In a major victory for student right, the Supreme Court has ruled that the strip search of a 13-year-old middle school student was unconstitutional. The Court ruled 8-1 with only Justice Clarence Thomas voting with the school in the case. For an earlier column on the case, click here. However, the justices also voted to protect individual school officials from such lawsuits.
The Court ruled in the case of Savana Redding, who in 2003 was a 13-year-old student strip searched by the teachers at Safford Middle School in Arizona in a mad search for her hidden drug stash. . . Ibuprofen.
In this case, the vice principal had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen pills on one of Reddings’ friends. That friend then accused Redding of providing her with the pills: typical flipping of an Ibu-head.
Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, Kerry Wilson, who led the interrogation and had a nurse and his assistant strip her and search her. No drug were found in her underwear or bra (despite the fact that underwear searches have proven successful with lawyers recently).
The Ninth Circuit ruled that “[c]ommon sense informs us that directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen … was excessively intrusive.”
In his majority opinion, Souter held:
Savana’s subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation (required by the Fourth Amendment standard) is indicated by the consistent experiences of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure. See Brief for National Association of Social Workers et al. as Amici Curiae 6–14; Hyman & Perone, The Other Side of School Violence: Educator Policies and Practices that may Contribute to Student Misbehavior, 36 J. School Psychology 7, 13 (1998) (strip search can “result in serious emotional damage”). The common reaction of these adolescents simply registers the obviously different meaning of a search exposing the body from the experience of nakedness or near undress in other school circumstances.
Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be, see, e.g., New York City Dept. of Education, Reg. No. A–432, p. 2 (2005), online at http://docs.nycenet.edu/
docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-21/A-432.pdf (“Under no circumstances shall a strip-search of a student be
conducted”).
There was great concern about the case going to this Court which has repeatedly ruled to strip students of protections and rights. While the Court ruled that the search was unreasonable, it also ruled that individual school administrators could not be sued.
In what is likely his last opinion on the Court and a worthy swan song. Not only did Souter go out defending the liberty interests of students, but he showed his ability to unify the Court (with the exception of course of Thomas). Justice David Souter held that the search was “embarrassing, frightening and humiliating” and violated her subjective expectation of privacy. However, Souter also held that the division over the case shows that immunity is appropriate in this case. Only Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from saying that school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson, could not be held financially liable.
Justice Clarence Thomas continued his consistent opposition to such individual rights, particularly when invoked by students. In a signature line, he wrote “[p]reservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution. And, common sense is not a judicial monopoly or a constitutional imperative.”
Souter’s decision is also likely to add to the regret of his departure for civil libertarians. This is particularly the case given Sonia Sotomayor’s prior rulings against student rights, here.
For the Souter opinon, click here 08-479.
For the Thomas dissent, click here
For the full story, click here.
Mike S: “I believe that the natural tendency of business is to try to monopolize, or form cartels, based on the simple fact that they are by nature profit making entities. I foresee, with I think history’s backing that under a Libertarian System, we would eventually wind up with monopolies/cartels in all field of major endeavor. This would be particularly true with energy, food, health, water, media and shelter. If these fields are controlled via monopoly/cartel there is then no “free market” and indeed no freedom because they hold the keys to society’s existence. A Libertarian Government, despite being run by principled people would be powerless in the face of the coercion put forth. The society would then turn Oligarchic and ultimately Fascist, in set up.”
Excellent summation Mike. Not for nothing, you’re tragically forgetting the intent and purpose of the social contract as our founders understood it.
e.g. “MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature.”
J. Locke
SIYOM,
Bob
Gary,
I’m sorry about the length, but I tend to be wordy as a writer, which I’ve been more than validly criticized for.
“I believe in your previous post used Anarchism as the strawman to denigrate Libertarianism.”
You make a valid critique and I was unclear in my statement.
“Ron Paul’s opinions do not Libertarian make.”
We agree.
“I don’t even know if there could be something called illegal restraint of trade under a Libertarian system, assuming no other laws were broken, but those would be the laws broken, not ‘restraint of trade’.”
Wouldn’t you say that is a potential problem, depending on who is in power? My worries with any government do not revolve around the politic/economic set up per se, but how the leaders, once in power define them. Returning to Paul for a little bit, while he considers himself a Libertarian clearly in power he wouldn’t govern like one when it comes to individual social rights.
“the reason why a Libertarian system would be more resiiant to public corruption or usurpation of its adminsitrators, is because the governemental power is that much more distributed directly to the people. No one is obligated by law to perform anything for the government, and the government has no charter to provide any entitlements to the people (other than the minimalist justice administation and law enforcement, etc). Thus there is nothing for which its adminstrators to coerce with, or be coerced by.”
Haven’t we seen innumerable instances where justice and police powers are abused, despite the agreed upon legal and constitutional principles? In fact isn’t a lot of that, like
drug law enforcement, the very reason that has made the idea of Libertarianism more popular these days? In my view the modality for coercion is the law and police. The modality of coercing leaders is the age old method of money, power and dare I say sex.
“The first thought is, if it has products that people want to buy over competitors’ products then perhaps that is the way it should be. If it has inferior products, but somehow prevents its competitors ware from reaching the marketplace, I would just have to wonder how they would do that without breaking the law”
Today’s best example of why your faith is not necessarily well-placed is Microsoft.
They developed an initial OS. It was flawed, but through good marketing became ubiquitous in PC’s for both home and business. Due to their ubiquity they began to expand their software product. Excel, clearly inferior to Lotus, destroyed that product because of inbuilt factors that hampered its’ compatibility with later Windows versions. MS Word was also clearly inferior to Wordperfect, but the same result occurred.
Ditto with MS Access. Internet Explorer explorer prevailed over much superior browsers again due to the power of market share. Microsoft controls an overwhelming share of its market that is akin to a monopoly and the truth is its’ products are inferior, prices outrageous and their activities were nominally legal.
Imagine a huge company like Exxon-Mobil that begins to buy up power companies, LNG producers, nuclear power, and all other
energy entities. They could wind up controlling all energy
production/distribution and in essence then run the country, or turn off its’ lights. Even Adam Smith was wary of the “free market” and clearly wrote that there needed to be some governmental control to check such excesses.
“I don’t see how a Libertarian government could affirmatively break a monopoly, if that monopoly was not breaking any (Libertarian) laws. A new theory of commercial freedom infringement might have to be grafted on, but I would be skeptical it could pass muster.”
Here is our main source of disagreement. I believe that the natural tendency of business is to try to monopolize, or form cartels, based on the simple fact that they are by nature profit making entities. I foresee, with I think history’s backing that under a Libertarian System, we would eventually wind up with monopolies/cartels in all field of major endeavor. This would be particularly true with energy, food, health, water, media and shelter. If these fields are controlled via monopoly/cartel there is then no “free market” and indeed no freedom because they hold the keys to society’s existence. A Libertarian Government, despite being run by principled people would be powerless in the face of the coercion put forth. The society would then turn Oligarchic and ultimately Fascist, in set up.
Please don’t misunderstand me. Libertarians are not fascists and in fact as I’ve stated before there is much to be admired in the philosophy and in fact I wish it would be workable. Where we differ is in the fact that I think it inevitably can’t work in any way beneficial and you believe it can and would be preferable. We both think we’re right, but we’re also both people of good will. We can at least focus on those areas where we do agree which is civil liberties.
Mike:
A really long post to reply to!
However, I too think Anarchism is pie-in-the-sky thinking, if only we would get along wouldn’t it be great?
Yeah, but ‘if’ is a big word.
Although here you say you are aware of the differences between Libertarianism and Anarchism, I believe in your previous post used Anarchism as the strawman to denigrate Libertarianism.
That’s why said that; here you make a better analysis.
Ron Paul’s opinions do not Libertarian make. Paul leans socially conservative, he has had unsubstantiated accusations of racism, and certainly holds the more extreme view of embrionic rights, via the ridiculous fiction that an embryo is a human being. That if true of course then leads to the state’s obligation to protect it, even under Libertarianism.
Otherwise Paul is a fairly good example of a Libertarian protagonist.
In a Libertarian society anybody has the righ of free association, including labor unions.
I don’t even know if there could be something called illegal restraint of trade under a Libertarian system, assuming no other laws were broken, but those would be the laws broken, not ‘restraint of trade’.
Any employee, unless bound by contract, is free to strike, and not run afoul anything libertarian.
I do not deem to defend Libertarianism on the basis of whether people in power can abuse their pubic charter. It has too many other laudable things going for it.
But to answer your question, the reason why a Libertarian system would be more resiiant to public corruption or usurpation of its adminsitrators, is because the governemental power is that much more distributed directly to the people. No one is obligated by law to perform anything for the government, and the government has no charter to provide any entitlements to the people (other than the minimalist justice administation and law enforcement, etc). Thus there is nothing for which its adminstrators to coerce with, or be coerced by.
Sure it could happen, but the propensity by inception is far smaller than any other political system.
Sure, a business’s purpose is gain profit, maximise, whatever.
This is of course always a boogeyman; a business/corporation will someday become so successful it will drown out its competition by swamping the market with its own products.
The first thought is, if it has products that people want to buy over competitors’ products then perhaps that is the way it should be.
If it has inferior products, but somehow prevents its competitors ware from reaching the marketplace, I would just have to wonder how they would do that without breaking the law (fraud, blackmail, extortion). The market will naturally tropicate toward better products. Competitors will reach their consumer base, if they have a better product.
In the past it has often been the government who has aided by law the monopoly of private firms. Remove those legal restrictions, and there will always be an available competitor to break a monopoly.
I don’t see how a Libertarian government could affirmatively break a monopoly, if that monopoly was not breaking any (Libertarian) laws.
A new theory of commercial freedom infringement might have to be grafted on, but I would be skeptical it could pass muster.
Gyges:
See my article “Socialism Beget Authoritarianism” at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6576.html
In the case of demarcated socialized services, one cannot say the whole subject system is a Socialist one, but that is the slippery slope, first you have this service provided for by the govt, then another etc., until you have Socialism.
In our proposed one’s, I believe there is still some room being left for competition, so there is some wiggle room to say it is not real socialism, where the govt has a monopoly on the subject service.
In the case of ala-carte socialism, the Authoritarianism occurs in sub-tyrranies, within the realm of those services. There the administrators have their dictatorships, until the populace revolts against it.
Gary,
The term socialism has a different meaning depending on what part of the world you’re in. For instance: Karl Marx used the term to refer to a transitional stage between capitalism and communism, in England however, it is the equivalent term to communism, because communism was to close in sound to the Catholic term communion rite. To further confuse the issue many who propose selective nationalization call themselves socialist, even though they are more accurately described as social democrats. This is the common usage in America, not the more extreme wholesale removal or property rights.
So both you and Churchill were rallying against communism, not what most here would call socialism. The problem is when the water is muddied (intentionally or not) by those who use the extreme use of socialism to argue against what is in fact the social democratic use of the term.
Mike might say, “Socialized medicine is good, because countries with socialized medicine are measurably healthier.” (and then give facts that he believes back up this claim).
To which you (or someone else) would respond, “Socialism is bad, it always leads to tyranny like in the USSR.” That would be either be a fundamental misunderstanding based on multiple definitions of the same word, or a completely disingenuous argument.
“Much as you point out my possible straw man in comparing Socialism to Communism, I believe you are mistaking Anarchism for Libertarianism.”
Gary,
I’m well aware of the difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism. I would never compare Anarchists to Libertarians because to me Anarchism is totally immersed in wishful thinking, i.e. we can all live together peacefully in an unstructured society based on barter, where as Libertarians are for the most part serious thinkers, with some sensibility’s that match my own.
“Under a Libertarian system, the government’s law enforcement system is just as strong and vibrant as it is for system’s that you implicitly condone.”
Here though is where we begin to diverge. While it is true that “victimless crimes” would be eliminated, though Ron Paul a purported Libertarian (I don’t know what you think of him)would have the victimless crime of abortion regulated.
We then come back to who has power within that society and whose personal ox is being gored. For instance, one would presume that in a Libertarian society people would have the right to form labor unions. However, a Libertarian Government
under pressure from industry might declare labor unions an illegal restraint of trade, as do many Republican’s. We both
know the history of labor strife in this country where the
Government actually stepped in to smash labor unions.
Now you, yourself might think that labor unions would be an
illegal restraint of trade, but if that is the case than you
would be redefining a construct where everyone is free to utilize the rights of their own property and also be able to negotiate their own terms of employment, however, they choose to bargain.
“But my analogy to the Soviet and Maoist regimes is still appropriate, namely that they did not even even live up to their namesake of Communism, while all the time touting its virtues and justifying everything they did under its aegis.”
Gary, this is of course very true. Where I think you miss my point is that why should we expect a Libertarian system to stay closer to its ideals, when in fact the determining factor in all political/economic system is that they are run by individuals and individuals who attain power are almost by definition ego driven, with a strong will to power. The USSR was ruled initially by Lenin, a ruthless bastard carried
away by his own fanaticism and then by Stalin, a highly paranoid psychopath, who shaped the USSR and set its’ destructive path. Mao, was also an egotist, who no doubt believed himself infallible. I’m not a fan of Karl Marx, but even he would have been shocked and disgusted by Mao’s attempt to implement his vision.
I would put to you that it is every bit as likely that any Libertarian leader, would be just as ego-driven, just as
pseudo-doctrinaire and just as filled with the will to power,
that sacrifices individuals on the altar of ideals. I believe this because in my years of living and hopefully growing I’ve come to the conclusion that the ills of society stem mainly from the hierarchical nature of how we humans organize ourselves. Those who are ego driven, or narcissistic, or sociopathic are generally the people who achieve power under any system. Some have enough self control and humanity to check their impulses and be able to empathize with others. Another minority of the potential leader pool have the traits, but do not suffer the hubris and so are humbled by the task, which moderates their behavior.
“If you are familiar with Libertarian tracts, you may aware of the adage that if you can control a person’s property, you control their personal freedoms as well.”
I’m well aware of that adage and that mindset. There is some truth to it. Again though the “devil is in the details.” The details I refer to are if you take that premise, not a bad one on its face and then apply it to a large corporation a problem occurs. The sole purpose of a Corporation, I think you will agree, is to maximize profit. The quickest road to profit maximization is to control one’s market. That can be done by elimination of competition. Many corporations can do this by attaining a certain size and then undercutting the prices of the competition to the point that the smaller entities simply can’t compete. They could also use the Microsoft Method, which was to huckster a ubiquitous OS and then move into other software and eliminate it simply because most PC’s were using their an MS/OS, that made other apps incompatible. There are no doubt many other paths, which no doubt include things like industrial espionage, etc.
My point is once a given corporation controls a given market and make no mistake under a Libertarian System they will, then since the State must not “control a person’s (businesses) property,” that particular market loses its’
freedoms and has the potential buyers at its’ mercy. To follow the thought further what if the market in question is oil, energy, natural gas, or even water. These monopolists
can have society literally by its’ throat. At that point we’ve passed beyond the libertarian Ideal, into an oligarchic
paradise.
Now, you being an intelligent man, might well counter this by stating that a true Libertarian Government would not allow such a thing to happen and I would counter by saying that at that point it would cease to be a true libertarian Government and become a system more like ours. Once you make laws controlling the market, or property, you are no longer adhering to the principle that the government should not decide how people handle their own property. You also might say that under a Libertarian System, corporations would be outlawed, as not having the same rights of person hood. I would answer that it would be immaterial because a business run as a partnership or consortium of individuals would act in the same way.
Finally, Libertarianism does envision a government entity, if only to run a legal system, police and a defense system.
How would people get elected to this system? How would that differ with today’s electoral system which is for the most part controlled by Corporate money and dictated to by lobbyists? I believe that it wouldn’t differ, except to make it worse, in the sense of more bought politicians, due to wealth being freer of restraints. That is why I asked for an example of where Libertarian Philosophy has worked, because in fact it never has.
If we could postulate a world where people are fully inculcated in Libertarian ideals and thus act accordingly the system might have a chance and in fact be preferable.
Such a world cannot exist for now, or into the far future, because we humans aren’t capable of the maturity a system like that would need.
Winston Churchill in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945:
. . . a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[55]
Mike:
Mush as you point out my possible straw man in comparing Socialism to Communism, I believe you are mistaking Anarchism for Libertarianism.
Under a Libertarian system, the government’s law enforcement system is just as strong and vibrant as it is for system’s that you implicitly condone. Stronger even, insofar it would not be burdened and distracted by dozens of victimless vice ‘crimes’, and could devote it energies to real crimes.
So, people would not be free to plunder, terrorize and pillage eachother anymore than they can today in any western civilized country.
Your poised doomsday scenarios refer to systems of Anarchism, an agovernmental philosophy I do not ascribe to. In fact I agree with you that Anarchism would quickly devolve into Totalitarianism, survival of the fistest, and a much nastier arrangement than most.
Although different, Communism and Socialism are kissing cousins in their economic basis concerning an individual’s right to the money (or other work product) that they produce.
Socialism seeks to constrain that control to economic matters only, Communism continues on to everything else.
Much like we haven’t had a pure Libertarian system, neither have we had a pure Socialist society. Usually it is watered down with or melded with varying amounts of arbitrarily permitted capitalism.
But my analogy to the Soviet and Maoist regimes is still appropriate, namely that they did not even even live up to their namesake of Communism, while all the time touting its virtues and justifying everything they did under its aegis.
But Socialism would inevitably have the same problem; once you centralize the power to control all peoples’ money, you have the power to control everything else about their lives. If you are familiar with Libertarian tracts, you may aware of the adage that if you can control a person’s property, you control their personal freedoms as well.
Given that kind of centralized power, it too would devolve into oligarchy.
Mike,
A little known fact is that many composers used variations on a theme to show off.
“Mike,
Do you ever get the feeling you’re repeating yourself?”
Gyges,
I have that feeling far too often. I sometimes imagine that I’m boring people by being repetitive, but sometimes it seems necessary, when I make a point and the response ignores the point I just made. At times I think I should save my comments in a place on my desktop, so I could cut and paste as necessary. That seems too much like organized work and I come here for fun, learning and interest in the group, so it won’t happen and people will have to put up with me…or not.
Gary,
The point about Rand is that she’s was very influential in the formation of modern Libertarianism, yet most libertarians never got past reading one, maybe two, of her books (which to be fair is quiet enough of Rand’s fiction for a lifetime). It was mainly an aside since the real conversation seemed to have died down.
Plus, Mike and I have similar taste is literature, and enjoy the occasional bit of pointing out just how bad (especially from a aesthetic point of view) her writing is.
Mike,
Do you ever get the feeling you’re repeating yourself?
“Although in political and governmental theory, there may be a distinction, in practice socialism acts almost identically to authoritarianism. Much as the Soviet & Maoist communists always gave lip service to the political theory that was ostensibly the basis for their governments, in both cases they acted like dictatorships.”
Gary T,
You are setting up a “straw man” and in the process ignoring my comment below:
“Me:This is a common mistake in the US because we look at the
history of the USSR and China and confuse their brand of totalitarian/communists with socialism. I’ve known dedicated true communists of the Communist Party and of the Maoist branch. They hated socialists/socialism, which they considered bourgeois and effete.”
Your statement about “socialism in practice operates almost identically to authoritarianism” is based on two systems that were not socialist, but communist. Philosophically, that makes a huge difference. Tell me about the “authoritarianism” in Sweden and Denmark for instance. Again, what about England, France, Canada, Germany, etc. that all have what you would call “socialized” medicine? Are they authoritarian in your view? You would probably answer me that their health care systems are authoritarian because any time government is involved in anything but basic services, that is authoritarian. To me this is a tautology. This is exactly where we differ and where I think that Libertarianism as thought of in the US is a lovely theoretical philosophy, but a terrible way to run a society.
Just as you feel socialism per se would always lead to totalitarianism, I believe that Libertarianism leads to the same thing. For a percentage of all humanity, lets say 10% for instance, the will to power and wealth is a lure that goes far beyond the sexual fantasies of testosterone crazed
young males. Indeed for people with that “will to power,” gaining it is far better than sex and once gotten sex follows anyway. In a Libertarian society these, sociopathic
types, will always win. This is because in the end, the result of all human power struggles comes down to whose got the weapons and the soldiers. We are still on the level of the Great Apes, where the ape at top the hierarchy runs the show and gets to mate with all the females.
That to me is the inevitable result of the libertarian philosophy: Survival and victory of the strongest. That the hierarchy is one person, or an oligarchy makes no difference to the rest of us who wind up getting ruled. Now I don’t know, this result may seem appropriate and just to you. For all I know you’re a seven footer, adept in martial arts, expert in weaponry and already wealthy. If that describes you, a society based on Libertarianism would suit you just fine.
You offer up the USSR and China as examples of socialism gone bad. Can you show me any examples of Libertarianism working out into a society that isn’t run by a few. I don’t think you can. In human history in areas where no government existed, the society that evolved was always run by a few.
Take the US Western Frontier for instance. See the Lincoln County Wars, for instance. Whether you have minimal government, or a lot of government, it always comes down to the sociopaths who covet power. My preference is I’d rather have a government to protect me from those thugs who like to
be in charge.
“In both cases, political power is not flowing from the pure and noble origins, but rather concentrated in its stand-in, a changling who is not so pure and noble.”
Read up on the man who runs Blackwater and tell me this guy wouldn’t try to take over a Libertarian based society. Also tell me how pure and noble his thoughts are. The other problem presented by a Libertarian Society is that you have to have basic laws, or it’s every person for themselves and the one with the most firepower gets their way. Who administers those basic laws and how are they kept from being corrupt? Then too, you have supposed Libertarians like
Ron Paul, who would impose their anti-abortion religious beliefs on a Libertarian society, which would instantly destroy its’ libertarianism.
Gary, it is a philosophy that is really appealing in theory, but can’t work in practice. Then too, most idealistic
political philosophies seem ideal in conception, but don’t work in practice. Marx, for instance was an idealist, but would have been appalled with where his followers took his beliefs. Adam Smith produced good economic theory, but now finds his beliefs cherry picked, by those using him as an authority. To paraphrase Shakespeare: “The fault dear Brutus lies not in the stars, it lies within us.”
Mike:
Didn’t catch this thread following my comment until now.
I stand by my statement:
“Giving the government a superior interest is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society.
Basically saying the individual is inferior to the collective.”
What Buddha says about my comment, that this is not socialism, but authoritarianism, is half right.
Although in political and governmental theory, there may be a distinction, in practice socialism acts almost identically to authoritarianism.
Much as the Soviet & Maoist communists always gave lip service to the political theory that was ostensibly the basis for their governments, in both cases they acted like dictatorships.
Much as in religion, the priest or shaman acts a proxy for God, and speaks for him, and in his name, in Socialist systems the Government acts as a proxy for the ideals of Socialism and makes sweeping policy, legal and social/moral decisions in its name.
In both cases, political power is not flowing from the pure and noble origins, but rather concentrated in its stand-in, a changling who is not so pure and noble.
And much like God, who cannot speak for himself, socialism likewise cannot speak for itself. Again both cases, human leaders inevitably corrupt the administration of the theoretically correct.
Governmental power will alway become corrupted unless and until that power is truly distributed among the people.
Socialism seeks to do this by making all contribute equally and sharing equally, by edict from above.
Libertarianism seeks to do this by empowering the people individually directly, giving them the same rights and discretions over themselves as government traditionally monopolized for itself.
Whenever power is centralized, as in a socialist society, that power gets usurped, and it quickly becomes indistinguishable to authoritarianism.
In both cases, the Government speaks for the people, and reserves for itself the superior privilege to decide what shall be right for any individual in particular, in the People’s name, and in People’s governmental interest.
And that is why I equate the two, for all intents and practice.
Also, I am not a Rand fan. She was cute, had a few interesting perspectives, many of which overlapped libertarian theory, but I ain’t gaga over her.
So who cares if she liked liberarianism or not. I sure don’t.
Gyges,
That discussion you ran across was on target. Thinking back I read “The Fountainhead” at about age 16, after seeing the move with Gary Cooper, Paricia Neal and Raymond Massey on TV. A great movie because of great actors, but thinking back on it the plot was not believable. People strike a great newspaper, bringing its’ publisher to his knees because he fired the Architecture Critic? Anyway, from there I read the book and then her others. They appealed to me at the time because breaking away from the 50’s, meant breaking away from its’ stifling conformity and that is something that is a theme that runs through Rand’s musings. While I read her though, mediocre page turners that her books are (you could put Fabio on her covers), there was an uncomfortable inkling that her ideas were unworkable in a real world and that the plots were unbelievable, with characters made wooden through long, preachy speeches that would put actual listeners to sleep.
A better take on breaking free of 50’s conformity and its consequences was done by Vonnegut in a brevity of of words:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
Mike,
An excerpt from another online discussion of Rand:
“…I’d be happy with a small handful of remotely relatable, realistic characters, or even just an iota of characterization that wasn’t wholly ridiculous, or perhaps a premise that makes Dr. Seuss look like Voltaire.”
“Something that most Libertarians don’t know is that Rand despised the Libertarian movement of her day.”
Gyges,
Good point and quite true. Rand was in addition to being a lousy writer and less than perceptive thinker, a person that couldn’t get beyond her own youthful experiences with Communism(see her book Anthem). This was the formative spark for her attempt at philosophy, which was exceedingly muddled and actually quite sexist, for a supposed free love advocate. Dagny Taggart, the heroine of Atlas Shrugged, was portrayed as a conflicted woman, made whole by the men in her life, John Galt and Ragnar Daneskjold. Her female characters were always taught by and subservient to the strong male sharacters,
The Fountainhead for instance. Interestingly, in her private life she was somewhat a sexual predator. Seducing Nathaniel Brandon, her married “intellectual heir” even while his wife was also her disciple. Alan Greenspan also was supposedly seduced, which even in his youth couldn’t have been a pretty picture.
Mike,
Something that most Libertarians don’t know is that Rand despised the Libertarian movement of her day.
Mike,
No need to apologize for going to the good Rabbi and Mr. Perls again. Good advice and sage wisdom only gets better upon repeated serving. It’s kinda like chili. It’s always better on the second day. It’s also kinda like water: required to keep learning alive and healthy as a self-correcting process of self-improvement and discovery. After all, what’s the good of accumulating wisdom but not dispensing it?
“Giving the government a superior interest is the Socialist view of the relationship between individuals and society. Basically saying the individual is inferior to the collective.”
Gary T,
Unlike Buddha I do see you as a Libertarian, rather than as a troll. In some respects like personal liberties, you me and Buddha share many beliefs. Where his critique is valid though is that you really must get beyond labels, if you are going to reject a political/economical philosophy and look into what it really means.
In late High School, because of the fact that I am a civil libertarian and believe in sexual liberation, I read everything Rand and Brandon had written. Examining them in my own mind I finally rejected their beliefs, which to me were socially and politically unworkable. I read Marx in college and found him to be obtuse and also ultimately unworkable. I Studied the writings and history of socialism. I read WF Buckley, WA Rusher and the National Review, also heard them on media and found that in my mind they were fronting for Corporatism and an American version of Aristocracy. I also read Burke, Adam Smith etc. I also personally knew was was recruited by every conceivable outre’
faction on the left and rejected them all.
In all this I came to understand what it was I personally believed in and why I didn’t believe in other forms of economic/political philosophy. In your quote above, as Buddha mentioned, you are mixing up Socialism as an economic philosophy, with Totalitarianism as a political philosophy.
This is a common mistake in the US because we look at the
history of the USSR and China and confuse their brand of totalitarian/communists with socialism. I’ve known dedicated true communists of the Communist Party and of the Maoist branch. They hated socialists/socialism, which they considered bourgeois and effete. One can learn much from hearing someone disparage their political enemies.
Personally, I have no investment as to what philosophy you believe in and as I said there are freedom aspects about Libertarianism that I respect and am in concert with. I’m only saying that you should have more familiarity with the philosophies you reject, if only to be more solid in your rejection. Lest you unfairly characterize me as just another
loony leftist, my whole socio/political/religious philosophy is summed up in the three quotes below:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” Rabbi Hillel
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?” Rabbi Hillel
“I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.”
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
To all the regulars, sorry y’all for posting these yet again, but doing it makes me feel good.
One lives to be of service. Thank you for your kindness and generosity.
“It appears we may have coordinated (and possibly multi-member team) troll attacks now.”
Buddha,
Thanks for stating thoughts that have been roiling in my mind, but feared to share so as not to seem any more paranoid than I already am. I agree it is a good sign for the Blog.
“This is another example of increased sophistication in attempting to insert Neocon memes and tropes into discussions under the guise of reasonableness”
This sums up my view of this better I think than my on words.
It is a well-known Rovian/Norqvist tactic that dare I say is insidious. Where I think their anger at being caught stems from is that they’re not used to being called on it. To them “bait the Libruls” is fun. The most pathetic thing about them though is that in their one dimensional world view they can’t even conceive of the fact that this site contains regulars who don’t fit into normal political memes. This is because there are a lot of smart people, who think for themselves and don’t follow party lines. When I think of you for instance, I don’t think Leftist, Rightist, I think humanistic pragmatist. However, even that is a label that can’t sum up the breadth of your intelligence.
Anyway, It’s Friday morning, I’m in a good mood and I am adding a mist of self congratulation to JT’s site.