Left2Right Blog
This new group blog, Left2Right, features such heavy hitters as Lewis Kornhauser, Richard Rorty, and Kwame Anthony Appiah. "In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, many of us have come to believe that the Left must learn how to speak more effectively to ears attuned to the Right. How can we better express our values? Can we learn from conservative critiques of those values? Are there conservative values that we should be more forthright about sharing? 'Left2Right' will be a discussion of these and related questions." Lefty profs struggle to talk to Red America, in other words.
So far the discussion has focused primarily on domestic policy, with a sprinkling of foreign policy. The bloggers are mostly law professors or philosophy professors, so it's unlikely that economics will get much attention.
Orin Kerr asks if Right2Left can be far behind. I personally would like to see Libertarians2Left&Right.
Comments (9)
Why not? I posted to the site as follows regarding the "gulf" between "left" and "right".
The fundamental problem is democracy, the use of intolerant violent force as a means to obtain ends in an ever greater sphere of action. It's mere pretension that near universal consent exists for most or even a small slice of what is done by the government of the U.S. In fact, the disatisfaction of the left is only the tip of the iceberg of dissatisfaction compared to every "group's" and individual's ideal state of affairs if they had pursued the logical conclusions of state education goals taught in the totalitarian form of "what would you do if you were president?" Would not the dissatisfaction of the "right" have been similar if the "left" had "won"? Is it not the nature of political force to necessarily create increasingly intractable supression of minorities to the extent they are tolerated to merely exist? Aren't individuals of the left and right and everyone really all human beings attempting to pursue their own happiness?
Both the left and the right use violent coercive force to attain their ends. The left believes they can steal in the form of taxation to fund socialist welfare redistribution programs. The right believes they can coercively force intolerant social values on minorities. But at the same time the Republicans and the Democrats are more similar than dis-similar from a libertarian perspective.
It's of little surprise that the money is running out, that antagonistic groups of individuals at odds with each other have been politically manufactured, that social and economic freedom continues to be eroded. The right gives the country homeland security and the left wants to give the country universal health care. The scandalous aggrandizement of government has wrought the environment of bureacratic entitlement, artificially opposed interest classes, and mutual negative distrust.
Both the left and the right promise to help one group of people by promising that group of people that their future benefit will come at the expense of another group of people, or foring a state of affairs upon those who may consciously object to such certain states of affiars. The left will tax the rich. The right will ban gay marriage.
Can't we all just be left alone? Can't we all choose to voluntarily get along to the extent that each individual voluntarily chooses to get along by freely contributing when and where they choose to contribute if they so desire or not? It was the brilliant insight of Ludwig von Mises that society and civilization only exists to the extent that free voluntary trade exist. Voluntary free trade among gay individuals to marry, voluntary free trade among consumers to spend their money on the products of businesses they choose to buy, voluntary free trade to practice one's religion and *persuade*, not use political force, converts, voluntary free trade for citizens to spend all of their money where they choose to spend it and not have it coercively taken away by taxes, voluntary free trade to choose charitable organizations and social welfare programs one contributes or does not contribute to, voluntary free trade to not be off in foreign lands murdering innocent civilians. What has been lost through the competition of the left and right is exactly that freedom that makes society and civilization possible. And it has necessarily turned neighbors against each other as for example the family with kids votes to raise property taxes on families without kids to fund education.
Some might think my position a "right-wing" position and I would take that as an indicator of how left the mainstream right is. Taxing people's property away is no less suppresively intolerant then prohibiting gay marriage, the free association of individuals. The solution is for both republicans and democrats to abandon their violent coercive political invasions of individuals and join the libertarians in equal tolerance and respect for all minorities, which every individual is in and of themself, a minority. The future of society and civilization is entirely dependent upon the degree to which that exists.
Published: December 7, 2004 3:56 PM
rtr, the gay marriage issue as I understand it is not about "banning gay marriage" or otherwise impinging on private relationships - it is about whether the state must recognize these relationships and bless them with tax breaks.
Viewed as such, the fight against gay marriage is a fight against the growth of the state. Since no right wingers are advocating using the police to break up gay partnerships and ban their sexual activities, they are not guilty of using violence to dictate social values. They are guilty of rank hypocrisy however, for picking a narrow and inconsequential battlefield on which to defend against the growth of the state, while allowing the state to grow exponentially in a multitude of other areas.
I believe this is why right wingers refer to left wingers as "liberals". To call them what they really are - socialists - is to beg the schoolyard question, "I know you are but what am I?"
Published: December 7, 2004 9:35 PM
Well, I have now created the blogspot Libertarians2leftandright especially for you. I will begin posting as soon as the academic quarter ends for me this Friday.
Published: December 7, 2004 10:59 PM
I have trouble taking these so-called law and philosophy professors seriously if they can't even be troubled to spell the word "to" with letters.
Published: December 8, 2004 2:34 PM
I think you are right on Ohhh Henry but I want to piecemeal draw out the logical inconsistencies of both the “left� and the “right� that only strict libertarianism solves in my personal “L� day. I think I’ve made progress with these posts:
Therein lies a fudamental intractable difference. To the left wealth and income are not private property created by individuals but mythically owned and distributed by "society". The left has abandoned even pretense to the concept of equality under the law respecting the diversity of different levels of income determined by what is voluntarily earned in the free market. Thus, they politically manufacture artificially dileneted classes like "rich", "middle class", and "poor" and argue that a flat tax rate is a most unjust and unfair system. They say if you make ten times as much to pay ten times more in taxes (which would be the case under a flat tax where everyone contributes their fair share without exception for any level of income) is social injustice. The rich should bear a higher tax burden rate and the poor should have a negative tax burden. And then they have the gall to claim criticism of this as socialist redistribution is a "Marxist strawman". And so Detroit is left in the aftermath.
The attitude toward private property and income (and look at the spies the government has sent to private workplaces to ensure compliance with social security, fica, etc.) is one of extreme disrespect and at the core of artificially manufactured "class" divisiveness which creates "left" and "right". It's a fundamental issue that not only shows the false facade that is tolerance, integration, and diversity for a priori determened pet groups but has real dire poverty increasing consequences, as do all anti-free trade measures to the degree they are anti-free trade. It is that exact socialist welfare policy the left has become synomonous with (and of course their are perfectly valid examples of corporate welfare which are equally egregious). Is it any surprise that those who "pay" negative taxes have every incentive to increase their take of the loot over time violently voted away through the means of political coercion?
There is not even the remotest possibility of "reasoned" discourse on this topic as the democratic party would holler it is taxing the poor to "give" to the rich. Equality under the law has been abandoned. The rules do not apply equally to everyone.
To the left, "liberal" is a relative term that has no connection to legitimacy of the State and its growth. It is seemingly without bound. Thus, the laughable claim they are of the same political mold as the founders of the constitution. So social security, medicare, and medicaid is two thirds of the budget. The programs are in shambles, there does not exist the political will to further increase already exorbitant taxes (nor does there exist the will to eliminate these programs), and the left would love nothing more than to add to that burden with universal health care.
It matters exactly zilch to the left if you personally object to the State coercively taxing away your money to fund their programs. Yet somehow the left has premises and deductions galore expalining their agitation when the "right" similarly uses the State to take and force what it wants. Respect is a two way street.
Posted by: rtr | December 8, 2004 03:48 PM
rtr, when did I say: "wealth and income are not private property created by individuals?" I believe that fervently. Your whole diatribe bore so little relationship to anything that I believe that I really can't respond to it. There is not even the remotest possibility of "reasoned" discourse on this topic. My advice to you is: go live on a dirt road, in a house that gets washed out with every hard rain, eat food that could make you sick so you can be treated by a doctor with medicine that might kill you, send your children out to work in the mines six days a week and by the firelight teach them sums and letters and, carry a gun at all times because you never know who might want what you have in your taxless paradise.
Posted by: Terrier | December 8, 2004 04:57 PM
I didn’t have a problem with what Terrier wrote at all. All posters are passionate in their beliefs. I’m sure we all at times want to go off on the other side. I think this is a healthy conversation and if there are bumps in the road perhaps further discussion can bring elucidation. Nor, for the record, do I consider what I wrote a diatribe.
So what does Marxist mean? Is the term being misused to describe the general left (and not Terrier in particular)?
I believe a Marxist is an individual who wishes to use political forceful means to obtain political outcome ends that transfer private property from one group of individuals to another group of individuals. I believe this to be intolerant discriminating abuse with dire material consequences. To take one example, is it not a common truth that the left favors a “progressive� tax structure, by which those who make more money pay a higher tax rate and those who make less money pay a lower tax rate or no net taxes at all but receive a net gain of welfare provisions at the expense of those paying higher tax rates? Is that not the definition of socialism? Or does the definition of socialism only apply if one believes that tax rates should be 100% for all and redistributed in total by the individuals ruling the State with the state “owning the means of production�? Thus one who believes in only a 99.9% redistributionist tax structure should not be classified as a “socialist� or a “Marxist�?
Terrier wrote: “It probably is social engineering to reduce taxes on the wealthy in the hope that they will stimulate the economy.�
“To reduce taxes on the wealthy� implies something for sure about social engineering. Can we agree that an equal “flat� tax *rate* for all without any “loophole� exemptions or income level exemptions is equality under the law? Or is Terrier of the opinion that equality under law means equality of outcomes such that one earning $100,000 a year should be taxed $40,000 and that $40,000 be redistributed to an individual earning $20,000 such that they each have $60,000 in yearly income after the violent coercive forceful political intervention of individuals running the state? Thus, to be perfectly clear, in the first scenario at a 10% flat tax rate the individual earning $100,000 a year pays $10,000 a year in taxes while the individual earning $20,000 a year pays $2,000 in taxes? Which scenario is “equality under the law�? Which scenario is “fair�? Which scenario is "just"? [This income tax can also be equally divided among income and sales for this example if that changes the answer.]
Regardless of the answer, the right correctly categorizes the second progressive taxation structure as redistribution. As taxes (private property) are being transferred from one group of individuals to another group of individuals it is correctly labeled a welfare transfer. As it transfers property from a wealthier group of individuals (the rich) to a less wealthier group of individuals (the poor) it is socialist. As Marx advocated the redistribution of private property from the rich to the poor, or the capitalists to the working class, it is Marxist.
At any rate, the fundamental point I was making is that the left is logically inconsistent when it claims it seeks tolerance, diversity, and respect for only some specific aggregation of artificially labeled individuals (whether it be by race, gender, religion, income level, region, sex, or whatever). This is shown by its past historical action of passing differing tax rates on different groups of individuals and its continued advocating of unequal treatment for different groups of individuals. These have taken government policy forms of social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.
When the left feels they have the a priori right to tax away private property from any individual whatsoever the right regards this as having disrespect and intolerance for private property (to vastly varying degrees of course). The disrespect is compounded when property is taken from some groups in differing amounts. It is akin to the right using the state to prevent and punish homosexual activity. For the record, I believe unequal “benefits� granted to heterosexual marriage is intolerant and unjust non equal treatment under the law for all individuals who are not heterosexually married.
And that it the fundamental problem. The violent coercive political intervention of the state is used to benefit some groups of individuals at the expense of other groups of individuals. For the left to cry “foul� that the right is intolerant begs the left’s behavior. The left has premises and deductions galore explaining their agitation, not realizing that their political ambitions cause similar agitations on the right, when the "right" similarly uses the State to take and force what it wants. Respect is a two way street. Both the left and the right are guilty. Thus, I believe it is wise to limit the action of the state, to minimize its necessarily violent coercive action. But I do not forsee the left favoring the elimination of welfare, social security, medicare, and medicaid (nor the republican mainstream for that matter). I see them opposed to the consensual exchange of private property in their opposition to free trade which I regard as distastefully as advocating anything other than consensual sex when it comes to sexual relations.
Forcing any individual who objects to paying taxes for social security, medicare, medicaid, defense, etc. is no different than forcing individuals to fight a war in Iraq, denying rights to minority groups, discrimination by the state against artificially labeled groups of individuals. All of our values are subjectively ranked in differing orders of importance. That is so for every individual. Not using the state to politically force one's own subjective preference ranking of values on others is a true sign of tolerance and respect for diversity.
Posted by: rtr | December 8, 2004 08:39 PM
Published: December 8, 2004 8:40 PM
What a great blog. Without liberals to tell me, I might never realize how stupid I am. My personal favorite was the person claiming that being conservative involves so much cognitive dissonance that once people just can't stand it any longer, they'll realize the error of their ways and become liberals. I decided not to burst the guy's bubble by telling him I overcame the whole cognitive dissonance thing by becoming an anarchist. I don't see how the people on this blog will accomplish anything- they're essentially trying to figure out how to make the dumb, backward non-liberals realize how much they need to achieve the state of utter enlightenment that is being a liberal.
Published: December 8, 2004 10:18 PM
Books for classes: $400
Student Tuition: $20,000
Elite institution liberal professor's getting a free education: priceless
If I were one of the blog professors I would be shocked and awed by the numerous sensical quality of replies of libertarian and "conservative" bents on many different topics. Such is the power of the free market, especially when it comes to non-scarce ideas.
Published: December 8, 2004 11:31 PM
This is wonderfull.
Actually, the best thing for libertarians to do is engage in blogs like this, instead of preaching to the choir.
Who knows, perhaps you'll convince a few of these leftist professurs about some basic libertarian concepts -- or at least, convince those who read their blogs.
Tracy
Published: December 9, 2004 12:08 AM
From a poster in a discussion about charity:
"The money that is collected in taxes isn't your money, it is wealth belonging to the people collectively."
Where would libertarians2left&right even START on this one?!
Published: December 12, 2004 1:52 PM