I think the reason why it is difficult to convince blacks of the benefit of limited government is best summed up in the exchange you had at the 46-minute mark. You said you'd be in favor of no taxes for blacks as a form of reparations, as long as it also applied to other groups, and the host replied "Nah nah - I ain't givin' it to nobody who ain't black." Blacks understand very clearly that the current government directs vast amounts of wealth to the black community and are simply not going to give that up.
Unless there is some kind of resentment to "identifying as black" that drove that. But see how easily they embraced it. It's perfectly consistent with libertarian strategy as outlined by Rothbard to divert talk of reparations to abolishing the income tax for blacks. What could go wrong, if it happened, we have our foot in the door for the rest.
My point was that they embraced it only because it is a clear giveaway for blacks, and not because they agree that the income tax is unfair. They would aggressively oppose doing the same for whites because they understand that whites' taxes pay for black benefits.
Trying to convince blacks is ridiculous strategy to advance liberty, even more quixotic than Trump's constant appeal to blacks which won him barely 12%. It's absolutely ridiculous, and we should heavily criticize anyone who suggests it.
Matthew Murphy is correct here. Every move against the state is a positive move. If we start limiting support for those who support libertarianism completely, then we will never have the heft to counter the state. This was Rothbard's view.
Maybe you only catch a couple that will further the anti-tax concept but that is a bonus to all who will start thinking, at least for themselves, in terms of anti-taxation. And if taxes are eliminated for African-Americans, how is that going to sit with whites? The movement grows!
You're incorrect because this would not be a move against the state. Rather, it would be a move designed to gain further support for an oppressive state with a specific group (blacks).
When the US military occupies a country with various warring factions, privileges are given to the faction that sides with them. For example, their poppy fields will be left alone while their enemies are destroyed with air-dropped herbicides. This allows the occupation to cement its control by currying favor with some part of the population. It has zero to do with the liberty of the favored group.
If we had Ron Paul as president with a congress full of Paulian Republicans this move *might* make sense. But that isn't the case. The motive of the current regime in any such reparations scheme would be very clear and certainly not in the direction of liberty.
A large part of the reason libertarianism is in the state that it is is because most people who identify as libertarians have zero understanding of what power is and how the state maintains and enforces its power. It's far more sophisticated than just being a "gang of thieves write large". Peter Quinones does a decent job of explaining power dynamics to libertarians if you're interested.
Well, of course we understand that's not what *you* were trying to do by putting forth those ideas on the show. My point was that that's what the state would be trying to do by giving blacks a special tax exemption. Because this would strengthen the state, not weaken it, it cannot be considered libertarian.
I think it's important to understand the difference between liberty and a granted privilege. In the US, being able to used the taxpayer funded roads is not a liberty, but a granted privilege. So long as you stay within the state-defined rules of the privilege, it *feels* very close to liberty. You can get in your car and go anywhere you want. However once you step out of those rules (for example, by failing to pay state-mandated child support, or not paying licensing fees) then you see the truth - that this privilege is actually used as a mechanism of control.
As the US continues to move further away from liberty, expect more and more of these conditional state-granted privileges for those who toe the line. They aren't libertarian and should be opposed. I look forward to your separate post.
What a sad echo chamber. Wenzel was like a triggering hand grenade in there. People won't go anywhere in life if they constantly blame their failure on someone else. What a sad way to live: just constantly angry at another ethnic group.
When you see that appearance (race) is included in the description of the issue being analyzed, you just know the "solutions" arrived at will be deeply identity-politics oriented, and will not involve an even-handed, objective discussion and application of economics. It's all about keeping score, between Team Black and Team Other-Than-Black...instead of just assessing whether Team People has in the aggregate been enriched and given access to greater opportunities. Frustrating, too, the shop-worn myths, cliches and tropes that continue to be embraced ("African-Americans today, because of system racism, have to struggle to get loans, get housing, get jobs"). Jesus. The 1950's South called and wants its Civil Rights Era struggle back.
I think the reason why it is difficult to convince blacks of the benefit of limited government is best summed up in the exchange you had at the 46-minute mark. You said you'd be in favor of no taxes for blacks as a form of reparations, as long as it also applied to other groups, and the host replied "Nah nah - I ain't givin' it to nobody who ain't black." Blacks understand very clearly that the current government directs vast amounts of wealth to the black community and are simply not going to give that up.
ReplyDeleteUnless there is some kind of resentment to "identifying as black" that drove that. But see how easily they embraced it. It's perfectly consistent with libertarian strategy as outlined by Rothbard to divert talk of reparations to abolishing the income tax for blacks. What could go wrong, if it happened, we have our foot in the door for the rest.
DeleteMy point was that they embraced it only because it is a clear giveaway for blacks, and not because they agree that the income tax is unfair. They would aggressively oppose doing the same for whites because they understand that whites' taxes pay for black benefits.
DeleteTrying to convince blacks is ridiculous strategy to advance liberty, even more quixotic than Trump's constant appeal to blacks which won him barely 12%. It's absolutely ridiculous, and we should heavily criticize anyone who suggests it.
Matthew Murphy is correct here. Every move against the state is a positive move. If we start limiting support for those who support libertarianism completely, then we will never have the heft to counter the state. This was Rothbard's view.
DeleteMaybe you only catch a couple that will further the anti-tax concept but that is a bonus to all who will start thinking, at least for themselves, in terms of anti-taxation. And if taxes are eliminated for African-Americans, how is that going to sit with whites? The movement grows!
You're incorrect because this would not be a move against the state. Rather, it would be a move designed to gain further support for an oppressive state with a specific group (blacks).
DeleteWhen the US military occupies a country with various warring factions, privileges are given to the faction that sides with them. For example, their poppy fields will be left alone while their enemies are destroyed with air-dropped herbicides. This allows the occupation to cement its control by currying favor with some part of the population. It has zero to do with the liberty of the favored group.
If we had Ron Paul as president with a congress full of Paulian Republicans this move *might* make sense. But that isn't the case. The motive of the current regime in any such reparations scheme would be very clear and certainly not in the direction of liberty.
A large part of the reason libertarianism is in the state that it is is because most people who identify as libertarians have zero understanding of what power is and how the state maintains and enforces its power. It's far more sophisticated than just being a "gang of thieves write large". Peter Quinones does a decent job of explaining power dynamics to libertarians if you're interested.
This comment completely misses the point of what I was trying to do.
DeleteThe primary goal had nothing to do with attempting to gain support of a "specific group (blacks)."
I will be doing a separate post on this which discusses what was going on.
Well, of course we understand that's not what *you* were trying to do by putting forth those ideas on the show. My point was that that's what the state would be trying to do by giving blacks a special tax exemption. Because this would strengthen the state, not weaken it, it cannot be considered libertarian.
DeleteI think it's important to understand the difference between liberty and a granted privilege. In the US, being able to used the taxpayer funded roads is not a liberty, but a granted privilege. So long as you stay within the state-defined rules of the privilege, it *feels* very close to liberty. You can get in your car and go anywhere you want. However once you step out of those rules (for example, by failing to pay state-mandated child support, or not paying licensing fees) then you see the truth - that this privilege is actually used as a mechanism of control.
As the US continues to move further away from liberty, expect more and more of these conditional state-granted privileges for those who toe the line. They aren't libertarian and should be opposed. I look forward to your separate post.
What a sad echo chamber. Wenzel was like a triggering hand grenade in there. People won't go anywhere in life if they constantly blame their failure on someone else. What a sad way to live: just constantly angry at another ethnic group.
ReplyDeleteWhen you see that appearance (race) is included in the description of the issue being analyzed, you just know the "solutions" arrived at will be deeply identity-politics oriented, and will not involve an even-handed, objective discussion and application of economics. It's all about keeping score, between Team Black and Team Other-Than-Black...instead of just assessing whether Team People has in the aggregate been enriched and given access to greater opportunities.
ReplyDeleteFrustrating, too, the shop-worn myths, cliches and tropes that continue to be embraced ("African-Americans today, because of system racism, have to struggle to get loans, get housing, get jobs"). Jesus. The 1950's South called and wants its Civil Rights Era struggle back.