I had the pleasure of sitting down with Mike Kole yesterday to talk libertarianism, Libertarianism, Obama, and major party dynamics. The podcast is here.
It was a lot of fun, and I’m really glad I took the opportunity when Mike suggested it. Because I’m a busy creature of habit, my general tendency is to stick in my hectic, yet comfortable, rut. I’m glad I veered out of the rut momentarily for this one. Mike’s set up is really slick. Amazing how you can carry a radio studio in a bag whereas, my understanding is, not so long ago, the machinery and wires involved were substantial.
In the Indiana political blogosphere (rarefied company there), I suspect I talk more about Libertarians more than any other non-Libertarian. (Note the big “L” designating the party as opposed to the closely related philosophy.) For most of the 90s, I self-identified as a Libertarian, more or less. The realities of the two party system and the Bush administration made me come to regard that identification as something of a luxury. I have also come to see the party as emphasizing tax cuts first, last, and always as opposed to the civil liberties issues over which I am more strongly aligned with libertarianism. In addition, my association with liberals over the years has probably strengthened my utilitarian tendencies as well. My political views are a warring hodge-podge of philosophies, so my consistency leaves a lot to be desired.
At any rate, talking politics is always a lot of fun, and Mike, among other things, is a skilled radio producer. So, as I said, the process was very enjoyable.
well done Doug!
Beyond what you said, I think Libertarians do a good job arguing for their own rights, but are not so good at defending the rights of others.
Ive never been impressed by anyone who thinks consistently ideologically,yet that seems to be the measuring stick for religious and ideolology-based thinking such as libertarians or ‘christians’
If you’re a politician just explain what legislation you propose and then examine it according to over-all effects on different constituencies,as far as that can be determined..
But this is pragmatism,which I would say is how successful teachers figure out actions.Let’s hope we have a new political era of examining the effect of legislation rather than if it is consistent to any ideology.Then in retrospect point out the libertarian or socialist successes.
Id like to actually see a teacher be successful following libertarian doctrine in the classroom.So what are the limitations and caveats of libertarian thinking,or can that be determined in advance for any venue?
Lou, you’re on to something interesting here. I actually practice rampant socialism in my home: To each according to his need, from each according to his ability. How could it be otherwise? Your children have the greatest needs, and the adults have the greatest abilities. But, we raise the children to be independent and rid themselves of need, developing their ability. We tolerate mistake-making as a way of learning. This applies to the classroom as well.
But, in the realm of public policy? Do we want mistake-making as a way of learning? Here, Commander-in-Chief: Here’s the nuclear arsenal. Bumble around til you get it right! Um, no.
I want consistency. Predictability isn’t all bad either. But, if what you like is pragmatism, you should LOVE today’s government, because there hasn’t been a whole lot of ideology behind any of it, but a bargeload of politically pragmatic ‘solutions’. The bailouts and stimulus are perfect examples. Both Bush and Obama campaigned against the bailouts, Bush indirectly, Obama directly, but both have authorized them as pragmatic solutions.
Obama was ideologically opposed to warrantless wiretapping. Pragmatically?
Obama was ideologically opposed to indefinite detention of enemy combatants. Pragmatically?
What you’re talking about is reactionary government, which I regard as dangerous stuff. No principle is bedrock in such a scenario. Constitution? Hey, I need wider powers to deal with this problem! See?
Lou, are you consistently pragmatic?
The word “ideology” refers to a set of principles. If you have principles, if you have a sense of right and wrong and how things should be, then you have an ideology.
It is pragmatic for a person to have principles. It might seem practical to steal my neighbor’s tools rather than buy my own, but sooner or later he’ll find out. Even if he doesn’t realize that I was the thief, it will contribute towards an atmosphere of mistrust in our neighborhood. I am personally better off because I don’t steal other people’s things.
It is pragmatic for a government to have principles as well. If it seems practical for the government to do something that you believe is wrong, then there is something wrong with your pragmatism or your principles. For example, it might seem like a good idea for the government to seize a vital industry in order to promote the greater good. But this would deter investment in other vital industries and lead to stagnation.
Human beings developed ethical codes as a survival mechanism. Because we are dependent on each other to survive, develop, and grow, we have ethics to guide our interactions with each other. “Ideology” is simply another way of saying “ethical code”. Who in their right mind thinks ethics are impractical?
Hey great responses,especially about pragmatism in the classroom by Mike Kole.I’m no more pragmatic than Mike is.Pragmatism enhances any belief system.It’s keeps us honest and clear thinking,able to evaluate situations and circumstances beyond what is right and wrong according to our religious catechism.I want to give special mention to the RCC for teaching me that I have freedom of conscience in all moral matters,and that’s a great burden at times.
How our Constitution is interpreted is always up for legal,but not so much moral, debate. The limit to our ideology always is what is permitted or made illegal constitutionally.But I don’t mean to lecture to those who understand legal matters better than I,but isn’t that why abortion is legal and that’s why gay mariage is still up for debate,and that’s why people are allowed to own guns? Whether these are moral issues is not an issue constitutionally.
To Eric Shansberg…Pragmatism is a process to understand cause and effect much as scientific method is a way to think clearly so our own prejudices dont cloud our observation and thinking. How can I know what degree of pragmatic vs what degree of ethical I am? I can’t. No one can survive if he doesnt have a code of ethics.Ethics/belief and pragmatic evaluation aren’t mutually exclusive.
To Robert Enders…
I think the misunderstanding is that many look at pragmatism as not being grounded by ethical values.
It’s the age-old debate whether murder is against the law because it’s immoral and one of the 10 Commmandments, or because it’s a practical, common sense secular law. It will always be a philosophical-religious debate.