Comments on: WHERE IDEOLOGY MEETS THE ROAD

By: John Lemon

John Lemon — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I also sense a bit of postmodernist reductionism in Drum's comments. He wants a definition of "fist"? Yes, I know that this is in the rhetorical sense, but come on. Postmodernism puts all terms up for definition and debate, seeing everything (and I assume postmodernism itself) as a social construct. Following this logic to its conclusion, common sense falls away from policymaking and we end up with endless debates about semantics. Policymaking becomes almost arbitrary, with no firm starting point and no well-defined end.

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I have blogged some stuff on this here.

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Yeah, I meant "fist" metaphorically. "Fist" is simply the thing causing the harm, and that can be hard to define. Is the exhaust on my car a "fist"? Maybe....

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Yeah, I meant "fist" metaphorically. "Fist" is simply the thing causing the harm, and that can be hard to define. Is the exhaust on my car a "fist"? Maybe.... No it is not a fist, in that the danger it poses is extremely slight, at least from a single car and supposing somebody is not locking you in a garage with the motor running. What car exhaust is though, is an externality. That is something that has an impact (positive or negative) on your overall well being. As I have argued on the presence of an externality is, I think, a necessary condition for government action, but not a sufficient condition. Your "demand" that libertarianism provide some sort of objective decision rule in deciding such issues unfair because as you note no ideology provides an objective decision rule as you note. Libertarianism provides a point of view; one where the default is that the government should stay out until sufficient reason for government involvement can be shown. Also I caution about confusing libertarianism with Objectivism.

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Hmmm messed up that link and thus the paragraph as well (should've used the preview button). The paragraph should read:

As I have argued on my blog the presence of an externality is, I think, a necessary condition for government action, but not a sufficient condition.

There used the preview button this time...duh.

By: Robert Garmong

Robert Garmong — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

This is a bit of a tangent, but quoting John Stuart Mill with respect to political liberty, especially to a libertarian version of political liberty, misses the point of *On Liberty*. What Mill is after is an expansion of the idea of liberty to encompass "the moral coercion of public opinion," by which he means the application of noncoercive social pressure (such as boycotts and blacklists) to punish people for non-harmful conduct.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Robert,

JS Mill was a founding Utilitarian and the Harm Principle seems perfectly germane here. Steven Taylor quotes the relevant portion in his post (linked via TrackBack above). Mill talks about collective action, of which representative govt is surely one manifestation.

By: PoliBlog

PoliBlog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

The Harm Principle
James of OTB links to a thread started by Eugene Volohk and continued by Kevin Drum on the ideological underpinnings of libertarianism, and the "Harm Principle" in particular. For those who care, here's the origin of said Principle from John...

---