I think the “nation state-as-primary-moral-community” assumption at
bottom of most modern liberal arguments for the welfare state (and in
many libertarianism-in-one-country arguments, for that matter) is
morally backward. But I also have a fairly conservative theory of
incremental social change. Whether or not all our institutions are
legitimate – and certainly they are not – they are also very good in relative terms, both historically and contemporaneously. My
immediate interest is in taking steps to make those institutions better
in a way that opens up to the possibility of expanding liberty and
thereby well-being the world over.
He is getting better and better all the time. The link is here.
ŸÂœ›š™˜“nation state-as-primary-moral-community† — doesn’t this sound somewhat Hegelian?
“…they are also very good in relative terms…”
Relative to what?
Contemporaneously? So what. We know why our contemporaries underperform and have a pretty good idea why we underperform in some areas.
Historically? Well, what is history stumbling toward? Figure that out, take off the blindfold and run to it.
I don’t know that libertarians believe in the nation-state as a moral position as much as the best chance of a decent fallback and stronghold position. I’d like a libertarian world but can’t get it. A libertarian neighborhood doesn’t do much good. I think a state would be okay, but a nation is better.
I’m guessing his comment “opens up to the possibility of expanding liberty and thereby well-being the world over.” implies some sort of leverage and scalability gains. But, I’m coming to the opposite conclusion. I’m realizing it’s tilting at windmills to try to change others and you are better off changing your own world in increasing concentric circles around yourself. If others notice the change and follow suit, so much the better. But, trying to convince people of something they don’t conclude for themselves just costs you the gains you could make in your more direct spheres of influence. We can’t change institutions with any scalability if people don’t know why they are changing and attribute success to the right philosophy.
Now, for people who get paid to tilt at windmills, it’s fine for them. But, libertarianism is a small enough niche. Why try to carve out a much smaller one of gadfly to libertarians?
Isn’t the idea of a “libertarian nation” a contradiction in terms?
The idea of free trade (see recent article/post by Tyler) leads one to believe that free traders/libertarians in idealistic terms reject the concept of nation, of “us versus them.”
I’m afraid there is a perverse incentive at play in the healthcare debate – that the population is aging, that old people all vote, and that old people don’t care about a decades-long innovative process. With this confluence as background, it seems frighteningly plausible to me that “free stuff now” will be bought at the expense of innovation. Imagine that such a bargain had been struck 20 years ago. The body count just from the delay in hypertension medicine alone … ugh.
Has anybody ever learned a fact reading anything Will has written? I’m not talking about learning part of Will’s vast edifice of theory, I mean learning an actual fact that you didn’t already know. I’ll grant you that my eyes glaze over before I reach the end of most of his items, but they seem to be basically 99% Fact Free Filosophizing.
Mostly echoing comments from above. But when Wilkinson writes this:
Whether or not all our institutions are legitimate — and certainly they are not — they are also very good in relative terms, both historically and contemporaneously.
…my reaction also was, “Very good relative to what?” There are radical libertarians who believe the modern State is an unmitigated evil. It is illegitimate and worsens every area it touches. You think there should be a safety net? Fine, why in the world do you think that justifies or proves the need for government welfare? This isn’t abstract theory, go look at an actual housing project in Detroit or Chicago and tell me that is helping people and excuses what appears to be theft from a purely rights-based approach to taxation.
The problem with Wilkinson’s recent posts is that he doesn’t actually argue for any of his “heretical” views. He simply appeals to the authority of Hayek. Well, Hayek was wrong when he thought you could easily marry his quotes in Wilkinson’s blog with the rest of Hayek’s work.
Trotsky’s international socialism was a complete failure, as should have been evident by the first World War.
Brotherhood of nations is also evident in a small disturbance we had in 1939 – 1945.
Every day news from Iraq proves that all people just the same and all hunger for Freedom and Jeffersonian Democracy.
Jorge Busherino will give you all justification you ever need for believe in sameness of all people.
One-Libertarian-World people should hire Jorge Busherino on as a consultant on one-world matters.
Comments on this entry are closed.