place. Maybe in a different company or way, but he's not the only design-OCD visionary. Not even close.

But all that bullshit Rand spewed requires you to firmly believe that you're some kind of special irreplaceable flower, unique in all the world.

Oh, and that the history of the world and business didn't really happen.

Posted by: Not Guilty | June 30, 2010 8:53 AM

@Jim less government only helps the rich. The rich don't need big government to give them healthcare or rights because they can just buy them. It's the average guy that needs big government because it is that big government that ensure the big, bad corporations don't take away his rights and discriminate against him. Big government makes sure everybody has health care and (hopefully soon in Canada) day care. Big government taxes the rich guy to make sure the little guy doesn't live in abject poverty. I think that comic was quite accurate. The Nordic countries have very big government and their people are HAPPY! Canada is torn between the Nordic countries and the U.S. We are infiltrated by Americans who abhor government, which fucks us up. I'd like to cast off and head towards Iceland. Awesome post PZ. Also, feel free to insult atheists, I can take a joke!

Posted by: jtingram | June 30, 2010 8:55 AM

Ugh, I can't believe we have such unabashed "Atlas Shrugged" bashing on this thread...

...and no one has linked my favorite "The Value of Nothing" quote:

"There are two novels that can transform a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."

Posted by: raven | June 30, 2010 8:58 AM

Libertarianism is like communism. A utopian system that won't work in the real world. With a small band of ideologues who will fold, bend, and mutilate reality to fit it into the malformed strait jacket of their ideology.

Ideological socio-economic systems produced by fanatics usually don't go anywhere. When they do they usually end up failing spectacularly with immense human wreckage. We've seen it all through the last century. Communism, various fascisms, the Taliban, Khymer Rouge, the US neocons, the Theothuglicans and on and on. Going back in history, the theocracies of the Puritans and John Calvin.

The current libertarian paradise is Somalia. Small government and people can get as rich as they want. The two leading occupations are "warlord" and "pirate". Average lifespan isn't well known because statistics collectors are afraid to go there but it is most likely mid 40's.

I used to describe myself as a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. We really should have a fiscally responsible government like the one Bill Clinton ran which ended up with surpluses and not one like Bush that doubled the national debt by 5 trillion USD. And the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible.

Thanks to the capital L Libertarians, I no longer care to use that word.

Fortunately, these systems populated by crackpots rarely gain enough power to attempt to cram the square peg of ideology into the round hole of reality and then flame out.

Posted by: texasconnelly | June 30, 2010 9:00 AM

My libertarianism began as a reaction to the realization that most of our elective representatives were corrupt. When government takes on a responsibility, no matter how simply we can state the purpose (i.e. "Universal Health-Care"), the entities with power and influence corrupt the implementation in their favor. The people who get screwed are individuals.

It is not about handing more power to corporations, but about giving power back to the individual.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 30, 2010 9:06 AM

Whatever powers/abilities you want the govt to have when you're political party is in control, you have to be comfortable when the opposite party is in control too. After seeing what can happen with neo-conservatives in charge, I started seeing benefit of a limited federal govt. Heh.

It is not about handing more power to corporations, but about giving power back to the individual.

Are you familiar with the history of the United States from circa 1870 to circa 1925?

Posted by: JeffreyD | June 30, 2010 9:10 AM

Even better. Once they're all in the thread, I'm going to set it on fire!

Hmm, "Libs on fire" sounds better than "Goats on fire".

Posted by: grudgedk | June 30, 2010 9:17 AM

Please, get some self-awareness!

People who live in a country like the US, and think the government is exerting too much power, need a fucking reality check. The US government is hands down the most powerful entity in the world, and they are completely at the mercy of large international corporations. If Osama Bin Laden was behind the Deepwater Horizon incident, they'd be sending in the Marines to put a bullet in his head. Why is Tony Hayward getting a free pass? Because the US government, despite having the worlds largest standing army, are a bunch of pussies. You know what a government exerting "too much" power would have done to Tony Hayward? The same thing they did to Zhang Yujun and Geng Jinping. Executed the motherfuckers.

Anyone thinking the US government is exerting too much power clearly have no idea how much power the US government HAS at its disposal.

Posted by: eprkhan | June 30, 2010 9:19 AM

As far as civil liberties and equality go, I bet you have more in common with libertarians than you do democrats and republicans.

I agree; do many of you support Obama's numerous continuations of the Bush-era civil liberties violations (wiretapping, Guantanamo, death-penalty appeals, use of SWAT teams for non-violent offenders, serious undermining of the 9th amendment)? Similarly, what about the Tea-party / Republican views on gays, abortion, illegal immigrants (disclaimer: I voted for Obama)?

I would call myself a civil/social libertarian, as I suspect many others on this site would (including PZ). In addition, I think of myself as a moral, but pragmatic libertarian, i.e. I disagree strongly with the idea that a majority has the right to tax me and imprison me, if I'm not harming others, but realistically, government has done a lot of good, and provides stability in a way that I doubt private corporations could.

The Naive view is idiotic; people have been part of societies since before they were humans. I admit that I'd like to see a complete Open Border policy around the world, so that people could vote for their governments with their feet. One of the main reasons that Ireland, my home country (note to those paying attention; I'm an American citizen too), was able to grow economically was because of a) Low corporate tax rates, meaning a bunch of multinationals opened headquarters here and b) Immigration from the rest of the EU, especially the east, leading to a big supply of labour.

Oh, and Atlas Shrugged is awful; mostly because it's not a novel, and it's not about real people at all, but also because Rand loves the idea of "Science", but has no clue about the facts, and the level to which teamwork is central to advancement.

Posted by: drjayeshsharma | June 30, 2010 9:25 AM

PZ, I'm sick of your repeated assertion of libertarians being "tiny swarm of self-important rodents", or something to the same effect. You can't see atheist movement being described exactly thus? & won't we act exactly as aggressively as libertarians did if the atheists were unfairly caricatured?

It doesn't matter if you do. You are a liberal fanatic, and won't hesitate in taking petty shots, even if it means alienating an important part of the secular coalition. Go ahead, become more self important, and make the swarm tinier.

As an atheist who believes in free markets, and who has lived in a society that still is shackled by government (India), I have no axe to grind in American politics, but am utterly saddened by your mindless attack. Adios, PZ, i unfollow you on twitter. It doesnt matter to you or your popularity i know, but it matters to me whom i follow. It cant be a self-righteous rat like you.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 30, 2010 9:26 AM

elzoog @ 72;

Despite the fact that the US government civil service is already regulated, it is still also a fact that we elected Bush for two terms. Also, the damage Bush caused was quite extensive.

Imagine how much more harm Bush would have been capable of inflicting if his policy options were not curtailed by the checks and balances inherent in the system?

A man like Bush wielding unfettered power is the stuff of nightmares. It was only the democratic process that blunted the worse extremes of Bush's Palin-esque religious fundamentalism.

Posted by: Franco Cervo | June 30, 2010 9:33 AM

Fuck, so I'm back to being unable to self-label! :-/
"So, what's you politics?"
"It's complicated."
"Yes of course, it always is. Just gimme a label."
"Ehrmm....."

Posted by: cpillsbury | June 30, 2010 9:34 AM

I don't think you fully got the malware removed PZ. I just went to the post from yesterday and something was caught by my scanners (though it could have been something in the comments).

Posted by: M31 | June 30, 2010 9:39 AM

Rutee's link is hilarious, and I heartily recommend reading it. Hint, it's entitled "Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It", written by someone who "studied law in London, where she now works in financial services." HAHAHAHAHAHA

There are no comments on the article itself (though it links to a blog), but there is this at the bottom under the heading "User supplied tags"

Somalia Ron Paul Gold Standard stalin 9/11 obama Victor Von Mises penis reprehensible lolbertarianism satire audit the fed just ignore the massive murder zomg i suck WorstTaggingSystemEver What the hell Old Man Balls and Naked Co-Eds Somalian bean children C unty Bean Rag Twats Thrash Is A Homosexual Ocra Grayskull swayze Oh My Brain It Hurts thunder-thunder-thundercats ThisIsWhyLibertarianismIsAUnworkableIdea dese nuts Sometimesireallyhatelibertarians Just sometimes? all of the times Samurai PIzza Cats and barbie dolls BUTTS Imma let you finish SendAllTheLibertariansToSomalia Idiot. africa blows hilarious must be joking ballsack probably not that likely hilarious Looks like Maoism to me WTC 7 Truther Birth Certificate Secret Muslim FEMA Death Camps something awful Kilroy was here im gay lets be gay together im gay too go live in somalia Long cat is loooong the 13th century John Galt is gay EPIC FAIL economism hypocrisy so jilib is the somali word for cadre eh? Mr Bean I'm the purple thing in the bottom right corner of the picture Looks like Maosim to me JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLS this is obviously a good idea NigrBalls take their stuff Why Libertarians are nutcases

Posted by: dt2003au | June 30, 2010 9:40 AM

Probably not all libertarians are the same. I've met some with excellent sense of humor. You can see for yourselves if you will, you'll find some of them at reason.com. Maybe you've heard for one of them, Drew Carey? Quite funny, excellent sense of humor. Perhaps you could then expand on your definition of libertarian. Irrespective of the libertarians and their sense of humor, PZ, from the initial post I would gather that your understanding of government and political economy is perhaps not as good as your science writings. Relax, that was a joke.

Posted by: A. Nuran | June 30, 2010 9:57 AM

I talked to Barry last night. He got rid of the malware. Should be safe now.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | June 30, 2010 10:07 AM

Noam Chomsky on the curious way US culture has perverted the meaning of "libertarian" to mean 180-degrees the opposite of what it has meant since the Enlightenment."

Quoting for truth:

The US sense [of 'Libertarianism'] is quite different. Here every word is taken the opposite of its meaning elsewhere. So here 'Libertarian' means 'extreme advocate of total tyranny'. That's what 'Libertarianism' means here [applause]. It means power ought to be given to the hands of private unaccountable tyrannies, even worse than state tyrannies because there the public has some kind of role. The corporate system, especially as it's evolved in the 20th century, is pure tyranny.

Posted by: skeeto | June 30, 2010 10:17 AM

It's just sad to see PZ turn his brain off when it comes to politics. He's admitted that outside biology he's just a layman, which I assume applies to politics as well. Yet he's so confident about his own ideology that he'll publicly and loudly call people like Noam Chomsky simple minded. That sounds a lot like being a creationist.

Posted by: sasqwatch | June 30, 2010 10:29 AM

Thank you, Feymaniac @91 for typing out the most relevant quote (in addition to the idea that the word "libertarian" itself means opposite things on both sides of the Atlantic.

skeeto @93. Be fair. A slam on libertarians coming from PZ would be a slam on the "new world" variety, not the libertarian socialists, of which it seems I am one, now that I think about it.

Two.Different.Things. Which was the point. Up. Above.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 30, 2010 10:52 AM

elzoog @ 92;

The thing is, the fact that someone like Bush or Palin could become president to begin with shows how messed up the system is.

The point of a democracy is that the parties put forward their candidates, and the electorate votes for the one they want. Theoretically, the one with the most votes wins. How exactly would you stop some types of people from becoming Premier without undermining the very fundamental principle of democracy; that sovereignty is ultimately vested in the people?

The government is already regulated so what specific additional regulation do you think is required?

I was not arguing for further regulation so much as I was arguing that the existing regulation should not be weakened as advocated by some Libertarians.

Having said that, the trouble is that when Bush first came to power, he did not win the popular vote. Dear old brother Jeb's state had a little voting irregularity that pushed his sibling over the top. Perhaps stronger regulation over how the various states gather and count the vote might have made a difference in this case.

You are aware aren't you that the regulations we currently have would fill up a whole book shelf if we were to print them out

Yes, I am fully aware that this is true of any modern state. The constitutional arrangements of a modern democratic society are complex. Constitutional law must be drafted to be as water-tight as possible precisely because it is the principle bulwark against the Executive abuse of power.

What did you expect? A one page pamphlet saying "just keep the government small and look after the markets, and you'll be fine"?

As bad as Bush was, the opposing party (Democratic party) was unable to find someone better than Kerry in 2004 to run against him despite having millions of dollars and millions of people at their disposal.

I fail to see how the Democrat party picking a weak candidate in any given election is an argument against political or coporate regulation.

My opinion is, we're screwed. There is no fixing this short of a major revolution.

And what form, exactly, would this 'brave new world' take? Unregulated laissez-faire capitalism, and the devil take the slowest, perhaps? That is the Libertarian utopia, after all. Few revolutions are truly bloodless, and it is easy to talk of the need to tear down the system when you do not think too hard about what you want to replace it with, or the horrors that can come to pass in a society without a functional government.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 30, 2010 11:05 AM

Yeah, like Noam Chomsky, what a simpleton... oh, wait...

Appeal to authority...

I don't think even those who disagree with Chomsky argue that he thinks simplistically.

I'm noticing a trend here. If you go on to criticise some variant of Libertarian, but don't exactly describe the self-styled Libertarian Dave in accounting, who's 6'2", 189 lbs., and believes this, that, and some other thing, then Dave in accounting will jump up and down and scream that since you didn't describe him, you're either attacking a strawman or said variant is No True Libertarian™.

Yet, suggest that Libertarian thought is simplistic, and all that's needed is one Libertarian to prove you wrong.

I'll paraphrase my argument as if I were to include it in a novel, for the Randites here:

Critic: "Ha-ha! One type of Libertarian is X."
'Rational' Libertarian: "Not all Libertarians think that, and those that do aren't True Libertarians™. Strawman! Strawman!"
Critic: "Well, Libertarian thought is overly simplistic!"
'Rational' Libertarian: "Chomsky's not simplistic! No one would say Chomsky is simplistic! So, how can you say Libertarianism is simplistic?"

Can't speak for his politics, but his linguistics sucks.

Sili, our engagement is off.

Posted by: Midwifetoad | June 30, 2010 11:19 AM

Two major disasters in short order: the recession, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico...both the result of poor or no government regulation.

Ah, so the answer is to give incompetent people more power?

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand or a member of the Libertarian Party. I don't vote Libertarian.

But I believe the evolutionary algorithm works better than intelligent design. I accept the need for safety nets, and I am tempted by universal health care. I accept the idea that environmental costs should be added into prices.

I just believe that central planning make a brittle architecture. Rigid structures break more easily than flexible structures. Rules that make starting or running a small company difficult will result in monopolies and near monopolies. Then you get the too big to fail syndrome.

I believe that lots of little decisions are better than a few big decisions.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 30, 2010 11:24 AM

@Midwifetoad

Ah, so the answer is to give incompetent people more power?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | June 30, 2010 11:28 AM

@#94-Gregory:

Well done.

Fly, meet swatter.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmc25PkR2S_nDyMeH2a0iMDG8BqtF0wpBQ | June 30, 2010 11:39 AM

As a brit I get confused by a lot of the stereotypes here. I'd identify as a libertarian and as such I dont think the abortion debate is even one we should have (women dont get to debate what I do with my junk, why the hell do I get to even debate what they do with their uterus), I'm fervently anti-religious, I think Glen Beck's a moron and Sarah Palin is profoundly anti-American, I think climate change is real, I think there are maybe 5 socialists in America tops and none of them have any power, oh yeh, and I think bigots are mentally ill. I'm trying to work out if my idea of what a libertarian is is at fault here or whether America has uniquely stupid libertarians.

I dont understand people who style themselves libertarian who seem to end up rejecting either science or a basic understanding of liberty in pursuit of their own power.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | June 30, 2010 11:49 AM

"I would like more government."

And you will force me under the threat of violence to pay for it. Does't seem very liberal of you P.Z.

Sorry, for a "skeptic" you don't seem to have looked at how government works with much of a critical eye.

Posted by: Seifer | June 30, 2010 11:54 AM

@Browniam, #110:

Libertarians, as in the movement is in the United States, and libertarian socialism are two totally different and arguably unrelated things. It's apples to oranges.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 30, 2010 12:18 PM

I should have been more explicit. I meant Chomsky does not belong to the Libertarian Party

Wow. I spend a lot of time on this blog making puns and dumb quips involving sexual innuendo, and yet it's not until the libertarian threads that it occurs to me that I'm wasting my time here. I'd make more headway arguing with Heddle.

Since I've never once claimed Chomsky was a member of the Libertarian party (and why the fuck would you even assume that I or PZ were only considering members of the party?), it's apparent I'm not needed for your argument with me. Feel free to carry on this discussion with me in my absence.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 30, 2010 12:23 PM

Scott Carnegie @ 109;

And you will force me under the threat of violence to pay for it. Does't seem very liberal of you P.Z.

So, you object to being "forced under threat of violence" to pay for government? OK, answer this; do you make use of any public service? Remember, publically funded infrastructure of all types count. So, how do you feel about police maintaining law and order where you live. Would you rather go all "a man's home is his castle" and load up on lots of firepower to just keep yourself safe, or do you accept the need for a police force funded by the state, and thereby answerable to the people through the state?

Do you drive? If so, how do you feel about publically funded road construction and maintainance? Would you rather see toll booths every mile? Or maybe a system whereby your usage of roads (and thereby your every movement by car) is electronically tracked by GPS so you can be individually charged for your road use? If you do not use a car, then I assume that you would never use public transport that is partially subsidised by the taxpayer...

How do you feel about aging? State funded or subsidised pension schemes being a no-no and all? I assume that you are in favour of privatised health care? Well, here's hoping that you are wealthy enough to pay for any unexpected medical conditions, and will stay wealthy enough for the rest of your life. It would be a shame to have a severely shortened lifespan and/or suffer terrible pain and life-altering incapacity all because you could not afford that one little procedure that your insurance company doesn't cover. It was in the small print, so its all fair and above board, right? That being the case, here's hoping that President Obama's healthcare reforms are rolled back by the next administration. Why should you pay for someones else's illness, afterall...

I am sure you get the point. Incidentally, believing that the governments job is to provide a high quality of essential services to the public as part of a 'social contract' in return for the taxes paid is entirely compatible with social liberalism. I think you are getting confused as to the meaning of the terms. It is the Libertarians who think that tax is oppression by another name, not Liberals.

The whole 'threat of violence' bit is a little florid, don't you think? I doubt PZ is going to come to your house and go all Terminator on you because you fail to pay your taxes.

Sorry, for a "skeptic" you don't seem to have looked at how government works with much of a critical eye.

You are not very clear on the meaning of 'skeptic' are you? Here's a hint, it does not mean 'paranoid Libertarian conspiracy theorist'.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | June 30, 2010 12:30 PM

PZ touched on the one big problems I have with libertarians.

Many libertarians will say they support civil rights and are against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, sexuality or any other grounds that are not based on rationality. However they say it is not the job of the state to do anything about such discrimination. Which is really just turning around and telling the disenfranchised that you sympathise greatly but they can go fuck themselves if they actually expect any help.

Posted by: Seifer | June 30, 2010 12:35 PM

Since I've never once claimed Chomsky was a member of the Libertarian party... it's apparent I'm not needed for your argument with me.

Please get off your high horse. You also totally mis-characterized my argument and accused me of a logical fallacy I never committed back in #99. It happens and I apologized. It was a very poor assumption on my part--just as your mis-characterization of my argument was back in #99. No need to be a dick about it.

...and why the fuck would you even assume that I or PZ were only considering members of the party?

I never assumed PZ was. You, on the other hand, I did. From my experience, when people talk about Libertarians (and it's capitalized) they are usually talking about the Libertarian Party since libertarianism as an ideology is not capitalized.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 30, 2010 12:38 PM

We've done the experiment, actually.

Representative liberal socialist country: Denmark.

Representative libertarian utopia: Somalia.

Which one has the higher taxation rate for its residents?

Which one would you rather live in?

Can I get the fuck out of both? Denmark is having its liberal socialist parts slowly demolished as it is more and more replaced with guys who think our economic melt down was a good idea.

i mean yeah it's better than Somalia but what post industrial nation isn't?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 30, 2010 12:44 PM

@ 105;

It is something of a case of whack-a-mole with these angry Libertarian types, but I try to do my part.

Posted by: William | June 30, 2010 12:49 PM

Representative liberal socialist country: Denmark.

Very poor example, PZ. Denmark is an interesting example of *very free markets*, combined with *very large social insurance* (which appears to be a very good combo, btw.) But since Denmark has arguably the freest markets in the world, calling it "socialist" is flat-out inaccurate.

In fact, Heritage ranks Denmark as 9th freest market in the world - ahead of the U.K.! You're losing your mind if you think Heritage is going to give good rankings to a "socialist" country.

(http://heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx)

Posted by: BrocasBrian | June 30, 2010 12:53 PM

I'm one of those civil libertarians you mentioned. I don't smoke but I plan on voting to legalize pot here in CA this fall. I feel if you want to smoke it it's no one's business.

I don't think a smaller gov or less regulation will fix anything. The BP oil spill is likely a result of sloppily applied or non existent regulations.

Posted by: Seifer | June 30, 2010 12:55 PM

@Browniam, #113:

To further clarify why I thought you were saying Chomsky was a member of the Libertarian Party. Since you repeatedly capitalized Libertarian in your post...

libertarian...capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.

http://east.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarian

When the word "Libertarian" is capitalized, it generally refers to a member of the Libertarian Party. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/g/libertarian.htm

Some writers also follow the convention of using "libertarian" (spelled in lowercase) to mean a general advocate of libertarianism, while "Libertarian" (capitalized) refers specifically to a member of a libertarian political party, such as any of the following: United States Libertarian Party. http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Libertarian/

Posted by: grudgedk | June 30, 2010 12:57 PM

Denmark is having its liberal socialist parts slowly demolished as it is more and more replaced with guys who think our economic melt down was a good idea.

Posted by: Seifer | June 30, 2010 1:05 PM

@Brownian, #130

Then you ignored the entirety of what I wrote in post #110 to focus on an instance where I erroneously capitalised the word.

You used capitalized "Libertarian" at least seven times in your first post. Heck, even in #110 you capitalzed "Libertarian" again when you said:

The page on Libertarian socialists...

I thought the preponderance of capitalized usages outweighed the one time you didn't capitalize it. It's a misunderstanding and I'm sorry.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 30, 2010 1:10 PM

It's a misunderstanding and I'm sorry.

Cool. I'll take that apology and be more careful with my terminology in the future.

I'm still bowing out of this thread.

Posted by: Tulse | June 30, 2010 1:12 PM

Representative libertarian country: Singapore

Are you kidding? The place that bans chewing gum? That will cane you for grafitti? That was described by William Gibson as "Disneyland with the death penalty"? That Singapore is libertarian?!

Posted by: Seifer | June 30, 2010 1:13 PM

I'll take that apology and be more careful with my terminology in the future.

Thank you. I will be more careful about my implicit assumptions in the future and ask for clarifications. Lesson learned. Please also ignore my hissy fit comment in #137, it was out of line.

Posted by: JackC | June 30, 2010 1:15 PM

llewelly@55....

But "on par with LR Hubbard"? No. It's not that bad. Not by a long way.

I DID say "perhaps"....

JC

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 30, 2010 1:29 PM

McCthulhu asked "Who was it that coined the "Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ayn Rand" zinger?"

I stole is shamelessly from Barton Paul Levenson, who posted it over at Realclimate. Can ya believe it. Some folks took offense.

Posted by: Mike Crichton | June 30, 2010 1:35 PM

Tulse @ 138: Now, now, corporal or capital punishment for crimes against property is perfectly consistent with Libertarianism. Just like shooting non-violent trespassers and refusing service to brown people is.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 30, 2010 1:41 PM

Care to cite some of that "historical and economic evidence", NoR?

If you really want some reading, try reading about the nineteenth century, and the plight of those not on top, and the boom/bust cycles. But liberturds will not accept any evidence against their religious mythology.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 30, 2010 1:43 PM

William, will you explain to me exactly why socialism is incompatible with the concept of free markets?

I do not see how a socially activist government is necessarily incompatible with buyer and seller agreeing on a price and medium of exchange and then paying the requisite taxes to fund the government.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 30, 2010 1:57 PM

JustWondering asks, "Someone unaware of Godwin's Law?"
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/a_taxonomy_of_libertarians.php#comment-2621146

No.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 30, 2010 2:01 PM

But since Denmark has arguably the freest markets in the world, calling it "socialist" is flat-out inaccurate.

Representative liberal socialist utopia: Venezuela. Representative libertarian country: Singapore.

Posted by: William | June 30, 2010 2:05 PM

You have an interesting definition of "Libertarian" if you can apply the term to a country where chewing gum is outlawed and people can be imprisoned for criticizing their government.

Hah! It's true, Singapore isn't completely 100% absolutely libertarian in every aspect. Far from it, in many ways - they have universal health care, for example. (A system that works remarkably well, btw. And only 3% of annual GDP!)

But at the end of the day libertarian vs authoritarian are incrementalist measurements - there is no simply "libertarian" or "not-libertarian". And on the whole, Singapore is more libertarian than most and more successful than most.

For those who think Denmark is not so horribly free economically, I would refer you to the following,

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/63223/robert-kuttner/the-copenhagen-consensus
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=368

a_ray_in_dilbert_space,

Indeed, a "socially activist government" doesn't *have* to be incompatible with free markets (Denmark is a good example). But if the attempt to do so involes transfering the means of production from the private to the public sector, that particular market is no longer free because the government has in a worst case scenario, a monopoly. A best case scenario would just be an unfair advantage - that is, taxpayer subsidies which would allow "predatory prices". Essentially competition, perhaps the best aspect of markets, is compromised, and the barrier to entry becomes too high for "the little guy".

Posted by: William | June 30, 2010 2:20 PM

Singapore is a libertarian ideal?

Huh? I said it was "Representative", in absolute terms, not "ideal". On an averaged libertarian/authoritarian scale, what it fails in social terms it compensates for economically. You can find the reverse in, say, Hungary, where they're not that free economically but are solid socially. (Though I admit most libertarians put more emphasis on the economic aspect than the social aspect.)

There is an amusing analogy here to your criticism of some atheist-critics; they assert that atheists are pressing for some sort of "atheist paradise", that if everyone stopped believing in god we'd have a utopia. You've pointed out before how silly this is, that atheists wouldn't expect a paradise, they would just expect things to improve. But here you are, doing the same thing to any libertarian ideas - you assert they are desperate for some "libertarian paradise", get rid of the government and utopia will come! In reality, any reasonable libertarian thinks things will improve, not become perfected.

I find it rather amusing how, depending on the context, one can take on qualities that in other contexts he will deride in others.

Posted by: Tulse | June 30, 2010 2:31 PM

On an averaged libertarian/authoritarian scale, what it fails in social terms it compensates for economically

That simply makes is authoritarian conservative, not libertarian.

I have honestly lost the point you are so doggedly trying to make.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | June 30, 2010 2:34 PM

@Gregory Greenwood:

Democrat party

Please, please knock that Luntz-researched wingnut shit off. That's not what they're called.

Posted by: Doc | June 30, 2010 2:49 PM

stuv @166:

An individual will call himself a Democrat, not a Democratic. So yes, "Democrat" party fits perfectly.

Posted by: Tulse | June 30, 2010 2:51 PM

I used Venezuela as the "representative" for a socialist country - it's obviously not, and that's the point

Um...right...OK....

Posted by: natural cynic | June 30, 2010 2:53 PM

Annoying Libertarians

For today's first place in double entendre.

Posted by: William | June 30, 2010 3:02 PM

Um...right...OK....

I'll put it more simply for you: PZ picked the most silly, extreme examples to try to make his point that socialism works and libertarianism fails. So I went ahead and provided silly examples indicating the opposite to show how laughable his post was.

Seriously, the guy used Denmark as an example of how well socialism can work... and it's not even a socialist country! We have grudgedk in this very thread complaining that Denmark is falling under the clutches of corporations, an "un-socialist" thing if there ever was one.

And instead of using all of the fairly successful, comparatively libertarian countries like Ireland or Australia or Switzerland, what does he use? Somalia!!! Seriously?

If you can't make your point without deliberately choosing the most extreme examples possible, you probably don't have a point.

Posted by: barry.deutsch | June 30, 2010 3:08 PM

This is Barry, the creator of the cartoons at leftycartoons.com. Apologies once again for the malware.

As far as I can tell, the malware has now been completely removed from leftycartoons.com, and it should be safe for people to visit my site again.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 30, 2010 3:17 PM

William,
Again, I fail to see why government stepping in to increase competition in a sector with limited choice (e.g. health insurance) necessarily results in either monopoly or subsidized favoritism.

You seem to be trying to define "libertarian" as "everything that's good".

I'm afraid I distrust -isms. I trust vigilance.

The problem I have with libertarians in general is that they trumpet the glories of the rugged individual while ignoring that individuals don't get very far unless they have the advantages afforded by a cooperative society. In other words they glorify wealth while ignoring commonwealth. Just try putting a man on the moon as an individual.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 30, 2010 3:33 PM

Jonathon J. Smith suggests:

"Why not have a small area cordoned off with pure libertarian policies, another with socialist, another with anarchist, another with communist, etc."

Fine with me. Can we build walls with concertina wire on top and machine gun nests around the libertarian, anarchist and communist enclaves?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | June 30, 2010 3:57 PM

stuv.myopenid.com @ 166;

Please, please knock that Luntz-researched wingnut shit off. That's not what they're called.

Sorry, my mistake. I blame my Britishness for the nomenaclature snafoo.

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | June 30, 2010 4:15 PM

@Gregory: my apologies for being provincial and assuming the worst.

Posted by: grudgedk | June 30, 2010 4:53 PM

Seriously, the guy used Denmark as an example of how well socialism can work... and it's not even a socialist country!

We have grudgedk in this very thread complaining that Denmark is falling under the clutches of corporations

The World Economic Forum has Denmark ranked as the third most competitive economy on the planet! I'm sure you can provide a number of exceptions (like the internet, as you say) but the plural of anecdote is not data.

The problem is you don't understand the methodology they used. The WEF doesn't measure the degree to which a market is free, it measures global competitiveness, as in how well does our industry compete on an international scale. One of the factors it uses, is health and primary education. Big surprise we get a high score there, that shit is subsidized by the government.

If you actually bothered reading the report, you'd notice that the main challenges facing the Danish competitive ability, according to your own source, reads like a Libertarian hitlist of Bad Things(tm). High tax rates, limited access to financing, strict tax regulation, strict labor regulations, strict foreign currency regulations, and inefficient government spending.

Here is a link for you: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/Report/Countries/Denmark.pdf I'm not expecting you to read it, or accept the fact that socialist countries are amongst the most competitive in the world, even tho' the Top 10 list according to your source, includes 5 unambiguously socialist countries, including the Netherlands and Canada for crying out loud. Even France is in spot #16 leading Ireland by 9 other countries...

Posted by: Kagehi | June 30, 2010 5:09 PM

I think I will save my sanity and not read every comment in this morass this time, but, on one thing...

Solution to banking crisis is to add another 2000 pages of regulation, on top of a load of other useless regulation. Only thing this protects are too big to fail banks who can afford the huge teams of lawyers to circumvent them.

To quote the guy on Mythbusters, "Well, there's your problem..."

Not enough *useful* control over businesses, including effective enforcement (anyone honestly thing BP is **really** going to pay what their maleficence cost us, or just going to get a slap on the wrist, like all the rest, while certain people whine that its already "too much"?) leads to large, complicated, legislation, designed to plug holes, side step the real issues and problems, and secretly give them hand outs in the fine print. Why? Because a) they can afford the lawyers, so will do every damn thing they can to weaken the effect of anything that is passed, and b) they already own, apparently, 95% of one entire political party (and can now, thanks to the USSP, buy more, for more money), so **effective** regulation isn't possible.

This means that, by the time you get someone in office who is willing to fight back, even slightly, instead of having a clear, precise, and reasonably understood problem, you need, probably, a 20,000 page document to plug all the holes, not 2,000, because there are so many thing they found, created, or bribed, loopholes into, that you might as well be trying to prevent water from leaking out of a sponge, by manually shoving bits of the document into each individual hole in the sponge.

Yeah. Its stupid, inefficient, and nightmarish that we need the bloody mess we have to handle this stuff. But then we have, as an example, people the like Penn, from Penn and Teller, who actually get things like bottled water being bullshit, in part due to the almost non-existent regulation on it (like less than one inspector for **all** 50 states, since they also have other duties, I think it was, and looser requirements on stuff sold "in-state", which never crosses a border), but then goes on to insist that its also bullshit for use to try to **either** social engineer people into stop eating crap, and too much of it, never mind regulating what *is* sold, because, well.. that is just the market doing what it does, and people should be allowed to be complete idiots. Course... he doesn't mention, and totally glosses over the fact, that the market's (or at least the corporation's) #1 method of running isn't to let the invisible hand decide things, but to stuff the invisible hand into a white glove, slap a logo on it, slap an "organic" 5,000 calorie burger on a plat into its hand, then tell everyone, "Our new super fat burger is now 1% less fattening, and all **ORGANIC**! Come buy it now here!"

What libertarians don't seem to get is that the hand is already shackled. It was put in chains back in the days of people like Carnegie and Rockefeller, and has, since then, been digging in the mines of "more money" ever since. Worse, every time someone tries to loosen the chains, its not the free the market from the slave masters, for the betterment of the nation, its almost *never* to fix a problem, or better the **entire** market, but merely to make it easier for the *slave masters* to move the hand from one project to another, in order to make those corporations more money, at the expense of both the rest of the market and the consumer. That it takes generations for it to become blindingly obvious that the market is *not* progressing (non-oil based energy), that something done has *actually* caused it serious damage (economic crashes), or doing serious injury to the very people the companies claim to help (sky rocketing health care costs, and insurance playing big government themselves, by spending 90% of their intake on politicians and lawyers, then increasing the "taxes" paid to make up for it).

Seriously, why can't anyone else see that as the same thing, in the last case? *They* set up the rules that decide who gets a pay out, or even if, how much, even, due to owning the companies that create such rating scales, how much it *costs* to do a procedure (or at least how much they say it does). They pay out to the lowest bidder, just like a government. Then, they tax you, and increase those taxes to pay their own people, as they "claim" the cost has increased, even if it hasn't. Law making + taxation + judging who is/isn't worthy of help, or acting to defraud them +, in some case, choosing **which** doctors you can even go to (i.e., low bidding the contracts). They may not be an official government, but they do all the things that a government does, yet, hear most libertarians on the subject talk and a) "big government shouldn't be bugging them", and b) "the invisible hand of the market will correct the problem." If the invisible hand can't fix a government, so big governments are bad, then how does it "fix" a mini-government, who do all the same things, including robbing people of their money to feed pet projects, deny people help, and give themselves raises?

The only difference here, and its hardly meaningful, is that you can pick which mini-government robs you blind, (but you don't have a lot of damn choice about picking one at all, any more than you have a choice to ignore your city, state or federal government, if you want any of their services), but, its still a power unto itself, and ironically, the only people that *can* say no to them is the one you think is "too big", and "too complicated". Try looking at the insane mess in the average financial institutes rule books, and/or health care package, then tell me who is making things "too complicated", while screwing people out of money for no good reason. Or, just look at the insane idiocy companies like Microsoft put in "End User License Agreements". Same stupid BS. They don't create such things to "protect" you from the courts, or the government, or because they need to be complicated to protect themselves from those. They do it to try to keep 100% of the control over who, what, when, how much, and even "if" someone get to have health care, or a return on money in the bank, or if/when you can even spend your own money *in* there, or what you are allowed to do with, or even if you can do something with, their product, etc.

The only thing standing in the way of these people telling you, "We will only pay *if* we feel like it, and the money put in will *not* make any interest, unless we want it to, and, btw, we just don't think you need surgery, since you will die soon anyway.", is all the mess of idiot laws put in place to stop people from pulling that, and the counter laws that tried to make it easier to pull it, and the counter-counter laws to stop that, etc. All of which exists because a) most people can be serious idiots, and **do not**, sorry Penn.., think about what they are doing, if they are doing something common, done often, and which they haven't ever bothered to pay much attention to, and b) the easiest damn way to use the "invisible hand", is to take advantage of that idiocy, by picking the guys pocket with one "invisible hand", while another one entertains them with a balloon trick.

That is the whole reason we have a complicated, inefficient, and over big, government, that can't figure out how to not spend $2 billion dollars on, say, "faith based" bullshit, and other similar dross, while robbing the schools of the same $2 billion (more of course), while **somehow** missing that the later is just a "tad" more important than the other one. Lets repeat - "Big enough businesses **FUNCTION** as their own governments." If the market can't fix governments, they can't "solve" corporations either, and if big governments are bad, corporations that "function as" governments are **not** better, just because they claim to be guided by invisible appendages. Privatizing more stuff doesn't fix this, it just robs one government of the power to do anything, while lending another one more sovereignty.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | June 30, 2010 5:14 PM

And instead of using all of the fairly successful, comparatively libertarian countries like Ireland or Australia or Switzerland,

If libertarians ever had a case of somebody abusing the term, this is it.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 30, 2010 5:18 PM

http://mises.org/daily/2066

Even the Libertarians think Somalia is a libertarian paradise.

Poes. Law.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | June 30, 2010 5:26 PM

Why not have a small area cordoned off with pure libertarian policies

Yeah, we have that. It's called Somalia.

Posted by: Kagehi | June 30, 2010 5:39 PM

The key problem with such experiment is the idea of "free of irrationality". Unless you plan to find a government that works "despite" it, not "without" it, you won't ever find one that works in practice, by definition.

Posted by: jonathon.j.smith | June 30, 2010 5:59 PM

Rutee @ #195:

I think it's pretty hilarious you can't conceive of an experiment involving "People's Lives" that doesn't involve wholesale murder. You know, I recall hearing recently of a sociological experiment involving real "People's Lives" (how dare those monsters over at ESA!). Make sure you put on your helmet before going outside.

Posted by: Che | June 30, 2010 6:05 PM

I usually consider Ayn rand to be the goddess of American Libertarianism. Down below is what the bitch herself thought about Native Americans. They are her own words. As a Latin American whose country has been raped repeatedly in the name of free market reform (over 30,000 citizens killed at the will of the Chicago Boys) it deeply angers me when I hear this libertarian nonsence. Pease anyone, read what the hoe wrote about Native Americans, and then compare it with what the Catholic Church believed and their justification to exterminate the natives. The Europeans brought Christ to the new world to crucify the natives. Neoliberals (Libertarians for the most part) brought the free market to our world to enslave the natives.

"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.... What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." * Source: "Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974"

Posted by: Morse | June 30, 2010 6:31 PM

I think the reason that libertarian baiting is so easy is that, as these threads have shown, calling yourself a libertarian is about as meaningful as calling your opponent a fascist in modern politics. It's kind of easy to see why people can come to self-identify as libertarians, since there is a pressure in politics to declare your Label, and libertarianism with its 200 different forms and focus on personal freedom can easily attract people alienated by the two party system.

I too once self-identified as some sort of libertarian. I'm most certainly still a very heavy civil libertarian. Economically, I don't fit any label particularly well, at least none I've heard yet. Left-wing libertarian may be warm on the underlying philosophy, but some of my policy beliefs would have me branded socialist.

WARNING! APPROACHING PERSONAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. I believe in the power of competitive markets with proper incentives. Competitive does not mean regulation free though, in fact, I think in a lot of cases we need more regulation to promote competition. I don't think it's the government's job to be an active participant in many economies, but instead it should be busy making sure all the little complicated gears inside the invisible hand keep ticking. I am wary of large concentrations of power, corporate or governmental. Government power creep is especially bad since history has shown that government almost never shrinks and very rarely is power relinquished. At the same time, I think healthcare should probably be nationalized since it doesn't really model well as a free market (and our current implementation is a mind-boggling clusterfuck), and government run healthcare has been shown to be a working and efficient solution. I guess my belief is almost a Darwinist belief in the innovative power of healthy competition mixed with a pragmatic belief in using what works in practice and ditching what doesn't, damn the ideologies.
END PHILOSOPHY

I think I lost my original point somewhere. Anyways, I think I was trying to say that the libertarian outcry is to be expected, since it's easy to adopt (one of) the libertarian label in response to out of control government deficit spending or violations of personal rights. Only later do you realize in horror that you've become lumped in with Randites, looneytarians, and that the Libertarians themselves are being overrun by neo-cons. Thus begin the endless rounds of "this is what libertarianism means to ME."

Posted by: Greg Laden | June 30, 2010 6:36 PM

"I like to see the Invisible Hand shackled and restricted to doing useful work, rather than picking pockets."

Nice. Almost Twain like.

Posted by: Pacal | June 30, 2010 6:58 PM

PZ you said (#11)

Atlas Shrugged was fiction, you know. A badly written, pretentious, tendentious, well-nigh unreadable fairy tale.

You are being much to kind to what is arguably the worst written English novel of the past 200 years.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 30, 2010 7:12 PM

I see you haven't read Left Behind

GOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLL

http://www.vuvuzela-time.co.uk/scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/annoying_libertarians.php#comment-2623858

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 30, 2010 7:19 PM

Going Galt is the most hilarious threat I've ever heard in my life.

If we're going to base our economy on a piece of fiction, I think I'd prefer Star Trek over Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by: Nepenthe | June 30, 2010 7:34 PM

Tulse, I object to misogyny regardless of whom it is directed at. And yes, I'm sorry to say that I have read The Fountainhead.

Posted by: Nepenthe | June 30, 2010 7:46 PM

Oooh, I suck at life. Sorry.

Posted by: MJP | June 30, 2010 8:04 PM

@ 146

Tulse @ 138: Now, now, corporal or capital punishment for crimes against property is perfectly consistent with Libertarianism. Just like shooting non-violent trespassers and refusing service to brown people is.

And that is my #1 problem with it. Too many right-libertarians have no problem with massively disproportionate force used to defend property (e.g. shooting non-violent trespassers.) Furthermore, even the right-libertarians who don't condone shooting non-violent trespassers still endorse a moral philosophy that condemns the nonviolent sit-ins of the Civil Rights movement. A society that bans sit-ins is not a free society.

Posted by: JeffreyD | June 30, 2010 8:12 PM

Finally caught up on this thread, lots of skipping of course. PZ, I think the trap is full, give the regulars five minutes to evacuate, lock the doors, burn it.

(insert smiley face for those too libertarian to have either read the whole post or have a sense of humour.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 30, 2010 8:24 PM

lock the doors, burn it.

Posted by: Mike Crichton | June 30, 2010 8:27 PM

Rutee: Does that mean that doing medical trials with placebo controls is also immoral? What about charter schools founded to test new educational theories? We experiment with people's lives all the time, it's only a question as to what degree of experimentation is acceptable.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 30, 2010 8:35 PM

The phrase "Democrat Party" is not the right name and it was concocted as a conscious attempt to strip the name of the party of any positive connotations that come with the word "Democratic"

Plus it was normally written "DemocRAT Party". Because haha.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 30, 2010 9:08 PM

Rutee: Does that mean that doing medical trials with placebo controls is also immoral?

What about charter schools founded to test new educational theories?

We experiment with people's lives all the time, it's only a question as to what degree of experimentation is acceptable.

Because while I may hand wring over clinical trials on a specific question, due to their relatively low impact, I don't see how great harm can be done when you're not repeating the spinal tap experiments. Redrawing the map, 'fairly' distributing resources, etc, is... not quite so limited.

I just love it when so called "Libertarians", reveal they really don't want people to be free to choose. Thus Ayn Rand does not believe that the Native Americans had a right to chose a way of life that does mnot fit her idea of development. Those people who came over and conquered the Indians had a right to not just conquer them but disposses and steal from the Natives all because they were the forces of progress and development so their thievery, conquest and all myriad of abuses were right and proper. Of course resisting invasion by so-called progressive forces is evil and wicked in this scheme of things.

They were morally obligated to genocide and pillage, to ensure the land would be used 'properly'.

Ayn Rand is absolutely insane.

Posted by: Mike Crichton | June 30, 2010 11:11 PM

Naked Bunny: Only a difference of degree.

Rutee: Ayn Rand WAS insane. She's dead now, but alas, her legacy lives on.

In modern double-blind trials, the subjects are aware that they might get a placebo. This wasn't always the case.

Anyway, WHENEVER a society, organization, family, etc tries anything new, they're experimenting with people's lives. This is not inherently a bad thing, because without that experimentation, we'd all still be paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

Posted by: archereon | July 1, 2010 1:42 AM

On atlas shrugged, I consider it to be a prequel to anthem. In anthem you have a post apocalyptic luddite society, making sure it stays luddite. In atlas shrugged you have science and technology destroying society with a hand full of super geniuses ready to rebuild it in their own image. What would be the real world effect of these 'super geniuses' attempt to rebuild society? 'Hi we engineered the collapse of society, killing an untold number of people, including your loved ones, want to come work as our slaves? *bang* Hey we got Meat tonight.

Also on atlas shrugged, has anyone else considered its use as a book for some sort of editors competition. How much dross, filler and bad prose could you remove and still keep it with the same basic message? my guess would be at least 800 pages.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 1, 2010 2:19 AM

Anyway, WHENEVER a society, organization, family, etc tries anything new, they're experimenting with people's lives. This is not inherently a bad thing, because without that experimentation, we'd all still be paleolithic hunter-gatherers.

After such a revolution, it's anybody's guess what will take it's place. We might end up with something better, or something worse.

I just don't plan on being around to find out.

Posted by: petrander | July 1, 2010 3:31 AM

@ grudgedk #186:

Well, that effectively silence the dissonants. :-)

Indeed, the social-democracy exerted in most Western European countries is basically socialism minus bloody revolution, skewed somewhat towards the right because of political compromises and for drawing in more votes. But still, in its core, the philosophy is socialistic.

Posted by: eprkhan | July 1, 2010 7:45 AM

Anyway, WHENEVER a society, organization, family, etc tries anything new, they're experimenting with people's lives. This is not inherently a bad thing, because without that experimentation, we'd all still be paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Yes, but they're doing it entirely through the regular process of governance. That's not an experiment as science knows it, and within a representative government is merely the same process of decision making that we take in life, writ large. After such a revolution, it's anybody's guess what will take it's place. We might end up with something better, or something worse. I just don't plan on being around to find out. Then I hope you don't want it STARTED either.

Speaking of this, did anyone read about Paul Romer in The Atlantic a couple of weeks ago
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/

The basic idea is that rich countries (or a consortium of them) would lease land from developing nations, and set up city states with 1st World-style liberties, taxes and protection, akin to Hong Kong for the British. It does sound faintly neo-colonialist, but as long as it's kept under control (maybe the UN), and only offered to those countries that are interested (i.e. I doubt Zimbabwe would take part any time soon) it could work, and would be an interesting experiment. After all, millions of immigrants risk their lives to get to America; clearly there's something there worth having.

As for the great libertarian debate, I really think that these holier-than-thou opinions among libertarians needs to stop. Whether you like it or not, the world is not going to change overnight and it makes much more sense to focus on civil liberties, social liberties, ending wars and free trade (all of which are relatively popular among Americans) than bothering about the really far out stuff. Laissez-faire capitalism isn't going anywhere, for the simple reason that it's effective; even in small quantities (China) it can work wonders. On the other hand, civil liberties are a lot more tenuous (again: China), and are currently under a lot more of a threat.

Holy frickin' hell, dude...stop diggin'! All of those countries have national health insurance plans, Ireland has extremely restrictive abortion laws, Australia recently just backed away from a proposal to filter the whole damned Internet, and the Swiss voted to ban construction of minarets. Libertarian? As a great thinker once said, "I do not think that words means what you think it means." Either that or you need some serious education about foreign systems of government.

Regarding Ireland; yes, we have restrictive abortion laws, but we also have a constitutional guarantee that we can go abroad to get one. With cheap flights around Europe, it's really not a big deal (although still irritating). I would still count Ireland as being more libertarian than America, mostly due to the fact that minority parties actually get a say.

Last thing, I promise; there's an interesting post here on the effects of surveillance on morality.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/surveillance_and_morality

I would suggest this might be generalized to other issues, but I've already talked too long.

Posted by: mdcaton | July 1, 2010 11:41 AM

I thought the cartoon was moderately funny and I'm a libertarian. Sometime somebody should do a taxonomy of stereotypical atheist subspecies and libertarians would definitely have to be one of them. If you can't take a little ribbing then you have a problem. Plus, you already know PZ's politics and you could see the source of the cartoon, so it wasn't even a surprise. The thing is to remember that atheism is a big tent. Thinking that atheism has to be "progressive atheism" or "libertarian atheism" is goofy. Just like when you go to a libertarian meeting there are probably going to be theists there, when you go to an atheist meeting, there will be leftists there. Often, a lot of them! Focus on the important things you're trying to accomplish together and don't worry about what you consider irrational beliefs that aren't core to the agenda. I *dream* of the day when we can go back only to arguing rationally between Enlightenment systems of material improvement (like capitalism and communism) instead of Bronze Age superstitions.

Posted by: hourlily | July 2, 2010 12:08 AM

@Gus Snarp #237:

But the worst thing ever written would be a fantasy novel that is entirely derivative of Ayn Rand, in which the wizards an warriors plot is a shoddy and brief framework for a very long diatribe as the author attempts to restate the wonders of Objectivism. That would be the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind.

Yes! I made it all the way through The Pillars of Creation (book seven) before I couldn't take it anymore. Wizard's First Rule is great, but it's all downhill from there. Goodkind took his readers' attention for granted and assumed we'd stick around for contrived plots and Objectivist lectures.

Have you seen Legend of the Seeker? It's the TV miniseries based on Sword of Truth. I only saw the pilot and it was terrible.

Posted by: Malcolm | July 2, 2010 3:21 AM

Here is some punctuation:
,,,...;;:::
Feel free to insert as necessary into me previous comment.

Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2010 4:38 AM

Kel, I am not sure if William knows what a libertarian country would look like. I think he really believes his examples are reasonable examples though, but he also has a hard time admitting he is wrong when called out on it.

One thing I noticed is that he rarely would give any reason for calling them libertarian, there is never any real justification. Well, he did mention the World Economic Forum rankings but others have pointed out he obviously does not know what the metric means, that countries that are ranked highly on the list are not very libertarian in any way.

Besides Somalia, while having little regulation is not a fun place to live and obviously cannot be libertarian in any way. He knows libertarianism will bring success, so by definition it cannot be a good example.

Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2010 5:31 AM

Oh indeed, people should be called out on those stupid things. I just think he genuinely thought they were good examples rather than trying to fool anyone.

In the end all of his examples, other than Singapore perhaps, are basically democratic socialist countries in some way or another, with varying degrees of social support, but all following the same basic model (well, Switzerland is a weird example, but still certainly not a libertarian paradise at least by any standard of libertarian I have heard of).

Posted by: Gus Snarp | July 2, 2010 8:58 AM

@hourlily - No, I haven't seen the show. Mr. Goodkind has already taken too much of my time and money, he'll get no more, not even if it's just time.

I don't remember which book was my last, it's the one where Richard is sick somehow, can't do magic, and is stuck in a town of pacifists about to be invaded by whatever the communists were called. I should have stopped after the one where he makes the statue, but I hoped it was just an aberration.

Really quite sad after the first book was so good and so original to see the whole thing descend into that.

Posted by: hourlily | July 3, 2010 12:24 AM

@Gus Snarp #248:

It sounds like you stopped at book six. I read Sword of Truth while I was out of work and had lots of time on my hands, so I was reading about one book a week. I didn't notice how much the storytelling had degraded until I read book five, the one where Richard makes the statue. It was so terrible! I also hoped the books would get better after that, but they did not. After book seven, I realized that I was starting to hate the characters and that I had to stop reading if I wanted to preserve my good memories of the first three books.

I was disturbed by the way Goodkind described the rape and torture of women over and over again. I get that rape is a weapon of war, but he wrote about it in a very voyeuristic, rape-fantasy sort of way. I have trouble pinpointing exactly why. Did you get that sense at all?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 3, 2010 6:54 AM

Dorothy Parker had a good comment about Atlas Shrugged:

This is not a book to be lightly tossed aside, it should be thrown with great force.

Posted by: hourlily | July 3, 2010 5:36 PM

@Morse #251

Kick the Dog is good way of putting it. The Order was obnoxiously over-the-top. I felt like Goodkind was spoonfeeding me conclusions instead of letting me come up with them myself.

Would you recommend Legend of the Seeker, then?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 7, 2010 2:47 AM

You think Australia is libertarian?

yeah, I got a good laugh outta that one!

this guy is humorous, if wholly ignorant.

Posted by: TokyoTomSr | July 15, 2010 9:48 AM

PZ, first, I thought I might repay some of the fun, with some with the cartoon tweaked by someone to caricature authoritarians:

http://blog.mises.org/images/24-types-of-authoritarians.jpg

2. "I would like more government. A well-regulated civil service would be an excellent buffer against the whims of the executive. Why do you anti-government guys always think so simplistically, assuming that big government means concentrating more power in the hands of an autocratic individual?"

You're missing some chief libertarian criticisms:
- corporations are better placed than citizens to influence government, especially centralized government. Are you unfamiliar with "regulatory capture"?
- the political games politicians play continually aggrandize federal government-especially the executive/administrative branch-making corporate influence easier, leading to increasing bureaucratization and handicapping local governance.
- US is not EU or Japan. Do we have "a well-regulated civil service"? Japan has such a civil service, and the Japanese blame it for stifling the economy for two decades. The civil (and defense/CIA, etc.) service in the US administer over 30% of US territory+OCS and war depts - how have they been doing? Satisfied with management of mineral resources? If not, is MORE the best answer? How do we get SMARTER government?

3. "The alternative to regulation of basic services by the government is privatizing them and giving more power to corporations — whose goal is to increase profits. Personally, I like to see the Invisible Hand shackled and restricted to doing useful work, rather than picking pockets"

This confused: we have very serious problems, indeed, but it's not government that creates wealth, but burns it, in the form of wars, bailouts and the like.The ""standard" question is WHAT regulation is justified, and and what cost.

The real alternative is NOT "giving more power to corporations", but giving more power to communities and limiting the favors given to corporations and limiting their power to buy favors from government. My own view is that we need to (i) end the grant of "limited liability" to corporate shareholders and prohibit ownership of subsidiaries, (ii) overturn ridiculous rulings like Citizens United that elevate corporations over citizens, and (iii) listen to commons guru Elinor Ostrom and, for example, give fishermen rights to regulate oil drilling.

4. "the social machinery that maximizes civil liberties is very much the product of cooperation and secular social institutions. Most of the oblivious libertarians — the ones who can't get the joke — don't realize that their advocacy of mindless laissez-faire capitalism and unfettered industry is about destroying the social fabric that allows each of us to be something more than a serf. "

There are LOTS of libertarians, myself included, who agree with you 100% here. But these oblivious libertarians have simply fallen into a partisan trap; they do listen to criticisms of corporations, and many strongly support Elinor Ostrom -- as I noted in this post:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/06/30/fun-with-quot-libertarian-quot-stereotypes.aspx

5. "Freedom is worth paying taxes for"

You sound like a Bushie selling us on war.

Of course freedom is worth an investment - including an investment in understanding why we're losing it, fast, and in understanding the core problems with corporations and government.

TT