Freedom and Egoism

Surely it doesn't follow from libertarianism -- a doctrine about the appropriate scope of state power -- that it's inappropriate for free men in free societies to act exclusively out of selfish intentions.

Call me naive, but among some of the libertarians I know, it's axiomatic that people do act exclusively out of selfish intentions. As to Friedman's hypothetical heroin habit, I think that it can be seen, in selfish terms, as a way of pushing back against intrusive laws in general, with the specific cases being immaterial. The fewer such laws, the lower the chance any will affect me.

Oh sure Matt - take a swing at Friedman when he can't fight back!

Cranky

If people act exclusively out of selfish reasons, there's no point in writing about it since there's no debate about ethics or morality. (Ah, reductionism!) There's only selfisness of one form or another. Why have a government which minimizes intrusiveness? So that some weak sonofabitch can get more than me? Not me. I want Strong Man Government with me on top! Any "argument" about reductionist principles seems comically extraneous. Hey, if it has to be that way, what difference does it make? Just go out and get what you want and the devil take the hindmost. Or the first guy. Or the three in the middle. What difference does it make?

Ayn Rand's followers actually do believe that there is a moral obligation to be selfish. (They think Kant was the most evil person who ever lived. Seriously.)

Maybe Tabarrok is an Objectivist?

Is it that obvious he's misreading Kennedy? It's not like presidents are always scrupulous about the distinction between a nation and its government (cf. "Why do you hate America?"), and an entity that can "do" things "for you" sounds like a more coherent sort of agent than America in the abstract.

Hate to break it to you guys, but Country and Government are pretty frequently seen as synonymous. Everybody who's ever protested a war has gotten the evil eye from plenty of god fearing folk who wonder aloud what the hell those god damn hippies have against America. Obviously people who are actually capable of nuance can distinguish the two, but its not always clear when they're being distinguished.

And I don't think I've ever heard a libertarian who was actually worth listening to argue that someone had a moral obligation to be selfish (note that I am deliberately excluding objectivists from the worth listening to camp). I personally just object to being told what my moral obligations are. Theres nothing wrong with being altruistic, I just think that it should be my choice as to when and where I express my altruism.
I have a pretty good feeling that if Kennedy had replaced country with "fellow human" or "fellow american", neither Milton or Alex would have had any problem with it.

Yeah, when the president of the US and A, and the leader of the government says we should ask what we can do for our country, is it unreasonable to assume he's talking about the government? Basically, he's saying, "ask not what I can do for you; as what you can do for me." Jerk.

Well, I mean, it's not like this is a quotation from some painfully obscure speech or something -- you can read it yourselves here and see what you think. Obviously, Kennedy wasn't a libertarian and did, in fact, want to do things "for his country," in part through new federal programs (Medicare) and regulatory initiatives (the Civil Rights Act) but that portion of the speech is a rather vague exhortation for people to do things to combat poverty and disease and advance the cause of human freedom.

If you look at the full context of the speech, it is definitely a Cold War speech with a call towards some sort of voluntarism. This is, after all, the same guy that prided himself on being a Cold Warrior to the right of Eisenhower and the creator of the Peace Corps. Kennedy is not appealing to people to glorify the state, but to pursue abstract ends like the struggle against "tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself." If you look at the very next statement after the famous line, it gives a sense of what he was driving at:

"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

It has nothing to do with the kinds of speeches that someone like Mussolini would give. Friedman is making a point with an ill chosen example.

Matt, since when do you have so many creeps and idiots for readers? You used to attract a reasonably interesting level of comment. But these pimply-faced basement-dwellers are well below your usual standards.

Well I agree with Friedman's and Tabarrok's comments, but not their reasons. It would be better worded as "Ask not what the world can do for you, but what you can do for the world".

This strikes me as strange quibbling.

"Ask not..." was clearly an exhortation to volunteerism at a particular time, and speaking of particular persuits. Attempting to distinguish between government and country in that particular context seems much like worrying over the gender of the person who just ran you over.

Friedman seems, in contrast, to be using the phrase to make a larger point about economic policy. Much in the same way I think it is fair to quote "heck of a job, Brownie" as a telling example of the Baby Bush administration policy choices in contexts outside of Katrina, I think it is fair to oppose a set of Kennedy policies by using a pull quote to start the discussion. Whether that is correct or not is not the question being asked.

Hate to break it to you guys, but Country and Government are pretty frequently seen as synonymous. - Travis

Indeed. And that so-called libertarians would so easily misread Kennedy's statement in the indicated manner says a lot about the mindset of these people, nu? Scratch one of these so-called libertarians, and you'll find an authoritarian just under the surface.

Recently, the Rutgers alum magazine had an article on Friedman in which they indicated that some talk or something he gave in Chile was controversial. Of course, in an alum magazine profile one does not expect nor would it be appropriate to have a "warts and all" biography, but still -- they could have at least mentioned that it wasn't that Milton "Miracle of Chile" [and cf. Palast for what really saved Chile's economy] Friedman gave some academic talk in the place while Pinochet was in power ... it was that the students of him and his like minded colleagues, with the backing of Pinochet's dictatorial power, were forcibly implimenting Friedman's so-called "libertarian" economic ideals.

If people act in rational self-interest and they don't want a "free market economy" to the point where it takes a brutal dictatorship to install one by force, doesn't that mean it is not in people's self interest to have such an economy? Or that people do not actually act in terms of their rational self-interest in which case the very foundations of Friedman's theories, etc., are rotten?

The misreading of country for government is a confusion made by many so-called libertarians (would a real libertarian make this confusion?) that betrays authoritarianism.

And maybe now is not the time to speak against Milton Friedman, but why should we treat the hero of Pinochet's henchmen any differently than we would treat the hero of the henchmen of any other brutal dictator?

One assumes, for example, that Friedman regarded his efforts to, say, destroy American public education or make heroin more widely available as things he was doing for his country rather than an extremely roundabout method of personally getting his hands on more heroin.

On the other hand, a heroin habit would go a long way toward explaining his crazy-ass ideas.

And that so-called libertarians would so easily misread Kennedy's statement in the indicated manner says a lot about the mindset of these people, nu? Scratch one of these so-called libertarians, and you'll find an authoritarian just under the surface.

[... many lines of concern over Rutgers not criticizing Friedman for giving a speech in Pinochet's Chile]

Please name names. I'm one of those "so-called libertarians" who can legitimately quibble with Kennedy. I realize that the Glenn Reynolds of the world are giving us a bad brand name, but that we're all closet authoritarians is simply silly. Get to know a Radley Balko or a Nick Szabo before you come to such a glib conclusion. Or, heck, me. I know we won't agree on everything, but I'm not so arrogantly silly as you arrogantly suggest. I even, like, have an education and stuff, and don't want to enslave everyone into a Walmart company town. I hate that, and I've got the NYC expenses to prove it.

yeah, Friedman tendentiously distorted Kennedy.

And if this had been the stupidest, most dishonest and malicious thing that had ever come out of Friedman's mouth, the world would be a lot better place right now.

Don't waste your time on this one, MY--there are many more substantive atrocities to document.

A Few points:
Ted Sorensen wrote JFKs inaugural.
Friedman considered himself to be a classical liberal (i.e. Lockian) as opposed to a libertarian (not even the the same as Rand's objectivism)
Libertarians "free ride" on the natural human instinct for altruism.
Nice to see someone beat slate for the contrarian reaction to his death. If that is praiseworthy.

I think Friedman is reading Kennedy's phrase and his own principles correctly. "Your country" is not the same thing as "your government", but neither is it the same thing as justice, the right, or the whole universe of ends other than self-interest. Friedman would probably be quite skeptical of the idea of doing something for your country. Doing something for another person or doing something to promote human freedom in general, yes; but doing something for 'the nation' or 'country', no. Libertarianism, and indeed many other strands of liberalism involve not just a rejection of government promotion of collective goods, but indeed a skepticism about the reality of such collective goods or collective subjects. The Volk, the public thing, and the common good are phantoms. My guess is that Friedman would readily admit that there is such a territorial unit such as the country of the USA, but not such an entity that one can or should try to 'do things' for.

Kennedy's statement is a fundamentally republican notion which unalloyed libertarianism cannot accept.

You know how not too long ago Al said that "conservatives think liberals are wrong, and liberals think conservatives are evil," and everybody jumped all over him? Well, here you have somebody, a liberal I would assume, calling Milton Friedman "malicious." Friedman would never say that about, say, Galbraith, JFK or any of his other political opponents. He'd say they were wrong.

No, He would say they were not even right.

Kennedy's people got rich not doing enough for the government.

Yglesias,

One suspects, in reading your comment, that you're looking for something, some piece you can hang your conservative social democratic criticism on to in the face of (to you) hagiography. So after all your perusing, you find Tabarrok's statement as a point of entry. Unfortunately, you not only uncharitably interpret Friedman, but you also misinterpret Kennedy as well. Kennedy was not simply saying, "Do good to your fellow country man." That much is explicit in the momentum, rhetoric and logic of his speech. Consider, for example, that this famous question is preceeded by appeals to nation states, republics, (implicitly) the Soviet Union and the United Nations to alleviate poverty, keep the peace, and cooperate. The entity these appeals are made in relation to are clearly the United States. It is a fundamental axiom of libertarianism that the government and the people are two different entities. It is not clear that Kennedy was referring to the latter and not the former.

Please find better arguments to hand your conservatism on. It's too precious to offer petty criticisms just to have something to say.

OT -anyone else seen this (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ca18_cardoza/bluedogsexposeunknownreport.html) from the Blue Dog coalition website? It's a treasury report that basically admits the real deficit is over $700 billion.

'Ask not...' has taken on a meaning separate from whatever Kennedy was talking about. It's an icon, like 'I have a dream...', 'The only thing we have to fear...', 'Four scores and seven year ago...' and 'all men are create equal'.

Most of the time people don't even think what these things mean. The words just feel patriotic and that they deserve great reverence. They're chants of the American religion.

Kennedy walked the walk on doing for his country. He was badly wouned in WWII and was acutely aware to the point anticipating that he might be assasinated. It's impossible that he ever thought to try and cleave the notions of country/nation and government. That philosophical field had been shunted far aside during his era. An era which will probably be seen as the apogee of the nation/state.

The American response to the existential threats of the Axis and then Soviet Russia made libertarianism a quaint refuge for intellectuals. Their time came just after Kennedy's death as the existentail threat began to fade away.

I'm one of those "so-called libertarians" who can legitimately quibble with Kennedy. I realize that the Glenn Reynolds of the world are giving us a bad brand name, but that we're all closet authoritarians is simply silly.

I think it makes quite a bit of sense that those attracted to libertarianism is those who have the most respect (or fear) for the coercive power of government. At least, if you're not somebody who thinks government has much coercive power, you're certainly not going to be attracted to the libertarian philosophy.

This is the same basic dynamic which explains why those attracted to socialism are often personally stingy (they fear that selfishness works against the collective needs of a society) and why those attracted to militant nationalism are often personally cowardly (they fear those who want to destroy them and their country).

The libertairains and Randists prefer to talk in terms of "government" rather than "country" as a matter of framing: "goverment" can be spun as "other", but "country" is us.

Who cares whether he was eliding the distinction between "government" and "country"? Or whether Kennedy intended one? The point is, he was being an idiot. If, in the era of Friedman's intellectual formative years, we lacked glaring examples of what nations look like whose citizens lack any impulse to "do for your country", we are now swimmin' in 'em. They look like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia...

neil, I like your analysis except for socialists. I don't think they fear selfishness, I have socialist tendencies and I'm anything but stingy, to the point of my own detriment. I think they fear the coercive power of wealth.

I strongly suspect that, however famous the line may be, that it was included in the speech because it's rhetorically pretty. Like Lincoln's memorable but vague triad "of the people, for the people, and by the people".

Kennedy's program of selfless volunteers, The Peace Corps, was aimed at other countries. Beyond that, Kennedy didn't have any Big Ideas about selflessness, and I doubt he'd have been crushed if The Peace Corps idea had been stillborn in Congress. It was just a campaign notion and rhetorical trope.

Well, I didn't say everybody, just 'often.' And I do think that this is the case, along with its converse (those who believe that the welfare state is unnecessary have personal faith in the power of private charity, or if you prefer, fear that people will cheat the government where they wouldn't cheat charity).

For evidence I would point out that the Republican party always seems to have more than enough volunteer labor while the Democratic party doesn't even seem to get enough volunteers to be able to use the ones it does get. I believe this tendency also holds in other countries' political systems. Maybe this is just because liberals are more likely to be people who go to work though.

I'm one of those "so-called libertarians" who can legitimately quibble with Kennedy. - fishbane

Heck ... I can find plenty about which to quibble with Kennedy, and I'm in no way a libertarian. Perhaps I needed to make myself more clear, but at some point I did clarify that I wasn't referring to real libertarians -- and I suspect you are a real libertarian -- but was indeed referring to the Glenn Reynolds types. And heck -- contrary to the praise being sung of Friedman, we he really that much of a defender of "liberty"? He didn't seem to shed any tears for the victims of Pinochet and he wanted the whites in then Rhodesia to have the "liberty" to keep their large plantations but thought nothing of the rights of the majority in that country to have a meaningful chance at even pursuing happiness. Unless Friedman is being praised for defending a form of "liberty" -- the liberty of the seguineurial class to do what they want with their property, including humans -- which should have disappeared from this country when the North frickin' won the civil war -- I fail to see how he really defended liberty.

He was brilliant, true. And I suspect some of his stuff on the money supply per-se was very important to our economic well-being ... but to cast him as this super-hero defender of liberty is to overstate the case for Friedman, who had warts like all of us.

I think that the problem with libertarianism is, to paraphrase mike meyers, what emPHASis on which syllABle. I suspect that there are those who emphasize either the LIBERT[Y] aspects or the ARIANISM part :-) Freedom vs. doctrinal adherence (adhere to the top dog till you get your chance).

Another way of putting it is what do you think freedom is and how is it expressed? Is freedom an inherent part of the human condition (freedom for all) or does freedom really just mean freedom to exercise power.

I think Howard Roark said, "I will never live for another man nor ask another to live for me."

I expect that's pretty much what Milton and Alex meant.

I think what Friedman was getting at was that countries - which includes but are not limited to their governments - should not be regarded as ends themselves, but only as means of improving the well-being of individuals. As Matt Y. points out, this is indeed an argument against patriotism. However, Matt Y. proceeds to set up a false choice between egoism and patriotism. Friedman would probably say that he advocates the things he does neither for his own narrow benefit or for the sake of his country, but rather for the sake of individuals harmed by the policies he opposes, and what he hopes to reap is the indirect (but nonetheless often tangible) benefits of living among freer people.

I think Friedman may have pulled the quote from its specific context in the speech because it was a pithy way of pointing out the assumptions about the relationship between the individual, government, and country and getting people to ask questions about their validity more so that because of a specific objection to Kennedy's speech.

DAS,

The provision of economic advice for oppressive governments raises the same set of questions as sanctioning them does, and they're not simple ones. In oppressive regimes, the ruling elite makes sure to take care of its own economic well-being, so the poor and politically disenfranchised are going to suffer the most from bad economic policy. Outside of cases where you're looking to degrade the military capabilities of an agressor, the operative question is how much do you expect the regime to reform in response to the pressure and if offsets the damage done by the economic restrictions.

Land redistribution in post-colonial situations actually has frequently been disasterous for agricultural output. So the question comes down to how much future economic growth is revising a distribution that resulted from unjust conditions in the past worth? You can guess that Friedman, like many libertarians, would lean towards future growth, but there are arguments both ways that are based on a sincere interest in improving the well-being of those countries' citizens.

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara