very good post

Sorry you're getting the race card, Vinod. For what it's worth,

Locke & Friedman

Friends don't let friends drink and debate privatized pension plans. That's the only thing I remember from high school Health class. That and the fact that some critics attributed Bob Beamon's record long jump in Mexico City to the thin air/wind conditions.

Ummmm. Vinod, didn't this conversation take place between us on April 1st, 2005?

Last week I was up in the Bay Area for a two-day conference and used the opportunity to finally meet Vinod. Long time readers of SM will note that Vinod and I don’t agree on a gamut of political issues. Both of us had a few too many drinks at the bar while talking politics and things turned ugly (I guess it’s true that Indian men can’t hold their liquor). While trying to drive home a point with regards to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, I accidentally flailed my arms too wide and knocked my beer into Vinod’s lap. Because I was angry at the time, he mistakenly thought I did it on purpose and retaliated by throwing his beer in my face. When it was obvious that a fight was imminent the bouncers pushed us out of the bar. I think it was a silly misunderstanding but again, the fact that we weren’t friends before has made it more difficult to reconcile. Each of us is too stubborn to admit that we were wrong.

I hope we can see the reverse when some desi dudes embrace Locke & Friedman a bit more than Hugo Chavez & Arundhati Roy.

Ditto!

i just hope you mean milton and not thomas. btw, vinod, it would be good to get your take on the immigration debate. there's been a sore need in that thread for someone to break it down from an economic perspective.

peace

Vinod...

Ditto!

As a brown dude (albeit an LTOB), with libertarian leanings, I often get the same sort of falthoo comments...

And, to add insult to injury, I get clubbed with the the desis of convenience, ie desi "cronies" who're Republican/ conservative primarily because

a) Republicans are in power and/ or
b) they've started making mucho bucks and like whoever's going to let them keep more of it.

If the bases of power shifted and/or they stopped making mucho bucks, they'd immediately switch sides.

Sorta reminds me of the joke about a crowded train station in India. While on the platform, folks are clamoring to get on board -- whether they have a ticket, or not. Once someone does get on board the train (by hook or by crook), he/ she will promptly shut the door, and try to keep everyone else out.

heya,

not everyone embraces arundhati roy and hugo chavez just cos we're 'reprazentin' and they're not white. i don't see libertarian philosophy as a well-meaning but ineffective political theory because of some alleged white paternalistic overtones, i disagree with it because it doesn't work.

we've had it since the 80's with reagan and thatcher running around with it like two ADD kids let loose in a candy shop and based on empirical evidence i think that it has been just a tad crapalicious.

sure locke was a great guy (and everyone forgets the poor genius's lovely proviso of leaving enough as is good for others and accuses him of being a totally selfish bastard) but then so was marx. the only problem is after they died both their lovely ideas have run riot because implementing extreme pure ideologies in a complex world just isn't such a crash-hot thing to do.

i believe that neither libertarianism on the right nor marxism on the left will work. i know i'm gonna be crucified by the right-wingers here but i will mention the name naomi klein and her developing thesis on a new politics of decentralised power (from the 2002 book fences and windows).

maybe its better for localised communities to take power back for themselves rather than having extreme communism or capitalism.

much respect for sticking to your libertarian ideals based on intellectual reasoning though, vinod. beats the random brown 'but we gotta fight "the Man"' unexplained political viewpoint any day.

beats the random brown 'but we gotta fight "the Man"' unexplained political viewpoint any day.

haha

Hmmm. It seems to me people take positions these days on personalities and 'expected responses' than actual arguments. You had me nodding my head Manish until you said:
embrace Locke & Friedman a bit more than Hugo Chavez & Arundhati Roy.

I think anyone who embraces any of them wholeheartedly is aa bit blind, and probably not good conversation. Admittedly even Hugo Chavez and Roy, who I tend to like, get caught up in their own hyperbole, while some aspects of neo-classical economics (though i'm an Adam Smith man to be honest, and I prefer Scots :P) are quite intelligent.

I used to have massive debates with a friend of mine who used to get intensely irritated by Roy. But my defence was only based on the arguments Roy made, not on the fact she was Roy. If Friedman made them, I'd say "good on you".

In discussions online and offline at a time the world is quite polarised, I would prefer if we had more alternatives than just two diametrically opposed stances.

Doh! That was aimed at Vinod, not Manish. Apologies.

...they've started making mucho bucks and like whoever's going to let them keep more of it. If the bases of power shifted and/or they stopped making mucho bucks, they'd immediately switch sides.

Why is that a bad thing? Do you really believe candidates are voted into office on pure idealogy? :-) Isn't it all about voting for someone that represents and protects our best interests?

hey janeofalltrades,

it depends on what people think 'our best interests is'. some people see this in an individual light, some in the context of the wider community.

it becomes a bad thing when it amounts to manicuring society's lil bitty pinky finger while letting the rest of the proverbial body go to seed.

i agree with the title - race ain't first. people are.

It becomes a bad thing when it amounts to manicuring society's lil bitty pinky finger while letting the rest of the proverbial body go to seed.

Could you give me an example of this happening in the current political scene? Often people dismiss a differing political viewpoint as being the minority without realizing the depth in the number of it's believers.

hi janeofalltrades - and others - examples:

-the fact that the richest 1% of Americans earning something ridiculous like approx. 40% of its wealth and industry.

-an increasingly 'user pays' approach to health and education and other basic social institutions and needs.

-the strong connection between big industrial businesses and current parties in power around the world, oh just to throw a few words and names around, Bush, Haliburton, Rumsfeld, Texas oil industry. I know that Kerry's married to the daughter of the Heinz guy, I don't support the Democrats either.

-perpetuation of a culture of greed and excess cf: 'Affluenza' cannot remember the author but its an account of the social, cultural and environmental effects of what basically amounts to rampant individualism without a balance with communal concerns. I think its v g to have both

I don't think the ideas I disagree with come from a minority view, I know that heaps of people support libertarian and right wing views, which is a for awesome for them.

what i do disagree with is the underlying sentiment of self-interest inherent in free-market capitalism to the point where neglect of communal needs negatively impacts all individuals, e.g. since we're on a brown site the pollution levels in cities like bombay and delhi where the interests of industry has led to people wearing masks to travel around and some children inhaling toxins equivalent to the amount contained in a pack of cigarettes per day.

just asking for a bit of balance, not to turn manhattan into a commune where we all run peacefully through the fields and hold hands and eat weird soy products.

not to turn manhattan into a commune where we all run peacefully through the fields and hold hands and eat weird soy products.

ahhh, i see u have been down to the East Village then...

=)

I actually get the opposite just as often--people expect me to be a cultural conservative because they know I'm quite religious but don't actually know me.

dude:

not sure if i need to go to east village since i live in a country of 4 million people and just over 63 million sheep. they make the fields smell a bit funny but we're all a lot happier over here :-)

wheeeee who needs lotsa money anyways, don't think its gonna help people in 100 years time when the polar ice caps have melted thanks to global warming and our banknotes lie swimming in a v big sea...

love the shared idealism that libertarians and lefties have and their love of liberty and freedom, but all i'm saying is freedom is more than the ability to participate in a market economy and buy what you want at shops.

Since you mention Arundhati Roy... I'd be surprised to see any desis who really appreciated GOST. Especially keralites who have lived in kerala. It was one of the most terrible books I've laid my hands upon, and the only book I've ever given up midway. I can see why it might appeal to those who find the story and setting exotic, but to those who are familiar with the setting, the only thing that matters is the story and the narration, which are both peurile.

GOST is a v v polarising book, among white and brown and yellow and the whole rainbow of people. i know many do hate it...

but as it is my fave fave book in the whole wide world i have to say it is amazing for the following reasons:

-its prose-poetry
-its rhythm
-its structure
-its ambiguity
-its message(s)
-the way it haphazardly works and falls apart at the same time in a postmodern realisation of beauty and perfection

yes, even i'll admit part of its loveliness is the exotic cover and lush overtones and the smokin' hot ms roy herself who looks all ethno-hot with her little smirky smile.

i know many who hate it, but for some of us it has changed the way we see the world. forever.

see even that sentence was roy-esque but only equals the dust on her genius feet. *bows down*

if you gave up on it halfway try reading some of these shockers:

-fury by salman rushdie
-mistress of spices by chitra divarkuni
-terrible indian chick lit with blurbs 'omg im gettin an arranged marriage to a total loser and i have an overbearing mother and i can't cook curries! omg lol drama!'

even GOST haters have to admit, its gotta be better than those.

sorry for hijacking politics blog with GOST, but really any true Roy-lover would know that a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do.

tashie thanx for your response...

I don't think the ideas I disagree with come from a minority view, I know that heaps of people support libertarian and right wing views, which is a for awesome for them.

I don't believe you are in the minority what I meant was that you might think the other side you don't see eye to eye with is a minority. It's not. When people talk about how Bush was voted into office by a select group of people and the rest of the country hated him it really wasn't true. Even if it was 50/50 (lets say for arguments sake) you cannot dismiss the 50% that supported him.

The fact that the richest 1% of Americans earning something ridiculous like approx. 40% of its wealth and industry.

Wealth distribution is a dangerous topic to throw around. The US is actually in the minority in terms of wealth distribution. Here's a world map of the gini coefficient It's essentially the measurement of the rich vs poor in countries. You'll find this surprising.

I read a story once that talked about how if there were 100 people on an island and there were 100 coconuts. 1 guy had 95 and the other 95 had to share the 5 coconuts. Is it fair? How long before the 95 people go after the one guy? Frankly if the one guy worked his ass off climbing the trees, sweating for days and working hard to get his 95 coconuts while the other 95 sat around and watched or did nothing for themselves do they really deserve benefits of his hard work? Again charity is a whole other ballgame. The richest also are some of the most charitable and do share their wealth. You are implying that the balance of wealth needs to be somewhat even in terms of earning. I disagree. It never will be.

Perpetuation of a culture of greed and excess cf: 'Affluenza' cannot remember the author but its an account of the social, cultural and environmental effects of what basically amounts to rampant individualism without a balance with communal concerns....What i do disagree with is the underlying sentiment of self-interest inherent in free-market capitalism to the point where neglect of communal needs negatively impacts all individuals

Communal concerns in this country have built a welfare system that needs to go. It's broken, it doesn't work and people rarely graduate from it because many use it as a crutch to live off it. People need to be made more responsible for their own actions and by providing a continual support they never seem to break free of the cycle. It's the same with contries that are always on the recieving end of support from the United States. Very few have indeed become self sufficient since the US started handing out money for free.

Also the US government is one of the largest polluter in the country and owns nearly 40% of landmass much of which it is rented out. Where there is no ownership there are no incentives to take care of the land/environment. Would you take care of a rental car the same way you'd take care of a car you owned? If I owned a home I'd take better care of my yard and my neighborhood then someone that was renting a place and could move and rent elsewhere anytime. They have no incentive to want to make a better community. Self interest drives a free market because it gives people incentives to do the right thing.

hi janeofalltrades - and others, don't want people to feel like this is a two person political left-right biatch-off...a v friendly one though because I find it way more interesting to hear opposing views than 'grr Bush, grr evil money making pigs' mumblings...

your points are all v interesting especially the one about wealth distribution, just a few points i want to clarify:

I don't believe you are in the minority what I meant was that you might think the other side you don't see eye to eye with is a minority. It's not. When people talk about how Bush was voted into office by a select group of people and the rest of the country hated him it really wasn't true. Even if it was 50/50 (lets say for arguments sake) you cannot dismiss the 50% that supported him.

a) when i was saying that i knew heaps of people support libertarian views, i WAS acknowledging that libertarian views are not in the minority and in fact have a slight majority over the left in most western liberal democracies including the usa, australia and new zealand. in nz, as in the usa the 2005 election the centre-left and right were evenly split, and our election was won by the left Labour party over the right National party by 1%. over the past 20 years the political centre HAS shifted to the right.

this is why i am interested in libertarianism, because this scares me.

i fully acknowledge and appreciate that there are many people who support this, but i still think despite its good intentions it is a misguided idea that when examined is, to use my favourite word at the moment, crapalicious.

i am taking a political philosophy paper at university and have just recently studied Libertarian views because I find them really interesting, especially where they relate to your (culturally appropriate btw, well done) coconut story.

I read a story once that talked about how if there were 100 people on an island and there were 100 coconuts. 1 guy had 95 and the other 95 had to share the 5 coconuts. Is it fair? How long before the 95 people go after the one guy? Frankly if the one guy worked his ass off climbing the trees, sweating for days and working hard to get his 95 coconuts while the other 95 sat around and watched or did nothing for themselves do they really deserve benefits of his hard work? Again charity is a whole other ballgame. The richest also are some of the most charitable and do share their wealth. You are implying that the balance of wealth needs to be somewhat even in terms of earning. I disagree. It never will be

To help DISPELL A MYTH: ---> Libertarian philosophy itself does not use the 'well the capitalist worked harder and earned what he gained while the dumbass mule-workers were just sittin around on their asses' explanation.

if you look at Robert Nozick's theory of Libertarianism (he is the foremost 20th century figure on the subject), libertarianism has two ways to justify the initial unequal distribution of resources in the coconut story:

a) first come first served.

Let's look at this one, shall we. Nozick acknowledges that here while there may be a small amount of initiative in the person who got the 95 coconuts, they really just kind of grabbed it first when people were sitting around sharing it and utilising it already. Maybe not efficiently, but civilisation did not just suddenly BEGIN when private property ownership started (some of us crazy misty-eyed lefties like to think that culture and language and social values are signs of being truly civilised too. woopsies, silly us).

It's kind of like when there's a bowl of popcorn that is lying on the coffee table and a group of friends are sitting around munching it, not knowing who made it or who put it there. Then one person grabs the popcorn and runs away with it, cruelly laughing as the others sit with empty rumbling tummmies.

in real life, the others would chase cruel popcorn stealer and give them a good old telling off/smash if they were really hungry. however, to extreme right wing ideology, its all good!

the assumption there is that prior to the person's 'initiative' in getting all those coconuts for themselves, people were just sitting around doing NOTHING. this is completely impossible as the mere fact of being alive and human means that they would have been using things on the island to help them survive.

b) the 'tragedy of the commons' explanation:

-what libertarianism eventually leads back to when people point out the extreme and growing disparity between the rich and poor, is that no matter how unfair wealth distribution is we should all be grateful to the (bastard! screams tashie) coconut/popcorn stealer who at least did something and started owning something, thereby moving us from Locke's uncivilised state of nature where the world was unowned to great opportunities for us to park our lazy asses into (assembly lines/claustrophobic corporate cubby holes) in order to work for him.

-however, as will kymlicka points out in his excellent 'contemporary political philosophy', libertarians often only assume two alternatives:

a) lazy savage unowned world from which we are saved by the coconut stealer ie private property and free market capitalism

b) lazy savage unowned world in which we stay, lazy asses that we are.

-societies and cultures throughout history have had other forms of property ownership including communal ownership, kibbutz-style arrangements, state ownership, worker-self ownership.

-if we compare any to an unowned world with no property system and therefore a crap economic system, then they ALL pass the test of being better than the tragedy of the commons.

-and more importantly, we can see that this dispels the idea that THE POOR ARE LAZY. Yes, some poor people are lazy, but most are poor because they are denied the right to acquire property which is already held by

sorry for such a long post, but i am just getting tired of vibes I get from right-wingers in general that lefties are misinformed about their ideas. some of us know all about it...and we still don't agree with them.

ps. re: welfare system. The welfare state has been 'rolled back' since the 1980's, and continues to be with schemes such as welfare to work being insituted by both the left and right in countries like the USA and the Labour party in Britain. Like a culture of handouts, a culture of smackdowns doesn't help decrease the gap between the rich and poor either

pps re: USA giving aid to countries. The US government each year makes more money from selling arms to developing countries than the amount of aid it gives them. it's kind of like breaking someone's legs and then giving them a pair of crutches.

sorry for long post, those who are not janeofalltrades feel free to ignore completely...gah i've turned into one of those too-long posters I used to despise...

its me again...poor SM readers and poor janie...sorry

just to keep going on that point which mysteriously ended in thin air:

re: but most are poor because they are denied the right to acquire property and resources, most of which are in the hands of a rich few.

This is said by some to be a reason why even left-wing schemes such as affirmative action for african americans etc doesn't work. despite implementing such schemes, blacks are still much poorer than whites.

Libertarians claim this is because it denies them the INCENTIVE to work hard for what they get and become efficient, stronger, smarter people. They say that we all need equal opportunities or we will get lazy.

Others say that such incentives have not worked because while they change small things, private property systems which have been set up through history to privilege the mainly white rich capitalist class. Most private property ownership has been gained by FORCE and through COLONISATION.

In real life (sadly), that coconut-filled island was a place where people had a complex culture and society but a different idea of property. the smart coconut guy was a colonist who took their stuff and treated them like sh**

Classic example: Manhattan, the most expensive piece of real estate in the world which was sold for around $20 and a few blankets. Yep, that sure saved them Injuns from the tragedy of the commons that plauged them because the savages didn't have private property and shared things around and believed in all the colours of the wind...

Poverty is intergenerational, poverty is affected by race,by aristocratic feudalism (which helped create all the white working class) poverty is affected by historical injustices. Yes, with some poverty is laziness but I think the two rarely go hand in hand.

the idea that the poor are lazy is a psychological justification for abandoning them and creating a self-contained third world within first world countries.

Arundhati Roy?

No way represents me. I am totally pro-capitalist, pro-nuke etc.

love the shared idealism that libertarians and lefties have and their love of liberty and freedom

ok, to be honest, i hear the word thrown around a lot, and i dont know what it means, and i am not going to look it up, but...

i am pretty sure sheep can be had in the east village, and everytime i go, i see lots of 'happy' people, and though i may agree that money isnt necessary for happiness, and Affluenza is a pretty neat documentary (they showed it on PBS) and certainly altered my life forever, giving me the courage to instigate change when i just thought about it before, it couldnt hurt to have money, lots of it, then one could have all the sheep one could want, and, certainly be 'happy' all the time. and one could offer sheep and 'happiness' to others as well.

I have suffered similar fools, Vinod.
NinaP - I am assuming Vinod meant that they [Friedman & Locke] also represent western culture. And very well, might I add.

SUNNY - If your intention is to prove your prowess in the dismal science by making comments like, "I think anyone who embraces any of them wholeheartedly is aa bit blind, and probably not good conversation. Admittedly even Hugo Chavez and Roy, who I tend to like, get caught up in their own hyperbole, while some aspects of neo-classical economics (though i'm an Adam Smith man to be honest, and I prefer Scots :P) are quite intelligent.", then Sir, you are doing yourself a disservice.

then Sir, you are doing yourself a disservice.

I may have wrongly insinuated that Adam Smith was a proponent of neo-classical economics, but if that wasn't what you meant, then I'm open to hearing why you think that.

Sunny - That is also what I meant.
I have been a reader of your blog for while, which is quite superb.
I distinctly recall you writing in one your posts - Amartya Sen won the nobel prize in chemistry or something.It took one of your readers to point out this gaffe to you.

I should probably chime in at some point about the general discussion of libertarianism ;-)

There are many stripes of libertarianism (as is the case with Modern Liberalism -- Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and Nancy Pelosi are often at odds - and at best united by a visceral hatred of Bush and occasionally Red America writ large)

One way the stripes are delineated is Rights vs. Consequentialists. Broadly, the Right-ists take initiation of the use of force by the govt as a prima facie morally bad position. The consequentialists accept that force is inherent to living in the physical world and instead justify libertarianism based on effects and goals rather than initial starting points.

"Min-archists" like Nozick are hardcore rights centered. These guys are the distinct minority in modern libertarianism.

Folks like Milton Friedman are rather strongly consequentialists. For ex., Milton Friedman created the modern withholding tax system.... he's the originator of the idea for school choice / vouchers... he's an advocate of welfare via "negative income tax"... he recognizes the need for strong rule of law in places like Russia & Africa as a pre-req to creating real freedom for folks...

the point in spelling out these examples is that they (contrary to the caricatures painted by critics) are all examples where Friedman et. al. would advocate government intervention in "the Free Market" and often PURELY on humanitarian grounds rather than strictly economic efficiency ones... vouchers, for ex., are intrinsically government produced products, they have no instantiation in a purely Free Market.

[FWIW, Classical Liberals take a lot of this one step further and place a large emphasis on culture / history as providing a necessary basis for the Luxury of libertarianism - e.g. first you need a society where arbitrary individuals trust each other and don't walk out of restaurants without paying their bills before you can have the luxury of a relatively lightweight policing mechanism.]

some parts of "Libertarianism" are achieving "End of History" world wide consensus - for ex., the need to open your economy up to global trade (this is often under the moniker of "Anglo-Saxon"ization or "globalization"). Other parts are in retrenchment - most famously, the massive growth of the US government under Dubya. Or encroaching govt control in "growth" industries like health, education, etc.

“Dude, you’re brown. Grow up. How old are you? Do you want to be white or something?”

Ha! Vinod, I'm a Krugman/Danner guy myself and I get this a lot too - looks like there's no pleasing some people! It's a shot below the belt when they've got nothing of substance to say!

Funny how Roy has become such an anti-globalization celebrity in the West. I heard Cornel West lionizing her in a speech the other day - most socialists in India wouldn't give her the time of day!

and now a few specific comments -

sure locke was a great guy (and everyone forgets the poor genius's lovely proviso of leaving enough as is good for others and accuses him of being a totally selfish bastard) but then so was marx.

i know i'm gonna be crucified by the right-wingers here but i will mention the name naomi klein and her developing thesis on a new politics of decentralised power (from the 2002 book fences and windows).

On wealth -

-the fact that the richest 1% of Americans earning something ridiculous like approx. 40% of its wealth and industry....Classic example: Manhattan, the most expensive piece of real estate in the world which was sold for around $20 and a few blankets. Yep, that sure saved them Injuns from the tragedy of the commons that plauged them because the savages didn't have private property and shared things around and believed in all the colours of the wind...

First, wealth is created, not stolen. Trading activity is secondary to wealth creation. This is an important distinction that transforms many comparisons like the one above that are so blithely tossed around...

For ex, to use your example of Manhattan (as despicable as this phraseology will sound to some), when the "Injuns" and thier social system owned Manhattan, it was only worth "$20 and a few blankets". Now, it's worth Billions. The delta from 20 --> Billions was created.

You often hear things like "Americans are 5% of the world's population but consume 20% of the energy" (the exact #'s escape me now). But we should flip it around --> energy is created. Energy in the ground is just a different form of sand. The thing to be amazed by is that only x% of the population is responsible for creating y% of the energy. The ideas, values, structures underneath that system should be studied / emulated as appropriate. That's not to say that that x% is always good, always emulable, or heck, always efficient in its energy use - but presumptive frame going into the analysis couldn't be more different between the 2 statements. One presumes theft, the other creation.

vinod-at-large

re: marx's ideology killed a few 100 m more than marx.

i believe that both are bad for people, whether its marx's ideals morphing into crazy stalinism so many years ago...or locke's ideas morphing into george's bush's neo-imperialist world superpower, um, right now. its not about choosing the lesser of two evils, its about trying to find a better way and recognising that pure ideology's place in the real world might sadly be destructive.

libertarianism as a theory is great. when its applied its not, because things such as wealth creation and incentive and being amazed at just how smart the clever rich can get (whether they're brown techies or white landowners or shanghai businessmen)is fine, but people will have to admit the price being paid by many others

- including people like the Native Americans who stupidly left their useless land to rot. The billions calculated are in libertarian terms, based on a set of values that prioritises material wealth above all. To the Native Americans, it was (lets use a nice capitalist mastercard phrase here) priceless. it was their home, they were its guardians, it was taken from them. if society and culture are so valued, why are they implicitly made secondary to economic concerns?

yes, wealth is created. i agree with that and it is amazing that countries like america have done it so well.

but who is it being created for? if it is being created for a small percentage of the world's population to sustain their ever-increasing demand for economic resources, i even grant you that AS LONG AS this demand does not reach out into other the lives of people in other countries and create a highly unfair global market, deny people AIDS drugs and other medication through patents, keep them poor by making them sign IMF and WTO agreements which as in Bolivia have privatised water leaving it unavailable to many... and yep, here it comes, create new wars on other countries.

show me how the 'freedom and liberty' the usa has and are bestowing on iraq compare NOT to saddam's rule (which i will grant you was worse than even the deeply entrenched civil war which the us government is currently denying)...

but compare it to the 'freedom and liberty' that older colonial powers claimed they had brought to the countries that have also been taken over by force through history in africa, the americas and asia.

as with the oil-rich middle east that is now being plundered, at the time that those countries were colonised europeans desired metals, new foods and crops and human labour to sustain the 'growth' and 'energy' they were creating.

now, the west needs oil. why the choice to go to war now with iraq when the us government previously gave it aid and turned a blind eye to the dictatorship it suddenly so strongly felt the need to oust about a decade after they had the chance in the first gulf war?

the only reason that the hundred other countries who are not so-willin to be part of that snazzily named coalition is because this war is mainly driven by a demand for oil, and that is obvious to people around the world from state leaders to even those stoned greenie kids who go on marches yelling about bush.

the reason people bring up things like this is because some people see economics, and especially the economy of the world's richest country as being intrinsically tied to the world's issues and problems.

another example would be the kyoto protocol. sure, it is the prerogative of the usa not to sign it for economic reasons - but what about the negative environment effects on the whole planet? all governments are now taking global warming seriously, but the main reason we even have this problem in the first place is the dynamic you described of those amazing few 'energy-creators' and the rest of the world looking on in amazement like wide-eyed children.

when in 100 years' time we see harsher effects of global warming, maybe that look of amazement which comes from freedom and liberty and energy-creation might turn into a not-so-happy look. maybe most people might just start looking a little angry.

re: theft vs creation

despite stickin to my point that initially most resources have a basis in theft ie being taken by force, i do fully support your view that from then onwards wealth has been created.

all i am saying is that the only supposed benefits from libertarians to those in the world who remain poor NOW would effectively boil down to this:

-they get to be judged on whether they are deserving or undeserving through means-testing ie a basic value judgment on whether they are lazy (bad) or made poor from circumstances they cannot control (good)

-they get to watch clever rich people keep creating and using most of the world's wealth and resources for themselves

-some nice libertarians might give them a bit of aid to create unsustainable growth while entrenching unfair economic global conditions, which if made fairer would decrease the need for aid substantially

-their reward in life is to look around at all this amazing energy while they either live in squalor and die later, or die now.

i'm not saying that rich people are not smart and haven't created things for themselves. yes they have and that's great. all i am saying is that the time has come for there to be a bit of balance.

allowing libertarianism to be put into practice in the world today is the equivalent of one person buying the materials for and owning a lifeboat that can fit about 10 more people, sitting back and stretching their legs in it, and telling the 20 people around them who are dying in the sea:

'Um, guys, I earned and made this. I put the effort in to make the boat.'

Yes, it is his boat. Yes, he has worked hard. And no, he cannot fit all people in the boat.

but from a common sense point of view, couldn't he just let a few more people in?

when did the moral basis of treating others as you would like to be treated become the unreasonable, crazy idea which was replaced by "the unlimited acquisition of wealth is justified on the basis that those who create the wealth and industrious and clever."

Yes, the rich are clever cookies. But in a world of scarcity, maybe we need to be a bit more balance.

I know people look at these issues differently. Someone looking at it from an economic point of view might draw up a graph and put negative effects of economic growth as 'an externality of production.'

The lifeboat example comes from a history lecture on the late 20th century in a global history paper given by a world-renowned lecturer who has studied history in the context of the last 1200 years.

Maybe the unwillingness of libertarians to look at issues globally vs nationally and historically vs the few generations who have created the new improved Manhattan from its previously 'worthless state' results from the fact that their theory has and is only working for a few and creating misery for many others.

like i said before, much respect for sticking to your ideals and their intellectual basis, though. i'm just saying that somewhere between ideology and reality things turn not-so-great.

Expose - if I said that Amartya Sen got a prize for Chemistry or something, I must have been on drugs at the time. I'm glad someone corrected me :)

Vinod:
First, wealth is created, not stolen.
It can be created and it can be stolen.

You often hear things like "Americans are 5% of the world's population but consume 20% of the energy"

Well it depends on what context you read this. Consumption of energy also means being responsible for polluting the atmosphere more. That wouldn't be a problem if the negative externalities from pollution were costed for by those who created them, but that rarely happens. The rest of the world pays (in terms of global warming, middle east wars) for America's energy consumption habit.

-what libertarianism eventually leads back to when people point out the extreme and growing disparity between the rich and poor, is that no matter how unfair wealth distribution is we should all be grateful to the (bastard! screams tashie) coconut/popcorn stealer who at least did something and started owning something

-and more importantly, we can see that this dispels the idea that THE POOR ARE LAZY. Yes, some poor people are lazy, but most are poor because they are denied the right to acquire property which is already held by

but most are poor because they are denied the right to acquire property and resources, most of which are in the hands of a rich few.

Tashie…

What I’m getting from you is that the rich somehow have a personal responsibility for the poor simply because they are rich and they should feel guilty for being so. Owning property and becoming “rich” aside the poor do have opportunities to at least come out of poverty. There are far too many incentives in this country for people to take advantage of.

I realize it may not be the case in other parts of the world like India where a poor man unfortunately may not be able to break free of poverty because there are too many layers holding him down. Though I have seen among the maids in our home in Mumbai, the mother worked there her whole life, the daughter got some education but she is also a maid. Her daughter just graduated from college and works in an office now. She crossed the line because her mother chose to slog and work hard to allow her to break free. It isn't an impossibility just incredibly difficult.

But in this country there are lots of incentives along the way to help the poor guy. I should know I was him once. A vast majority of the poor don’t necessarily always want to help themselves. They think it’s the rich person’s responsibility because they’ve had it hard and they assume the rich man hasn’t.

In real life (sadly), that coconut-filled island was a place where people had a complex culture and society but a different idea of property. the smart coconut guy was a colonist who took their stuff and treated them like sh**

Not always true. You like the poor, are assuming that the rich man is just greedy who did it the crooked way. It is quite possible that he made hay while the sun was shining and hence stashed away the coconuts knowing their worth. Of course at some point the rich man questions himself and asks what the hell he’s going to do with 95 coconuts and will want to share. And he may not share 94 of em but he might share some. Should he have to. In my opinion no.

For example I pay a shit load of taxes, a ridiculous % of my check goes poof yet I don’t own property yet and have to pay thru my nose for housing in NYC. Yet someone on welfare is guaranteed an apartment in the very same complex I live in because of a quota that needs to be filled and incentives made available to him. That person pays barely 30% of my rent to live in the exactly the same apartment. Is it fair? You might think it is to the poor man. I think it’s shit. I worked hard for my money why is someone else getting a break especially when that person is also reaping the benefits of my taxes.

The welfare system also provides no incentive for someone to get out of it. When you are used to getting handouts and living well off it you will do whatever it takes to maintain it. There are tons and tons of people on welfare who live well by working off the books and beating the system.

This is a really long and windy road to go down when it comes to discussion and distribution of wealth. I used to be idealistic as well when I was younger and poorer but as you grow older, learn the value of money and realize how hard you have to work for it you want to make sure that you get to keep a fair share of it. And at the end of the day my time and energy is more important for my community then money. Throwing money at the poor guy is a solution that has never worked thru history. The giving of your time and effort is the best investment.

FYI I have libertarian tendencies but not sure if I’m 100% libertarian because on some issues I lean far right and others like social issues I lean far left. I actually re-registered in 2004 as Independent because I no longer believed in the party I was registered in since I was 19…Democratic. So you have perspective of where I’m come from.

Jane:

FYI for you hun (that looks a tad biatchy but not meant that way), Libertarians are socially and economically liberal. That includes being 'left' in your views on things like abortion, gay rights etc. the Libertarianz (national Lib party in my country) have a totally open-door immigration policy and also support 'lefties' on many human rights issues.

i know that you work v hard for your money, and that sucks about your apartment. the reason i think that you have this problem and the subsequent resentment towards welfare-people in your complex is because the uber-rich get off with little or no taxation thanks to snazzy accountancy (ala Enron-style book-keeping), while the middle class is being forced to pay for the growing number of poor people. while the theory of libertarianism supports less tax for the middle classes, as it is being practised now in many western countries they are the very ones paying for the welfare state which could be much more easily paid by the real upper class.

i think that libertarianism in PRACTICE not theory makes things comfy for those few v rich people. a balance between recognising the good freedoms of capitalism ie freedom to buy things and the good freedoms of marxism ie the freedom the use your labour in a way that makes you v happy not miserable, will lead to more goodness :-) Good. Yay! :-)

many of the people who voted in the current republican government are not rich (sure the people at their conferences are, and they are). many voted for them on 'moral issues', and i'm not saying the democrats are any better either, i'd rather be stabbed in the face than in the back...

BUT i'm just saying that i don't think the beliefs you support, when practised in the real world, are helping people like yourself.

And that's great about the success story of the maid. But for one of those how many people are kept poor and still lead miserable lives? The probability is probably equivalent to the amount of good faith we should place in the coconut guy to share any of his 95 coconuts around.

Rich people are smart and talented, but allowing them to be selfish shouldn't be something that happens at the cost of others being denied their basic human rights.

"Min-archists" like Nozick are hardcore rights centered. These guys are the distinct minority in modern libertarianism.

nozick pretty much repudiated libertarianism before he died. i believe he came out and said so in the examined life.

including people like the Native Americans who stupidly left their useless land to rot.

this is a false perception based on the fact that much of the united states was depopulated of native americans because of disease prior to the expansion of the white settlers. the latency between these two events, the die off of native americans and the settlement by whites resulted in a regrowth of "natural" vegetation. the pacific northwest might be an archetypical example of this: the whites in the 1840s were stunned by the rich deciduous forestry which carpeted the willamette valley and couldn't understand why the few straggler native americans tribes didn't "make use of it." the reality is that the stragglers were survivors of a demographic implosion whose attenuated cultural circumstance was due to the fact that the overall superstructure of their segmentary societies had collapsed around because of mortality rates of 90-95%.

For example I pay a shit load of taxes, a ridiculous % of my check goes poof yet I don’t own property yet and have to pay thru my nose for housing in NYC. Yet someone on welfare is guaranteed an apartment in the very same complex I live in because of a quota that needs to be filled and incentives made available to him. That person pays barely 30% of my rent to live in the exactly the same apartment. Is it fair? You might think it is to the poor man. I think it’s shit. I worked hard for my money why is someone else getting a break especially when that person is also reaping the benefits of my taxes.

Maybe because we dont like to see poor people living on the streets. Maybe you could go back to India where your maids will never live in the same apartment complex that you do. Hell, they wont even dare eat at the same restaurant that you eat at or shop where you shop at (or share anything with you)

The welfare system also provides no incentive for someone to get out of it. When you are used to getting handouts and living well off it you will do whatever it takes to maintain it. There are tons and tons of people on welfare who live well by working off the books and beating the system.

You cant get welfare for more than 2 or 3 years depending on the state you are in. Do you even know what percentage of your federal tax dollars go towards providing people welfare checks?

holee $hee*, i was hoping they would realise this by their own intelligent self, but i guess when u r full of righteous indignation, u fail to see the obvious. people got problems with the undocumented,now they hate the poor as well. whats next...

thanks for pointing out the apparent a.m.f.d.

Maybe because we dont like to see poor people living on the streets. Maybe you could go back to India where your maids will never live in the same apartment complex that you do. Hell, they wont even dare eat at the same restaurant that you eat at or shop where you shop at (or share anything with you)

I didn't get your point. I'm not suggesting that people be thrown out on the street. But I still find paying $2K unfair when someone else is paying $500 for the same space.

You cant get welfare for more than 2 or 3 years depending on the state you are in. Do you even know what percentage of your federal tax dollars go towards providing people welfare checks?

Actually that isn't true. 2 - 3 years may be the "rule" but people do beat the system, find loopholes and especially when there are children involved the state does not throw people out of the system. And I'm not making half assed statements I have personal knowledge of this. For example if you look at subsidized housing within areas that have apprecited in value you will find a large % of the tenents have been living there for 10+ years.

As for the % of taxes that go into welfare, in the grand scheme of things I reap the benefits of my taxes. Government is mismanaged and the trillion $ cost of war estimates freak me out but I am unable other then trying to pick the right politicians, to do anything about influencing it. It isn't just about % of my taxes going to welfare to benefit someone, it's watching people that get a break with no pressure but as middle class I continue to be burnt.

Dude take a chill pill man...read the whole discussion and where it came from. No one hates the poor but since we were pointing fingers at things "unfair" towards the poor we may as well talk about ALL things unfair.

Expose,

Why should JoAT move back to India? Doesn't she have the right to criticize as an American.

Is this the "new gulag" you are propose - criticize and we will put you back on the plane. Come, on.

Jane of all - If it is really so terrible for you in Amreeka - why not move back to India, as Al suggested?

repudiated libertarianism before he died. i believe he came out and said so in the examined life.

Jane of all - If it is really so terrible for you in Amreeka - why not move back to India, as Al suggested? What is stopping you? After all you have reminisced time and again of the wonders back home, haven't you?

Yikes. This is my home. I have every right to be concerned about what goes on in my backyard and what my money is being used for.

take a chill pill man...read the whole discussion and where it came from. No one hates the poor but since we were pointing fingers at things "unfair" towards the poor we may as well talk about ALL things unfair.

strange, i was going to suggest the same to you. as i sometimes write longer comments, i make sure i read other peoples longeeeer comments. and def. dont jump in w/out reading previous comments.

u are talking about welfare and about the unfairness of u paying 2K for rent when others dont. but, this is called a free market economy, i think, where goods get sold at a price point where buyers and sellers both agree on. u dont have to pay 2k, and not having lived in the city for deacades, i know that u can live here for less. maybe the apts are rent controlled (though i actually dont fully understand how one apt can be and the next one not).

when u take a flight, its almost guaranteed that the person sitting next to u and infront of u and behind u more than likely paid a different price for the same flight, same seats, getting the same service. farm subsidies are unfair, as are gov. handout to businesses, and i recall hearing that many big businesses in the city got tax credit because they had an office or a business unit in the city, and were awarded breaks due to 9/11 business disruption, one of them was dTrumps business. wow, thats pretty unfair. if i walk in, and say mr trump walks in, to a lexus dealer, and we both want to finance cars, he would likely get a lower rate. probably, he gets a lower rate on his credit card as well.

there are a LOT of inequalities in any given system, and most are geared towards the better offs, as they are generally in legislative and governing power. middle class here and at home dont complain about these, because they hope to reap these benefits themselves down the line, so they keep quite about HUUGE abuses of the system and rather, complain rant about the welfare reciients and the poor. i recall ur exact sort of situation on a PBS show about how middle class in nyc get screwed because they make more than 60k, so no subsidies, but they cannot afford to live in manhatttan.

in most of the country 60k isnt bad to live on, with a family. i am no champion of the poor huddled welfare masses, but to be saying smack about them and not the greater abusers of the system to me is funny. honestly, i think its a mentality, u see it at home, and u see it here. u say that they find loopholes in the system to take advantage of.. um, r u kidding... they find loopholes to get pocket change vs wealthy citizenry and a LOT of businesses that get millions. if i am poor, i might do my own taxes to save the few hundred dollars, and generally, i wouldnt be able to take advantage of a lot of right-offs etc, pay an accountant, if u can afford it, and u get more of ur hard earned $$ back.

complain about how a majority of ur tax $$ are supporting congressional pork, like koi ponds in IL, or studying the sex lives of gnats or some other idiotic thing. this easy blame the less off is irritating to hear, from people who should know better.

its the same sort ofmentality that blames oh, those immigrants, they are taking or jobs, which is bad thye say, or the jobs are going to them thru outsourcing, which is bad they say. its selfishness and greed.

so complain to others like ur way of thinking,but if ur going to do it in a forum where people have different views, expect ur views/beliefs/thinkign tobe challenged.

to be honest, i grew up in an environment where there were a lot of advantages in being elite, here and at home. and many in the family have this exact same sort of convaluded thinking. i just think bitching about how expensive rent is and how they takes ur tax monies and spends it on ur welfare neighbours rent is absurd. but, this being an open forum, ur r entitled to ur beliefs.

It isn't just about % of my taxes going to welfare to benefit someone, it's watching people that get a break with no pressure but as middle class I continue to be burnt

I own a business. I have never cheated on my taxes. I know people with whom I do business with who cheat on their taxes. There will always be people who will find loopholes in the system. One of my very good friends is a Tax Attorney. He comes across cases which will blow you away. I dont go around ranting against all business owners.

Similarly, some people on welfare do cheat and dont play by the rules. This doesnt make the welfare system itself is a complete failure. The solution is to fix the loopholes in the welfare system and not shut down the system itself so we can save a few dollars a year on taxes.

And that is precisely what Labour in Britain -- which gets a bad deal on this thread -- has tried to do. So the centre has moved rightwards since the 1970s -- and whose fault is that per chance? The incompetent and arrogant far left with its narrow-minded and selfish syndacalist biases and its latent hatred of the working class and its foolish and unsightly aspirations. Although the benefit-dependent have been actively pushed into work or training, the welfare state has actually grown in Britain under Labour as billions have been pumped into education and the health service.
There will always be rich and poor. What's happened has happened: deal with it. What matters is equality of opportunity.