Jonathan Wilde at the Distributed Republic riffs on the subject with a discussion of Hayek, Popper and rationalism in response to Jim Manzi at NRO’s Corner and has a nice roundup of links. When I read Jonathan say “When there’s a conflict between libertarian policy and federalism, I’ll favor federalism 99% of the time.” I wondered under which situations I would disfavor federalism against libertarianism, and I can’t think of any. Suggestions?
Manzi quotes William F. Buckley (whose obit list I am still expanding) saying “Now if, for instance, a society feels that its attachment to that society is substantially vitiated in virtue of the toleration, let’s say, of a movie based on a comedy treatment of Dachau, it tends to lose self-esteem. And to the extent that it loses self-esteem, it stands in danger of reducing that which is its principal resource in matters of emergency. An America that hates itself cannot possibly defend itself against the Soviet Union or anybody else”. On a certain level I agree that a society that cannot sustain itself will not long have its liberty and so some coercive measures may be necessary (immigration restriction is where I deviate from many libertarians). I just don’t see that example as fitting the bill. We are naturally pre-disposed to favoring ourselves and those we know over others. Laughing at a comedy about the Holocaust does not make us hate ourselves. Worrying about “self-esteem” is for empty-headed liberals; most people could use a good bit less self-esteem. At some point I’ll deal with the over-hyped “threats” and “enemies” used as a justification for the expansion of a government that does a piss-poor job of protecting us (at least on the margin), but for now I’ll link to some previous posts on federalism with regard to marriage, abortion, and in general.
March 13, 2008 at 1:02 am
I believe libertarians who favor immigration just haven’t seen enough of the world to realize it is a futile and destructive stance to take. They don’t believe that their different culture upsets the host country more than it benefits them economically. They conveniently assume away a welfare state, which won’t happen anytime soon either, plus they seem to think that everyone is an equal blank slate. A short trip around the world or for that matter So-Cal should make them more realistic. Of course, anti-immigration libertarianism is irrelevant as a force of its own. Libertarians should realize there is more to be gained by taking a more realistic stance within the republican party (why did Ron Paul talk about all this empire nonsense? tone it down old man! those boys didn’t sign up to be imperialists). By focusing on state rights he could also take the drug war and abortion to the federal level.
Anyway, more likely is a move towards a white nationalist protectionists party emerging, Huckabee style, as Iraq never improves, the economy keeps deteriorating, and Hispanics become ever more ubiquitous and demanding. La Raza!
March 13, 2008 at 1:05 am
Of course, that should be state level regarding the moral legislating. Doesn’t WordPress have a preview function? Maybe Ron Paul could become a VEEP of McCain as the banking system implodes.
March 13, 2008 at 1:40 am
Bryan Caplan actually views the arousing of racist hostility to the welfare state as a positive thing. I don’t think getting a larger percentage of non-hispanic whites against it will do much good when they’re a shrinking minority, and at any rate they’ll likely endorse a bunch of idiotic populist policies as well. I explained why I have problems with even a somewhat stable two-tiered society here.
As I explained elsewhere, I have to shell out some cash for wordpress.com to upgrade my blog and allow previews.
McCain hates Paul more than any of the other GOP candidates (and possibly Dems as well), and there’s no way Paul would be willing to take the spot with him.
April 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm
How do you define “self-esteem”?
April 9, 2009 at 7:34 pm
The fairly standard usage (much to Nathaniel Branden’s chagrin) means to feel good about oneself, regardless of whether that’s merited.
October 22, 2009 at 11:29 am
I suspect that the latest compromise regarding state banking regulation in the midst of pressure for financial reform in Washington points to the influence of large corporations on the Congress as a culprit in the on-going eclipse of federalism.
October 22, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I hadn’t heard of any significant change in state banking regulation. Some people have been talking about state regulation of insurance though.
October 29, 2009 at 9:00 am
See if you think I’ve got it right in how I depict federalism. I had several replies to my posts so I wrote another in defense of the governmance system. If you are interested in having a look, here is the link. http://euandus3.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/coming-soon-a-post-on-problems-with-a-resurgent-federalism/
May 9, 2018 at 11:18 pm
[…] I stopped believing in objective/natural rights I took meta-libertarianism to an extreme of radical decentralism, and rather than make a principled argument against that (perhaps because he’s not facing […]