Left2Right Comments

Elizabeth Anderson wrote: "The irony is heavy: can today's Communist Party/company town ruler-owners point to anything that distinguishes them, morally, from the oppressive landlords the original Communists fought to overthrow?"

Sounds much like Orwell's "[t]he creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
 

david sobel said: "Sometimes it seems that the key for you [Elizabeth Anderson] is that people actually be free from power strong enough to mess with them (forcing them to toady)."

I think it's more subtle than that. Everybody is subject to coercion from others via (a) power, (b) wealth, and (c) charisma or other intellectual capacities. I think the average intellectual liberal wants to eliminate (a) and (b) so that they can convince the weaker minded to do their bidding.

Elizabeth Anderson has done an amazing job in her numerous posts in that she has managed to never quite explicitly state anything to disagree with. After all, who can disagree with concepts such as the rule of law? I'm waiting for a post where she actually commits to an interesting and controversial position.
 

Dave,

I don't think the presence of Superman would be a problem for those who advocate non-domination. You seem to think the view implies that someone merely possessing any kind of broadly conceived endowment or ability constitutes an illicit form of domination. The view would be implausibly stong if it insisted that no one have that. It would then imply that strong people necessarily dominate weak people. But I don't think it does. The capacity to interefere more refers to the situation where one occupies a position of authority over another, and that he is standing over the other, so to speak, ready to exercise it, poised to exploit some vulnerability, inducing the other to conform to his wishes. Superman doesn't do that. He could, but him merely having this ability isn't sufficient for the presence of domination.
 

I doubt,if I read it right,that liberals wish to eliminate power and wealth as potentially coercive factors in society. Wealth appears to be,ipso facto,an evil,but only in certain hands. There is an animus against it in a public relations sense but only in that sense. As for power,it very rarely gets discused in any meaningful way other than some ritualistic civil libertarian exercises;burning the flag,pornography,womens right to an abortion{skip right over the states}etc. EA's post is bland enough as part of an apparently garguantuan exercise she has set out upon for the remainder of a lifetime. But if there is some confusion over the direction this odyssey is taking one might refer to earlier posts,no real natural rights claims,you can't just say "it's mine"{which begs the question,well then,just who does it belong to}and other such curves,swerves,and sidesteps. I do hope I live long enough to see the conclusion but I'm starting to wonder.
 

It's all very well and good to stress the importance of the rule of law, but what's the difference between a corrupt dictator and a corrupt popular majority that votes itself bread and circuses (i.e. "entitlements")? Or, looking ahead to eminent domain, what's the difference between a corrupt dictator and a corrupt Supreme Court that allows corrupt politicans acting on behalf of the majority to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another at less than its full economic value in the name of "public use" (Kelo v. New London)?
 

Perseus raises a old but very true consideration,ultimately the health and freedom of a society rests on virtue,the virtue of it's leaders and the virtue of it's citizens. Constitutions can only last as valid documents and provide the groundwork for a liberty driven ethos if the body of people recognize and respect that ethos and it's correlations. As I've been told by Bret's site that my name is unavailable,most confounding,and as I feel that I'm already anonymous enough I will be required to do my own sign outs. Johnt
 

Ooops,I made a mistake,I did something right!
 

Perseus wrote: "...what's the difference between a corrupt dictator and a corrupt popular majority that votes itself bread and circuses...?"

50%.
 

I'm a bit concerned that some of the posters here lack the humility to really engage with EA's arguments. They treat her arguments as if she's some kind of third rate hack rather than a professor at one of the world's most highly regarded philosophy departments.

An example of this is the final post of sans serfs, who seems to think EA is engaged in some kind of conspiracy. If there is something wrong with her arguments then out with it, but it's dishonest to assume you know where she's going and dismiss her arguments because you don't like it. If you're rational you should simply stick to criticising the reasoning in the arguments.

As far as I'm aware, EA has simply argued this: That there are two conceptions of freedom (among others). Libertarians among others typically invoke freedom as non-interference as an argument by itself against the state doing various things, including taxes and various laws. They don't usually argue that freedom as non-interference is bad for some instrumental reason, they just say it's a limitation on freedom, freedom is good, therefore the state shouldn't interfere.

EA has argued quite clearly that this is a mistaken move because libertarians themselves are perfectly happy with the other kind of freedom she mentions, which does involve state interference and limitations on freedom as non-interference. There can be many reasons why they accept this but it suggests that any appeal to freedom as non-interference just because it is freedom as non-interference is no justification for anything at all. Libertarians, just like everyone else don't value freedom as non-interference quite as much as they think they do.

What the libertarian needs to do then, is explain when freedom as non-interference trumps freedom as opportunity and other values. Appeal to freedom simpliciter won't wash.
 

Installment 5 is up. It's pretty bad - in a few quick jumps she goes from the common law right of prescriptive easements by the landlocked, to taxation and levels of regulation so intrusive they override religious beliefs.
I'm not sure what her point is; does she think the post is fine and dandy, error free, or are the errors intentional, to lead us down some blind alley? Longer response to follow, if I don't forget.- arbitrary aardvark.
 

I've created a new comment thread for "So You Want to Live in a Free Society (5)..." Sorry for the slow response.

Of course, feel free to continue to use this comment thread as well...