tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931151495334993843.post6322845536360212090..comments2023-03-23T03:11:24.829-07:00Comments on Truth Untold: Left-Anarchism: A Dog Chasing Its Own Tail - Part 4Ryan Willshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15997541504170761916noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931151495334993843.post-30252594227581637752011-03-29T05:21:27.234-07:002011-03-29T05:21:27.234-07:00Another nice example, which I forgot to include, i...Another nice example, which I forgot to include, is that of roads. Let's say, for instance, that we only allowed men to obtain driver's licenses. Would it be increasing coercion to allow women to drive also? I think clearly not.<br /><br />Part of the distinction is in the difference between a public good and specific net subsidization as well. For instance, if we're taking from a bunch of people and giving to some subset of that group then we could be against portions of that group obtaining their subsidies as we're trying to lessen over-all coercion. However, on issues of public goods, where arguably everyone has already pitched in for infrastructure, etc., and we are simply restricting the use thereof I think there is good argument to lessen those restrictions.<br /><br />It's still something that needs to be thought through more, for sure. But that's the rationale for where I stand on it at the moment.Ryan Willshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15997541504170761916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931151495334993843.post-58031493971149454132011-03-29T05:11:19.341-07:002011-03-29T05:11:19.341-07:00Great comments here, and they're not contentio...Great comments here, and they're not contentions I'd take lightly either. I've happened to think this very issue through quite a bit and, although some aspects of what I think would constitute a good resolution are somewhat subtle, I do think there's a more clear-cut way to parse some of this out.<br /><br />On the issue of marriage, I think you're obviously right - state sanction here is coercion as far as it goes. But I'd entertain the idea that it's negative coercion, as opposed to positive coercion. By that I mean the state is not aggressive upon you in the most direct positive sense of force/violence, but rather that this type of coercion is defined by restraint. In other words, much as with other types of licensing, the people who are being coerced are the people whom are not able to <br />secure such a license. If, for instance, we kept barber licenses but dropped many of the requirements to appeal for one, would that be a move towards less or greater coercion? Given that fewer people are now restrained from exercising their trade freely, I would consider it the former.<br /><br />And this moves to the point of your latter example; regarding elimination of government benefits for a specific class. It's probably the Rothbardian in me, but I'm inclined to say, "Yes...you're still obliged to welcome it even if we'd want more." To create a helpful analogy, imagine that there is a plantation with one hundred slaves. They convince the master to free some of them, but the master insists that only the men are to be set free, but the women and children must remain slaves. Now, this clearly isn't "fair" in any sense of the word, but would we contend that we'd rather see all one hundred slaves remain on the plantation instead?<br /><br />It's on issues like this where I probably most genuinely stray from left-leaning libertarianism. But while I think some of those "tough decisions" may offend our sense of fairness, pushing them off altogether would, at least to me, represent something more reprehensible - making the perfect the enemy of the good.Ryan Willshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15997541504170761916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931151495334993843.post-2208797946206517142011-03-20T23:44:52.088-07:002011-03-20T23:44:52.088-07:00The problem with supporting the "policy of le...The problem with supporting the "policy of least coercion" in the political sphere is that it leads you to some discomforting compromises.<br /><br />For example, I've heard a few libertarians trying to defend the exclusion of gay couples from state-approved marriage on the grounds that keeping the homos out would minimize total coercion. And yes, it is coercive to require the state to "bless" marriage contracts, and yes, maybe restricting it to straight couples means a decrease in the number of people brought under state purview in this one aspect of society. That's a valid libertarian end, but are the means really acceptable?<br /><br />Or what about if some racist pol decides to slash the welfare state by eliminating welfare to blacks only, but keeping it for whites? Like the Walker example, this might at least yield a reduction in government spending, which means a decrease in the use of stolen money. But is a policy like that something we'd want to be associated with?<br /><br />Isn't it morally questionable to subject a certain subset of the population to greater state depredation? Beyond that it seems like a huge tactical error: I can't see most people making the distinction between a libertarian who opposes the state on principle and your average tribalistic statist who sees an opportunity to divert some loot away from people he hates.<br /><br />I realize this doesn't specifically address the Wisconsin issue, but I think it raises a broader question about how (if?) we can make incremental progress in the political realm without lending support to creeps and betraying our principles.Angus MacAskillnoreply@blogger.com