Beck lumps anarchists with Marxists, communists, revolutionaries, and Maoists

[dan2100]

Martin,

I will try once again, this time real slowly.

Some of the people the FBI was investigating back in the 60's and 70's--ones who were preaching death camps for die-hard capitalists--are the same people who are now next to Obama.

They are the government.

Beck's whole narrative is that they have done this by stealth since they found out that paramilitary organizations don't work for taking over the USA government. That's one of the reasons the left-wing always tries to portray the Tea Party people as paramilitary. They know it doesn't work.

The Man used to be Nixon & Co. and they were the radicals. They are now the Man and they need some radicals to point to while they try to consolidate their power.

So it might be a good idea for us to keep an eye on them right now.

Michael

I don't disagree about "keep[ing] an eye on them" -- those now in power. And I also agree that these guys -- the Obama regime -- have some very bad ideas and are promoting dangerous policies. (I bet Martin agrees with you and I here too.)

I also see less of discontinuity, however, between them and the Bush regime and even the Nixon regime.

Of course, that might not have been how the Weather Underground and the like saw this. (I'd also point out Rand called herself a "radical for capitalism." Of course, you're using a different sense of radical here, but Rand wasn't calling for maintaining the status quo and wanted fundamental changes, though, it seems to me, she wanted the changes to start with the mind and culture and not in some sort of direct action or even political action. The latter, if my understanding is correct, she believed to be either unwise or premature.)

And, once more, you're relying on an FBI agent for this information. He's making the claim that they planned these deeds. What other evidence is there to support his claim of planned exterminations -- and that this was actually a serious threat? (I grant, Ayers discounting it might not carry much weight with me. This is one part of the government accusing another part. Doesn't mean either one is right.)

[Martin Radwin]

Martin,

I will try once again, this time real slowly.

Some of the people the FBI was investigating back in the 60's and 70's--ones who were preaching death camps for die-hard capitalists--are the same people who are now next to Obama.

They are the government.

Beck's whole narrative is that they have done this by stealth since they found out that paramilitary organizations don't work for taking over the USA government. That's one of the reasons the left-wing always tries to portray the Tea Party people as paramilitary. They know it doesn't work.

The Man used to be Nixon & Co. and they were the radicals. They are now the Man and they need some radicals to point to while they try to consolidate their power.

So it might be a good idea for us to keep an eye on them right now.

Michael

So Beck's narrative is that the executive branch of government has been largely taken over by ex 60s radicals who have plans to establish death camps in this country? And that the FBI is tracking these people and working to prevent this from happening? The problem with this scenario is that the FBI is part of the very same government that has allegedly been taken over by these people. To a large extent, the FBI takes its orders from the executive branch. So the idea that it would fight the schemes of the very executive branch that pretty much rules over the FBI seems rather far-fetched. The FBI has a long history of committing all kinds of flagrant abuses of individual rights. As an organization, it is not known for its love of freedom and liberty. So why assume that it is suddenly going to rise to the defense of liberty and fight the nefarious plans of a federal government intent on establishing a totalitarian society complete with death camps?

Put not your faith is government agencies to protect your liberty.

Martin

[dan2100]

Martin,

I will try once again, this time real slowly.

Some of the people the FBI was investigating back in the 60's and 70's--ones who were preaching death camps for die-hard capitalists--are the same people who are now next to Obama.

They are the government.

Beck's whole narrative is that they have done this by stealth since they found out that paramilitary organizations don't work for taking over the USA government. That's one of the reasons the left-wing always tries to portray the Tea Party people as paramilitary. They know it doesn't work.

The Man used to be Nixon & Co. and they were the radicals. They are now the Man and they need some radicals to point to while they try to consolidate their power.

So it might be a good idea for us to keep an eye on them right now.

Michael

So Beck's narrative is that the executive branch of government has been largely taken over by ex 60s radicals who have plans to establish death camps in this country? And that the FBI is tracking these people and working to prevent this from happening? The problem with this scenario is that the FBI is part of the very same government that has allegedly been taken over by these people. To a large extent, the FBI takes its orders from the executive branch. So the idea that it would fight the schemes of the very executive branch that pretty much rules over the FBI seems rather far-fetched. The FBI has a long history of committing all kinds of flagrant abuses of individual rights. As an organization, it is not known for its love of freedom and liberty. So why assume that it is suddenly going to rise to the defense of liberty and fight the nefarious plans of a federal government intent on establishing a totalitarian society complete with death camps?

Put not your faith is government agencies to protect your liberty.

Martin

All the more reason to dismantle the state. I fear, though, that too many people just think power is not the problem -- just that their friends are not in power is. In other words, they don't really want liberty as such, but their favorite brand of tyranny. (For the record, too, I'm not saying Beck is this way. I don't know enough, at this time, to say.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

All the more reason to dismantle the state. I fear, though, that too many people just think power is not the problem...

Dan,

This may be true for some people, but I assure you that for others who recognize the need for a government, this is not the case.

You cannot eliminate bullying from human nature. So you put checks and balances on it.

That's the principle and the reason for it. Not power-lust (as you imply).

Once we can figure out how to get rid of bullying, then I see no reason to continue with government. Until then, I want bullies with limitations on their possibilities of action. Real limitations, not pipedreams.

The will to bully is the root of power-lust.

Michael

[dan2100]

All the more reason to dismantle the state. I fear, though, that too many people just think power is not the problem...

Dan,

This may be true for some people, but I assure you that for others who recognize the need for a government, this is not the case.

You cannot eliminate bullying from human nature. So you put checks and balances on it.

That's the principle and the reason for it. Not power-lust (as you imply).

Once we can figure out how to get rid of bullying, then I see no reason to continue with government. Until then, I want bullies with limitations on their possibilities of action. Real limitations, not pipedreams.

The will to bully is the root of power-lust.

Michael

My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world.

Anyhow, have a good weekend!

[anthony]

All the more reason to dismantle the state. I fear, though, that too many people just think power is not the problem...

Dan,

This may be true for some people, but I assure you that for others who recognize the need for a government, this is not the case.

You cannot eliminate bullying from human nature. So you put checks and balances on it.

That's the principle and the reason for it. Not power-lust (as you imply).

Once we can figure out how to get rid of bullying, then I see no reason to continue with government. Until then, I want bullies with limitations on their possibilities of action. Real limitations, not pipedreams.

The will to bully is the root of power-lust.

Michael

My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world.

Anyhow, have a good weekend!

Dan,

As usual I'm butting in on a subject that (I have the feeling) many here consider none of my business.

Truth is, it is my business - especially what is going on in the USA - but I won't explain that right now.

Are you "looking at the real world"? Is anyone?

The real world is Statist - all over, everywhere you look. What we are faced with is degrees of it, and that for now, is our only hope. Yes,(for example) Israel is Statist, but compare it to its neighbours; England is too, but compare it to Greece; so (entirely) is South Africa, but look at Zimbabwe. Comparative Statism is a reality.

There is one nation, the US, that alone has the will to turn it around - because it started from a loftier position than all the rest, is just one significant reason.

It's going to be a long road back for you, I think. And it will probably only occur by increments - first, conservatism, then growing libertarianism, then minarchism.

Again, excuse my presumption, - I tend to rush in where angels etc etc. - but theorizing about the merits of anarchism at this point seems to me to be shooting for the moon.

Big government is an unquestioned fact of life. Those who question and oppose it, even for the wrong reasons, are our allies, imo.

I don't believe we have the luxury, wherever we are in the world, of turning them down.

Tony

[dan2100]

Dan,

This may be true for some people, but I assure you that for others who recognize the need for a government, this is not the case.

You cannot eliminate bullying from human nature. So you put checks and balances on it.

That's the principle and the reason for it. Not power-lust (as you imply).

Once we can figure out how to get rid of bullying, then I see no reason to continue with government. Until then, I want bullies with limitations on their possibilities of action. Real limitations, not pipedreams.

The will to bully is the root of power-lust.

Michael

My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world.

Anyhow, have a good weekend!

As usual I'm butting in on a subject that (I have the feeling) many here consider none of my business.

I don't see why this matters. This is pretty much an open forum -- moderator willing. Butt in if you feel you must.

Truth is, it is my business - especially what is going on in the USA - but I won't explain that right now.

Cryptic.

Are you "looking at the real world"? Is anyone?

The real world is Statist - all over, everywhere you look. What we are faced with is degrees of it, and that for now, is our only hope. Yes,(for example) Israel is Statist, but compare it to its neighbours; England is too, but compare it to Greece; so (entirely) is South Africa, but look at Zimbabwe. Comparative Statism is a reality.

I'm not sure who is denying this. Even so, this doesn't lead to your seemingly implied conclusion: one can advocate varieties of statism -- ones that are more or less onerous.

I believe there are two problems here. One is that what exists currently doesn't limit one to advocating only that. This should clear enough as people have successfully advocated -- in the sense that they've promoted an idea for something that wasn't the case that was latter implemented -- time and again. (This doesn't mean, by the way, that mere advocacy is enough or that there are no limits on what can be implemented in general -- aside from what might be implemented in a given time period. On both, though -- what cannot be implemented now and what cannot be implemented ever -- the limit is not determined by looking around and seeing only what is in place now. Were this so, then someone ought to tell Steve Jobs to stop doing upgrades to the iPhone.)

The other is the relation between theory and experience or reality. If the theory is truly reality-based, then there should be an ability to implement it in practice. It's only a theory that's not so based -- as Mises pointed out with theories of perpetual motion -- where there's a problem. (Of course, this is a simplification. After all, theories tend to simplify and a generally reality-based theory might have flaws. But these flaws are examples of it being not reality-based in some respect, no?)

There is one nation, the US, that alone has the will to turn it around - because it started from a loftier position than all the rest, is just one significant reason.

Your seeming conclusion doesn't follow from this: that one must not advocate certain ideas like anarchism. In fact, one might make the argument that these very same ideas will find the most traction in America. This doesn't settle the question, but my point is that given that premise, not much follows. (And one might question the premise too. I won't do that at this time, but I don't think it's unreasonable or unrealistic or even unpatriotic to do so.)

It's going to be a long road back for you, I think. And it will probably only occur by increments - first, conservatism, then growing libertarianism, then minarchism.

Whoa! I don't think those are increments at all. Conservatism, as a movement, at best, is a mixture of various currents -- some extremely antilibertarian. I think Spencer in his "The New Toryism" explained why conservatism in Britain in the 19th century had a certain affinity with liberal/libertarian ideas. It wasn't because conservatives as such were closet libertarians. His essay is available online here:

http://www.econlib.o...er/spnMvS1.html

Jeff Riggenbach has applied much the same logic to conservatism in America today in his Why American History Is Not What They Say: An Introduction to Revisionism. Relevant parts of the book dealing with the error of seeing conservatism as somehow aligned with or related to libertarianism are online at:

http://mises.org/daily/3848

and

http://mises.org/daily/3859

among others.

Now, to be sure, since the conservative movement -- and just about any movement -- is a mixed bag, yes, there are likely actual libertarians and classical liberals mixed in. (And while mixed premises supposedly lead to confrontations where one premise wins out over its rivals -- this doesn't mean people aren't capable of holding them for a long time. But might not the same be said of modern liberals and their movement?)

Again, excuse my presumption, - I tend to rush in where angels etc etc. - but theorizing about the merits of anarchism at this point seems to me to be shooting for the moon.

Big government is an unquestioned fact of life. Those who question and oppose it, even for the wrong reasons, are our allies, imo.

I don't believe we have the luxury, wherever we are in the world, of turning them down.

This seems like you're making an all or nothing case here. Either one accepts uncritically everyone who is supposedly opposed to "big government" or one must retreat from any engagement with the culture. Add to this, one must also keep one's mouth shut about one's ideals and principles -- for fear of being seen as merely "theorizing" and "shooting for the moon." My view is one can form alliances, but such alliances should never preclude honest criticism and certainly should not fool one or one's allies into believing there are no differences. My view is also that one must be clear about one's ideals and principles -- and that unclarity or hiding them only serves irrationality and bad ideals or bad principles here. (As Rand might have said, who benefits from pretending what's not the case here? The friends or foes of liberty?)

Add to this, advocacy of anarchism today doesn't mean one must believe it will become a reality by next weekend. It might be a transgeneration project -- as some here who've been advocating it for longer than I've been alive seem to believe. But that it might take that long doesn't mean it's an unworthy project. Nor does it mean one must give up shorter term goals, though it probably does mean if one is honest, prudent, and has a measure of integrity, one will try to be sure -- within one's ability to ascertain such things -- that there's no conflict between one's shorter terms goals and one's longer term ones.

Finally, one must be aware that many people pretending to be pro-liberty or even just against big government are not so. Some of these, no doubt, might be converted -- as in people being persuaded through some issue or problem to consider more deeply these matters. But many really are not, in my experience, proto-libertarians or really against big government. Recent history should be enough to demonstrate this. E.g., the GOP often talks about free markets and liberty, but its track record is one of regulating markets and shrinking liberty wherever possible. What's strange and very unrealistic to me is that libertarians and classical liberals actually still believe the GOP is salvagable. (And, from history, as Jeff has demonstrated, the GOP has always been a party of big government. It got its start in proto-fascism in the 19th century. Little has change -- save that its rhetoric often contains libertarian-sounding platitudes that dupe enough libertarian-leaning folks to supporting it.)

Edited June 21, 2010 by Dan Ust

[anthony]

Dan, thanks,

I understand where you're 'coming from' better, and am in agreement, mainly.

Of course, the moral aspect must never be compromised, even when being forced to think of short-term survival; and of course I was wrong in being critical of your theorizing. As for "increments", would "stages" still be too simplistic to you?

From Big Goverment to limited, or none, in one leap still appears an impossibility.

Obviously my mood has become quite pessimistic in recent times, and I've become pragmatic as a result.

But, without a doubt, we'll need a long spoon, and some careful selectivity, when it comes to who we sup with in future.

Lastly, was it Benjamin or Thomas who said : "Wherever there is liberty, there is my country."?

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world.

Dan,

Of course "checks and balances are inside the government itself." Where else would they be? They exist to check and balance the government. That's exactly where they belong.

(You couldn't possibly be suggesting that they would only work if they came from a outside governing agency, could you? That would simply be another government.)

If you look at human nature as your standard, you will discover just how wise the Founding Fathers were. One person with a sliver of power does not want to give it up. So he will fight for it if another comes along and wants to take it, like someone intent on increasing his own sliver of power. The Founding Fathers used power-lust as its own check and balance, while providing documented rules that sanction the slivers. Human nature basically does the rest.

That's why there has been such an effort to undo the Constitution by power-mongers. They hate the constraints--and it is mostly people like themselves that constrain them.

As to looking to the real world for corroboration that checks and balances work, do you mean the massive growth of capitalism in the USA once the checks and balances were in place? From what I have seen, that was no pipedream. It happened, and it is still happening despite the degrading of the system. (Notice that this effect happens in other parts of the world wherever checks and balances are adopted as the governmental system.)

Or do you mean that the "pipedream" exists because checks and balances did not stop people from trying to undo them? This, of course has happened and continues to happen. But that's human nature. Anyway, public awareness is all it takes to restore them. And that is happening right now. We are lucky to be alive to witness it.

Checks and balances do not exist to change human nature. They exist merely to contain the damage to individual freedom as much as possible from people who gain power.

Michael

[dan2100]

Dan, thanks,

You're welcome.

I understand where you're 'coming from' better, and am in agreement, mainly.

Of course, the moral aspect must never be compromised, even when being forced to think of short-term survival; and of course I was wrong in being critical of your theorizing.

One must be careful, too, when thinking about current politics to have both a little perspective. Remember, partisans are apt to paint the current political landscape as one with just two choices: their party and their rivals. Their party will, of course, deliver us from the coming collapse -- or whatever stark imagery they'll use to paint today's contest as decisive in history. Their rivals, of course, are worst monsters of all time -- or can at least trace their ancestry back to the worst monsters. Hence, you need to choose sides: get on their side and beat back the Devil or all's lost.

Chances are the reality is nothing like this. What I see are petty devils and choosing between them doesn't necessarily accomplish much -- save wasting valuable resources on miniscule squabbles and helping to empower one group of statists over another. In other words, you're playing the game by their rules and don't expect anything more than cosmetic changes.

As for "increments", would "stages" still be too simplistic to you?

All of this depends on what's meant. Accepting stages would not, in my mind, mean one must be completely silent about the long term or final goal. In fact, I'd see advocating the long term goal is why anyone would think in stages in the first place. Also, one is going to have to accept here that some people might not accept the stages. They might see things as one stage -- one change -- and that's that. And they might be ready to coalition against you once they've reached what they see as an acceptable change. And this might not at what seems to be your end goal of minarchism. (I'm making this up. I've actually coalitioned with people before who were not libertarians. They didn't change during the coalition. While my goal was to persuade them to become libertarians, their goal seemed to be to either persuade other libertarians and me to become their flavor of statist or to make sure we weren't competing with them or both.)

From Big Goverment to limited, or none, in one leap still appears an impossibility.

Obviously my mood has become quite pessimistic in recent times, and I've become pragmatic as a result.

But regardles of what the path is -- and let's say the road to anarchism lies through limiting government ever more -- why would this mean lying about the end goal, not keeping up pressure for more radical changes, and not supporting people who want to either stop at some point or expand statism in other directions? (On this last point, I think this is a weakness many libertarian have for the conservative movement. They see the latter as a movement for small government. While their are elements in that movement that want smaller government, the basic thrust of conservatism in terms of government is not for less government but for a particular kind of government -- and one that is interventionist but just intervenes in ways that'd be different than their rivals.)

But, in truth, I don't think the exact path is via shrinking government along those lines. I actually think the path to a free society is via both making structural changes that make centralized statism ever more costly for political elites to maintain (or implement) and toward delegitamizing the state by removing support from below. The latter, in my view, necessarily requires spreading the basic libertarian message. If more people come to accept this message, then society will reach a point where the state becomes delegitamized and, since these people will be basically libertarian, another state would be able to takeover. The amount of people necessary to do this need not be large. In my view, it need only be a decisive minority.

But, without a doubt, we'll need a long spoon, and some careful selectivity, when it comes to who we sup with in future.

Lastly, was it Benjamin or Thomas who said : "Wherever there is liberty, there is my country."?

But none of this means, I hope, that people like Beck or similar conservatives (or anyone for that matter) must be above criticism.

I hardly see why people in this forum also need to worry much about supporting Beck. It's not like what you or I argue about here is going to drastically expand or contract his audience or influence -- whether that influence is for the better or worse. I do think it's important to point out what I perceive as mistakes he makes, but I don't have illusions that somehow Beck or many in his crowd really care one way or another.

[dan2100]

My view is well meaning people believe that government My view is well meaning people believe that government is the only way to achieve these "checks and balances," but I find that both unrealistic -- as governmental checks and balances are inside the government itself -- and a pipedream -- look at the real world.

Dan,

Of course "checks and balances are inside the government itself." Where else would they be? They exist to check and balance the government. That's exactly where they belong.

If the view being offered here is that "checks and balances" are means of limiting government power, then they belong where they actually work. A priori, this might seem to be either within or outside of government -- maybe even both. However, there also appear to be good a priori reasons why internal checks and balances -- those within -- won't work or work as well as those without. And the history of internal checks and balances seems to bear this out.

(You couldn't possibly be suggesting that they would only work if they came from a outside governing agency, could you? That would simply be another government.)

Not at all. An ultimate check on government power is the governed. If the government gets oppressive enough and seems illegitimate, then the governed might rebel. So, normally, political elites don't push too hard. (And some revolutionaries and insurgents actually have made it a strategy to try to make governments become more oppressive -- to foment rebellion. I'm not saying this works. I think it often fails, but not because this ultimate check doesn't exist, but because governments are usually successful in portraying the increased level of oppression as necessary to deal with revolutionaries, insurgents, or terrorists. To the degree any government is successful at doing so, it's merely raised the level of the governed's tolerance for oppression, but not eliminate the ultimate check.)

If you look at human nature as your standard, you will discover just how wise the Founding Fathers were. One person with a sliver of power does not want to give it up. So he will fight for it if another comes along and wants to take it, like someone intent on increasing his own sliver of power. The Founding Fathers used power-lust as its own check and balance, while providing documented rules that sanction the slivers. Human nature basically does the rest.

If that's your theory of how checks and balances work, then I don't see how this wouldn't work sans government: if each person has autonomy -- i.e., power over herself -- and "does not want to give it up" and she "will fight for it if another comes along and wants to take it," then the same should hold when there's no government.

Actually, this theory doesn't seem to work -- either under anarchy or government. If it worked under the former, then presuming anarchy -- as in statelessness -- was the starting point of humanity, then no government (or no states) would've ever arisen in the first place. If it worked under government, then, regardless of whatever legal or constitutional arrangements there were, we expect no government anywhere to ever act like a government. Why? The moment it encroached on someone's autonomy, she or he would've immediately and violently opposed this.

Even some of the Founders, though, didn't seem to accept your theory of jealousy guarding power. Recall the Declaration's "accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." And that rebellion only comes about after a "long train of abuses and usurpations..."

And the truth seems to be, as some of the Founders noticed, especially anti-Federalists like Jefferson, is that checks and balances inside at least the Federal government wouldn't matter much because it wouldn't be powerful people or agencies battling against each other -- even if that does happen -- but such people and agencies expanding outward. Such is truly what happens routinely inside governments, including the US federal government: the government expands not by one agency fighting another and winning, but by the government taking away more freedom from the governed.

Moreover, many of the anti-Federalists saw the States as a balance to Federal power. In other words, they didn't trust the federal government to guard -- check and balance -- itself. (This is merely a version of the "who guards the guardians" problem.) Recall, e.g., the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.

That's why there has been such an effort to undo the Constitution by power-mongers. They hate the constraints--and it is mostly people like themselves that constrain them.

Well, the other missing part of your theory of human nature is not only are some people will to put up with abuse -- i.e., having their liberty truncated -- but there are others who actually want to do the abuse. And this is not a small problem, especially if you set up a monopoly power where people who want to carry out abuse might do so provided they can become part of that monopoly and move up its ladder.

In my opinion it's naive to think such people are easy to deal and not clever enough to overcome all manner of contraints. This is even more vexing if all the checks and balances on their power are internal. Then the problem for them -- that of removing such constraints -- becomes merely one of controlling the checks and balances -- all of which have, for them, been happily centralized (because they're internal). And we see this by looking at US history: the government has repeatedly set aside or re-interpreted its limits. (For the US Constitution: Think of when the enumerated powers were violated. Immediately. But the US Constitution itself was already a violation of the Articles of Confederation. Were constitutions so binding -- even back when giants walked the Earth during the Founding Era -- one would've expected the Articles to survive at least a generation or two. Instead, the Articles lasted a few years before people were scheming to alter them

radically -- and they succeeded in doing so!)

As to looking to the real world for corroboration that checks and balances work, do you mean the massive growth of capitalism in the USA once the checks and balances were in place? From what I have seen, that was no pipedream. It happened, and it is still happening despite the degrading of the system. (Notice that this effect happens in other parts of the world wherever checks and balances are adopted as the governmental system.)

Capitalism started out in Late Medieval Italy. If there's a checks and balances explanation there, it's one very different from yours; it'd be one of the fact that the Italian city states and other bodies had no central government. This was at one level a polycentric order -- one no ruled by an overarching agency. The checks and balances on these rival governments/states was therefore other governments and states. As none was strong enough to squash the others -- and they did try often enough -- this allowed a rich commerical culture to flourish and gave rise to capitalism. (Of course, this grossly oversimplifies, but I do think this was the political setting for capitalism.)

To the degree such happened in America, this seems in spite of and not because of the Federal Constitution. Up until the 1860s, the State still retained enough power and acted, as some have argued, as a check on and balance to federal power. Once this was removed, the federal government was able to expand even faster. (And some have pointed to economic growth being higher in the first several decades of the 19th century over the post-Civil War period. Remember, the postbellum period meant no States' check on federally imposed tariffs and, under the Republicans, all sorts of federal subsidies -- which are not features of free market capitalism, but of state capitalism otherwise known as mercantilism.)

Or do you mean that the "pipedream" exists because checks and balances did not stop people from trying to undo them? This, of course has happened and continues to happen. But that's human nature. Anyway, public awareness is all it takes to restore them. And that is happening right now. We are lucky to be alive to witness it.

Checks and balances do not exist to change human nature. They exist merely to contain the damage to individual freedom as much as possible from people who gain power.

It's a pipedream in my view because it relies on a type of vigilance that is always shortlived and because it leaves in place the basic problem: the checks and balances are internal to the agency that needs to be checked and balanced against. Once things calm down, the government will continue to expand its power, especially if the mentality remains in place that the only way to check and balance federal power is via means that under federal control. Public choice theory should be enough to dispell this pipe dream: the power-seekers usually have much stronger incentives to organize and expand their power whilst the vast majority of the governed have much weakers incentives to stop them. The rest appears to be history...

Which is not to shortchange efforts to decrease federal power. I applaud such efforts, but they're doomed if they go no further than merely trying to reset the limits while leaving the basic organs of power in place. In my mind, much more radical change is needed, though this will likely require more effort and take a much longer time to bring about. (All of which meshes well with Rand's view that's it's "earlier than you think.")

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

You give reasoned and well-mannered responses, but there are some logical issues I find difficult in discussing these things with you. Here is one:

Actually, this theory doesn't seem to work...

Pffft...

Out goes reality, including the examples I gave. This is replaced by an opinion ("doesn't seem to work") and you build a long argument on that, while ignoring the rest.

The theory actually does work, as the unprecedented expansion of created wealth in the USA has proven. Yet these things are not even in your elaboration. But they exist, and they exist as proof that the theory works. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

Here is another:

Even some of the Founders, though, didn't seem to accept your theory of jealousy guarding power.

Here you make a presumption that holding on to power is what I mean as the only check and balance in human nature. And off you go on a long explanation about why this is wrong.

There are many checks and balances. One of the best is that making fundamental changes to the government is not easy. Why? Because a basic characteristic of human nature is that we can be rash and do stupid things. But given time, we can reconsider.

There are several others--and most all of them are based on human nature. Not human nature as it might be, but human nature as it exists.

And even another example:

That's why there has been such an effort to undo the Constitution by power-mongers. They hate the constraints--and it is mostly people like themselves that constrain them.

Well, the other missing part of your theory of human nature is not only are some people will to put up with abuse -- i.e., having their liberty truncated -- but there are others who actually want to do the abuse.

For the life of me, I don't know how you can present the "other missing part" of my "theory of human nature" when I just said what you did. Granted, I used different words, but the gulf between "power-mongers" (my term) and "others who actually want to do the abuse" (your term) doesn't seem to be so far apart conceptually to warrant misunderstanding.

And once again, a long-winded explanation ensues based on a wrong premise.

I don't know how to discuss according to this method of presuming something flat-out wrong as a premise, then making a long-winded explanation of it as if refuting the person misrepresented.

I'm not trying to be snarky here. I want to discuss this stuff, but without all the long winding detours embarked on by following false signs.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

This is not to even bring up whether the allegations made by an FBI agent are true....."

Although there is no way to tell for certain, his report had a ring of authenticity.

I don't know if people who were not around college campuses during the late 1960s can truly appreciate how bloodthirsty many of the leftist radicals truly were, especially those who identified themselves as communists. I had many lengthy discussions and arguments with such commies during my years at the University of Arizona, not only in regular philosophy classes (where they were common) but also in a graduate seminar on Marxism, where I was the only non-Marxist. (Believe it or not, I met a guy in that seminar who was a former Objectivist turned Marxist, and we became pretty good friends.)

Stalinists were probably the worst. During one conversation I had with a Stalinist, I raised the issue of the millions of people that Stalin had exterminated. This fellow didn't deny my claim in the least. He merely said, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." When I pointed out that the "eggs" in this case were human skulls, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "So?"

The Trotskyites were also horrible. When one Trot was describing what would happen after the communist revolution in America, I asked him what he would do with all the capitalists and others who wouldn't go along with the revolution. Would he simply kill them all? "Yup," was his terse reply, "that's exactly what I would do." He said this as if his logic were self-evident, with no justification required.

Things may have changed now -- I don't know, because I haven't kept up with commie radicals -- but, believe me, during the sixties many of them were outright proponents of mass murder, and they made no attempt to conceal or sugarcoat this fact. On the contrary, commies had a very self-righteous attitude about the whole thing, as if they were ridding the world of diseased rodents. (I should mention that my friend, the former Objectivist, was a Marxian "revisionist," and he also found such proposals repulsive. The story of how he converted from Objectivism to Marxism is an interesting one.)

This is why I find the report of the FBI agent very plausible. I heard similar things many times. I even heard some commies discuss how many Americans would need to be "eliminated" after the revolution. Estimates varied from 10 to 25 percent.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

It's funny that I missed these folk, but I left college in 1968--the U of A--and went to NYC. The really bad stuff piled on shortly thereafter and fed on the draft and Vietnam. I felt then that if the draft were ended it would break the back of the anti-war movement which was campus-centered. Around 1970 or 1971, an issue of the NY Times Sunday magazine pictured radical leftest libertarians plastered on the cover. I wonder if I saved that in storage out front. It really was a wonder. One guy had his fist in the air. They were practically communists. Then in the 1970s came the Cambodian genocide. The Kilmer Rouge got that genocidal crap from stays in Paris and intercourse with the French intelligentsia.

In the summer of 1967 Sean Flynn, the son of Errol, visited my A-Team in the Mekong Delta and we had a brief chat. (We also got a visit from Jeniffer Jones--I remember her in our bar, yep we had a small bar, surrounded by Playboy centerfolds--and six months before I arrived John Wayne came through too. It was a pretty safe A-Team until we went into the field.) Three years later only miles away in Cambodia, he and his journalist motorcycling buddy a la Easy Rider were captured by the Kilmer Rouge, held for a year, and executed. He had a sort of home in Bali and invited one of my team members to visit him in Paris. It took decades before the mystery of what had happened to him was solved. I was part of an inadvertent operation into Cambodia in the fall of 1966 involving air boats, CIDG (Civilian Irregular Defense Group), Chinese Nungs, regular South Vietnamese soldiers, helicopters and Navy hovercraft. It was totally surreal.

--Brant

Edited June 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

It's funny that I missed these folk, but I left college in 1968--the U of A--and went to NYC....

I probably exaggerated, if only implicitly, the number of outright commies. In addition to the classes I mentioned, there were two things that put me in frequent contact with them.

First, I routinely manned a SIL (Society for Individual Liberty, the precursor of ISIL) table in the Student Union Mall twice a week, and many lefties would routinely stop by for a good argument. The Trot I mentioned was a grad student in philosophy, so when he stopped by the table once I loaned him a copy of Peikoff's "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy." When he returned the booklet a week later, I asked him what he thought of it. I vividly recall his reply: "It's like pissing on the lawn and calling it philosophy." (I had learned by then that commies are not known for their tact. )

Second, before starting the SIL chapter, I was a co-founder of S.L.A.M. (Student Libertarian Action Movement), along with Conrad Goeringer and Paul Roasberry. I was also the editor and chief contributor to the first few issues of "The Match!," which was subsequently taken over by Fred Woodworth, after I quit S.L.A.M. (As far as I know, "The Match!" is still being published.) S.L.A.M. was really Conrad's baby.

Conrad became romantically involved, and moved in with, a girl name Sheila, who ran the UA chapter of SDS. Thus, when I hung out with my Objectivist friends at Louie's Lower Level (I assume you remember that place), we were often joined by Sheila and some of her leftie buddies, and among them were usually a dedicated commie or two.

In short, the frequency of my conversations with UA commies probably doesn't reflect their actual numbers.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

They tore down and replaced the old Student Union with a new one some years ago--maybe 10 now. I spent many of my boyhood years living next to the campus. One house we rented has been replaced with the basketball arena. It used to be a pretty big campus, now it's monstrous--and unnecessary. In this electronic age there's not much use for the old classroom model any more, but the money keeps pouring in. There are still some things you'd need an actual physical plant for, like chemistry labs.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You didn't exaggerate. At least not for my experiences at Boston University in the early 70's.

We even had Black Panthers in purple berets doing military drills in the BU football field at night.

I used to sit in the cafeteria near the lefties and talk Rand-stuff in a loud voice to whomever I was with just to piss them off. It worked, too. I lost more than one girlfriend that way and caused myself some really nasty unnecessary grief.

But I had spunk.

Michael

[dan2100]

Dan,

You give reasoned and well-mannered responses, but there are some logical issues I find difficult in discussing these things with you. Here is one:

Actually, this theory doesn't seem to work...

Pffft...

Out goes reality, including the examples I gave. This is replaced by an opinion ("doesn't seem to work") and you build a long argument on that, while ignoring the rest.

The theory actually does work, as the unprecedented expansion of created wealth in the USA has proven. Yet these things are not even in your elaboration. But they exist, and they exist as proof that the theory works. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

Don't you feel you've quoted me out of context -- as you completely left out the paragraph that follows the quote?

Let me be more clear about what the theory is. You wrote:

"If you look at human nature as your standard, you will discover just how wise the Founding Fathers were. One person with a sliver of power does not want to give it up. So he will fight for it if another comes along and wants to take it, like someone intent on increasing his own sliver of power. The Founding Fathers used power-lust as its own check and balance, while providing documented rules that sanction the slivers. Human nature basically does the rest."

I interpreted this to mean that if someone has power, he or she won't give it up and this would balance against other people holding power. Therefore, there's a natural check and balance on power: everyone is jealously holding on to their power -- protecting themselves from any encroachments from others.

Stated this way, the theory seems silly as history abounds if not is filled up with examples of some people taking power from others and even of some people ceding power to others. (Please tell me if this is not the theory. And if it is not, please explain where I got it wrong.)

Now, regarding seeing the "unprecedented expansion of created wealth in the USA" proving the constitutional checks and balances -- the ones in the actual Constitution -- this started before the Constitution was even drafted. This is akin to saying that the industrial revolution was caused by some act of Parliament in 1870. If one is going to make a causal argument here, one should be able to at least put the cause before the effect or even place them at the same time, but not put the cause as happening during the effect. (Likewise, one could argue the American standard of living increased during the 20th century -- all while taxes increased, regulations promulgated, and inflation was almost everpresent. Would this mean tax increases, more regulations, and inflation cause wealth to expand? I don't think you'd make such an argument in that case, so why do you make a similar one with regard to the Constitution?)

To bring this point home, too, you'd have to show just how the checks and balances actually worked -- when, in many cases, they were set aside, often with an intepretation offered up that they didn't apply in a specific context or at a specific time -- to bring about the ""unprecedented expansion of created wealth." Merely asserting this is so doesn't demostrate it is so. And this is matter under scrutiny here, no?

(An example of early setting aside the checks and balance is the First Bank of US. There was no constitutional power for the federal government to create a bank. Hamilton defended this via arguing that the Bank was constitutional because the Constitution didn't strictly forbid it -- which clearly contradicts the enumerated powers clause. Wasn't the enumerated powers clause specifically made to check federal power? Why didn't that work out? Now, one might accept Hamilton's arguments, but then what good are enumerations as a limit on federal power? if the government can overstep bounds via Hamilton's argument -- which also included, if my memory's correct, the view that if the ends were necessary, then the means were constitutional -- then what constitutional bounds would ever stand under such an assault? And this is hardly the only case of the early federal government casting aside or reinterpreting its limitations.)

Here is another:

Even some of the Founders, though, didn't seem to accept your theory of jealousy guarding power.

Here you make a presumption that holding on to power is what I mean as the only check and balance in human nature. And off you go on a long explanation about why this is wrong.

You truly believe I went off on a tangent by quoting the Declaration of Independence? I'll quote the relevent passage again: "accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." And, again, the author of that Declaration noted that rebellion only comes about after a "long train of abuses and usurpations..."

In other words, people are much more likely NOT to check power. They're more likely to let it grow and only go about altering it when it really becomes intolerable. This appears to be the case with the actual Constitution: the First and Second Banks of US -- to stick with my earlier example -- were bascially and sadly tolerated, despite some dissenting voices, such as those of Jefferson and, if my memory's correct, Madison. People didn't immediately say, "The federal government is violating its limitations, we must rebell!" Nor did other branches of the federal government rush in to tell the president of the Congress, "Hey, you guys are violating your limits."

In fact, the Second Bank of US eventually did lose its national charter, but this was only after Andrew Jackson's strongly opposed but ultimately successful veto of a renewal in 1836. (The bank eventually went under a few years later.) You might cheer this on as a check and balance working, but that doesn't seem at all the case. The bank lost its charter under only after being in existence for twenty years and causing much mayhem, including, if Murray Rothbard is to be trusted, the Panic of 1819. (See his The Panic of 1819.)

There are many checks and balances. One of the best is that making fundamental changes to the government is not easy. Why? Because a basic characteristic of human nature is that we can be rash and do stupid things. But given time, we can reconsider.

This overlooks that the Constitution itself was a rash change. The Convention wasn't even set up to draft a new constitution and furtively did so -- keeping its deliberations secret. In other words, the very creation of the Constitution violates the view you're holding here. It was a swift, secretive process, presenting the nation with a new constitution -- rather than slowly altering the Articles of Confederation over the period of years or decades.

There are several others--and most all of them are based on human nature. Not human nature as it might be, but human nature as it exists.

I'm not sure why brought that up here. I nowhere made an argument for an ideal human or some future changed humanity that would better fit some political program I advocate. In fact, I'd argue, anarchism is based on a realistic view of human nature -- that no one is really fit or should be trusted to hold power over others. The minarchist and statist views believe some are so fit -- and in the case of minarchism, that some people can be trusted to not abuse power or that the government can mind its own limits.

And even another example:

That's why there has been such an effort to undo the Constitution by power-mongers. They hate the constraints--and it is mostly people like themselves that constrain them.

Well, the other missing part of your theory of human nature is not only are some people will to put up with abuse -- i.e., having their liberty truncated -- but there are others who actually want to do the abuse.

For the life of me, I don't know how you can present the "other missing part" of my "theory of human nature" when I just said what you did. Granted, I used different words, but the gulf between "power-mongers" (my term) and "others who actually want to do the abuse" (your term) doesn't seem to be so far apart conceptually to warrant misunderstanding.

A poorly written sentence on my part. Let me put it this way. There are people who are willing to put up with abuse -- in other words, who will give up their "sliver of power." That's missing from your theory.

Were it human nature that no one anywhere ever wanted to give up power, the world and history would be quite different. It wouldn't necessarily be better -- as there might still be people who wanted to and could take power from others -- but people would, in general, be much more ready to stop them and it'd be harder for the sort of accretions of power we see to happen. By this is meant, the kind of slow erosion of personal autonomy (and what is personal autonomy but power over one's self?) that happens over the ages? Nor would expect to see emergency expansions of power -- or these would always be tough sells. In other words, something like the PATRIOT Act would cause a national uproar instead of just a tiny number of dissenting voices.

Also, you seem to believe power-mongers will work against each other, rather than coalition to work against everyone else. Were your view correct, I'd expect the US would basically have a tiny federal government to this day. In fact, from the start, the Constitution seems to have done little to stop the growth of federal power. (One might argue today's federal government is much larger than the one in 1789, but 1800's federal government was also larger than the one in 1789.)

Again, once you have a monopoly government, even with constitutional checks and balances, none of this matters. The hope that the government will check itself is kind of like having a dictatorial triumpharite, like in Ancient Rome, and hoping that the dictators will look toward each other for more power and not at the rest of society. Or another analogy: it's like a bunch of sheep hoping that a wolf pack will be too busy squabbling to attack.

And once again, a long-winded explanation ensues based on a wrong premise.

I don't know how to discuss according to this method of presuming something flat-out wrong as a premise, then making a long-winded explanation of it as if refuting the person misrepresented.

I'm not trying to be snarky here. I want to discuss this stuff, but without all the long winding detours embarked on by following false signs.

Michael

I don't know what to make of this. The premise I believe is wrong here is that checks and balances internal to a government are going to do much, especially when that government is the sole arbiter of the checks and balances. The argument from wealth expansion in America seems, at best, a post hoc ergo propter hoc, but it even fails in that case because America's wealth seems to have been expanding rapidly before the Constitution was foisted on it. I think the better argument might be the wealth expanded despite what the government did.

And after the Constitution was adopted, the federal government grew and grew and grew, likely putting a drag on wealth creation, but this requires a theory of wealth creation or at least a good theory of economics -- not merely assertion that this or that cause was the case -- to decipher the historical record.

[George H. Smith]

Dan,

As Murray Rothbard used to say, all of your arguments are "plumb line."

I would only add two things, both of which I have mentioned before on OL.

First, even James Madison became disillusioned with the internal system of checks and balances in the federal government. He called them a mere "parchment barrier" to the growth of power, arguing that the three branches would expand their power outward, into the social sphere, rather than at the expense of the other branches. The later Madison and other Jeffersonians believed that states' rights are a much more effective check on the federal government.

Second, the American division of federal powers was based on the British model. But as many commentators pointed out (including some Antifederalists at the time), in the British system the House of Lords, House of Commons, and King actually represented different interest groups (to a considerable degree, at least). But no such classes existed in America, so the American system of federal checks and balances was but a pale imitation of the British model and would not have the same results. On the contrary, those in the American federal government would have the same basic interest, namely, to expand their power; so, more often than not, they would unite in pursuit of this common interest.

I apologize for repeating these points, but they seemed relevant to this discussion.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I interpreted this to mean that if someone has power, he or she won't give it up and this would balance against other people holding power. Therefore, there's a natural check and balance on power: everyone is jealously holding on to their power -- protecting themselves from any encroachments from others.

Stated this way, the theory seems silly as history abounds if not is filled up with examples of some people taking power from others and even of some people ceding power to others. (Please tell me if this is not the theory. And if it is not, please explain where I got it wrong.)

Dan,

I will get to the rest later (when I get time to read it all), but on stopping at this point to answer your question, yes you did get the theory wrong. You got your conceptual hierarchy backwards.

The itch for power is part of human nature, not human nature is part of the itch for power.

Human nature--and human behavior--includes many things, not just an all-or-nothing the itch for power.

Just because a person does not eat every day and fasts once in a while, for example, this does not mean that eating every day is not part of human nature.

It's normal to eat every day. It's normal to be corrupted by power. And it's normal to want to keep power once you've obtained it.

Are there people who do not act according to what is normal? Of course.

Does that mean that human nature does not have a normal way of existing?

Not in your wildest dreams.

Our Founding Fathers used human nature as the standard for checks and balances. They did not impose arbitrary standards on human nature--and did not claim that human nature was "silly" when an exception to a facet of human nature occurred. They got the conceptual hierarchy right.

If that is not clear, I will try to explain it better later.

Michael

[dan2100]

Dan,

As Murray Rothbard used to say, all of your arguments are "plumb line."

George, thanks.

I would only add two things, both of which I have mentioned before on OL.

First, even James Madison became disillusioned with the internal system of checks and balances in the federal government. He called them a mere "parchment barrier" to the growth of power, arguing that the three branches would expand their power outward, into the social sphere, rather than at the expense of the other branches. The later Madison and other Jeffersonians believed that states' rights are a much more effective check on the federal government.

Agreed and this is close to Madison's famous quote, no? I don't have the exact quote handy, but your words seems very close.

Second, the American division of federal powers was based on the British model. But as many commentators pointed out (including some Antifederalists at the time), in the British system the House of Lords, House of Commons, and King actually represented different interest groups (to a considerable degree, at least). But no such classes existed in America, so the American system of federal checks and balances was but a pale imitation of the British model and would not have the same results. On the contrary, those in the American federal government would have the same basic interest, namely, to expand their power; so, more often than not, they would unite in pursuit of this common interest.

This is a good point and one I wasn't aware of or don't recall. (I confess to not be as much of a scholar of the Antifederalists as I should be. And I don't mean attaining your level of familiarity here.) This would seem to speak to the problem of adopting checks and balances that work in one context to another. I believe Hoppe's point -- about how class divisions might tend to heighten awareness of and antagonism against state power expanding -- applies to this case.

And, again, this fits with the Antifederalists seeing the several States as a check on federal power -- as opposed to seeing federal power limiting itself. (This -- the federal government's branches checking each other and not expanding because of this -- even makes less sense when all the federal leadership is in one capitol very far away from everyone else -- as in America after Washington D.C. was finished. If they all work and for the most part live in the same town, and likely dine and party with each other, they're going to see each other as less of problem than everyone else in the country -- not to mention that this made for conspiring together so much easier. Isn't there even a saying today that people start out basically good then go to Washington and, after a few years there, become part of the problem?)

I apologize for repeating these points, but they seemed relevant to this discussion.

Ghs

No bother to me. Some points bear repeating.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... the three branches would expand their power outward, into the social sphere, rather than at the expense of the other branches. The later Madison and other Jeffersonians believed that states' rights are a much more effective check on the federal government.

. . .

... those in the American federal government would have the same basic interest, namely, to expand their power...

George,

From one angle, you are reinforcing my premise, that the itch for power is innate in human beings. Saying people want to expand it is a clear manner of explaining that it exists in the first place.

From my perspective, checks and balances is a form of trying to deal with that. Checks and balances is not a form of eliminating it from human nature.

Are all systems of checks and balances equal? Of course not.

Are some far better than others? Yup.

What do we do when one form becomes exceeded or is no longer effective? The sensible thing is to establish other checks and balances that work better. (Say, ideally, amend the Constitution, for instance...)

I believe it is a grave error to ignore the itch to power in human nature or believe it will not manifest itself in many individuals if government goes away. The power luster ain't going away, that's for sure. And right along beside him will be some form of government being enforced as much as he can enforce it, just by his very nature. And endless scheming and conniving and deceiving and betraying and--horror of horrors! infringing the rights of others--to expand that power base.

Here's a question for you. What does a person who is burning with lust for power over others do with freedom? He uses the part that pertains to himself to act to enslave others, of course. He does that because he cannot not do that. That's what he does.

The capacity for a person (or group of people) to act on that burning lust for power is what is being "checked."

That's how I understand the conceptual framework--in human nature terms, anyway. Obviously, historical documents do not use this language. But from what little I have read, this concept is present as an underpinning.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You truly believe I went off on a tangent by quoting the Declaration of Independence?

Dan,

No.

You just did it again.

I don't know how to discuss anything this way.

I stand by what I write--not by what you attribute to me.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

From my perspective, checks and balances is a form of trying to deal with that. Checks and balances is not a form of eliminating it from human nature.

Are all systems of checks and balances equal? Of course not.

Are some far better than others? Yup.

I don't disagree with this. Even ardent defenders of the Constitution didn't claim that the system of checks and balances would be a cure-all. In fact, many 18th century Americans, Federalists and Antifederalists alike, believed that the ultimate check on governmental power is the fear of revolution. Even Hamilton says this somewhere in the Federalist Papers .

What do we do when one form becomes exceeded or is no longer effective? The sensible thing is to establish other checks and balances that work better. (Say, ideally, amend the Constitution, for instance...)

We are not likely to see libertarian amendments in the foreseeable future, given how difficult the process is.

I have long advocated that libertarians do what they can to breed a thorough disrespect for the American government -- to delegitimize it in the public eye, so to speak. I had a debate at the LA Supper Club with Bob Poole many years ago. He characterized the U.S. government as a garden overgrown with weeds. I responded with another metaphor -- a garden of weeds that is inhospitable to flowers.

These competing metaphors illustrate the practical differences between minarchists and anarchists. Most minarchists view the present U.S. government as essentially legitimate, despite its excesses. I don't. I view it as essentially illegitimate. To the extent we obey the government (other than in areas relating to rights), we should do so for purely prudential reasons, as when we obey the dictates of a gun-wielding thug.

By disseminating the "garden of weeds" viewpoint, I think libertarians could, over time, effect a quiet revolution that would be more effective than working in the political arena. I say this partly because I believe that libertarians will always comprise a small minority of the U.S. population. Educational endeavors are the best way to exert our limited political leverage.

Ghs

[Greybird]

"Parchment barriers," indeed. None of them hold up, in any country, when powermongers are sufficiently intent on flouting them.