Renegades!

Strangelove: Libertarianism + Society

No one ever accused Libertarians of being boring.

They can be dyed in the wool entrepreneurs who happen to hate paying taxes, highly paid individuals who resent all forms of collectivist thinking, or even free spirited good timers who don`t appreciate the government intrusions into their lives. The actual character of the Libertarians themselves is relatively unimportant, although they appear to be intelligent and well versed in Ayn Rand`s writing and philosophy. Despite their background or opinions, they agree on one thing: government must be stopped or dismantled completely. This is the essence of Libertarianism: a certain contempt for the organization of a nation and its rule of law.

Libertarianism, as an ideology, may never explicitly state this, but it is certainly implied. Libertarianism itself asks that no laws be imposed in a criminal court, but that all disputes be rectified in a civil court. Individuals would theoretically motivated by a `personal interest` (aka: potential monetary loss) not to act against others in a criminal way. All actions would technically be `legal`, but would be subject to civil trial. This presupposes that all individuals have a in-depth knowledge of the law, and that lawyers would be readily available for late night domestic disputes where they could convene a court on the front steps of the trailor park for an instantaneous monetary rectification. Instantly serving muggers and car theives for their court dates would prove more challenging.

But what Libertarianism lacks in practicality, it makes up for in idealism; That is part of the allure of Libertarianism: it is served by its own utopian mythology that has served similar ideologies like anarchism or pre revolution bolshevism. It is hard to argue against libertarianism when the imperfect but functional reality that is the welfare state is compared to the perfectly operating nirvana of the libertarian state. `Of course this government program doesn`t work-it`s operated by a government...if only there was a Libertarian state to rectify this`.

Of course, in reality, there are countries where the central government has been displaced and what is feared even in the deepest recesses of Libertarian thought has become a reality in these states-mob rule. While most reasonable Libertarians deplore what might happen, and state that `This would never happen in a real Libertarian state` the practical application of the idea (the ultimate test of theory) has become a nightmare. Ethiopia, arguably the most chaotic of any state on earth, has descended into a nightmare where the absence of government has formed a power vacuum where the monopoly of violence once owned by the government is now farmed out to unaccountable henchmen and warlords. The same situation is being played out in West Belfast where terrorists effectively rule through coercion and propaganda as the state has backed off and left Catholic areas in the hands of the IRA.

While the term monopoly of violence is quite an ominous term, and implies a somewhat negative connotation (monopoly, a la Microsoft or Standard Oil) it is quite a benefit to the individual. With a monopoly of violence, the democratic government is the only one held accountable for the violence and its uneven application. A parallel power that amasses the strength outside of the law to impose its way on the masses is not accountable at all, and acts as alternative fascist state waiting to take over in the event of a toppled or depleted government.

If Libertarianism has been a failure in application, what should we make of its greatest champions? One can almost imagine Ayn Rand bristling under the Soviet behemoth as the complete anihilation of individual rights was completed for the subservience of the state. It is no surprise that her conclusion was that the complete opposite of the personal hell of communism was the utopia of libertarianism, where the state held no hold over the individual at all. Her personal experience validated her philosophy, and for that she cannot be judged too harshly. She brought an interesting and informed viewpoint forward and staked out a political space she felt was valid and brought many people to her position.

Milton Friedmann on the other hand, has much to answer for. While he may not be considered a Libertarian in the political sense, he is one of the greater apologists for anti-government animosity in the US, and could be considered the most high profile apologist of the anti-government crowd at the moment. Friedmann has been an award winning economist for some time and there is no doubting his intellectual power. His opinion is rightly respected and he is a giant of the times we live in. If we see farther in the future, it will be because we have stood in his shoulders. In light of this, we should at least examine the actions of Friedmann over his career.

In the height of the post-Allende coup, a group of youngish alumni from the University of Chicago economics students brought in Friedmann to help plan the Chilean economy. At this point it should be carefully considered: if Friedmann really thought that government had no place in the lives of individuals, why was he serving the interests of a violent dictator? If he didn`t think that the policies of the government would make no impact, was he simply there for a holiday and a pay package from Pinochet? The answer is obvious: Friedmann knew that the rule of law, combined with the establishment of capital institutions by the government would provide the make up of a balanced and successful capitalist economy that would eventually lead to a democratic and prosperous state. He was right, of course, and Chile has emerged as a shining light in the sometimes dark continent of South America.

Allan Greenspan, for his part, was an early convert to Rand's ideology, penning an anti-regulation essay in 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'. Greenspan has come to see the light that government controlled central banks and a healthy regulatory environment promote stability and prosperity. Greenspan has come full circle: From anti-regulatory renegade, to becoming (arguably) the world's most powerful regulator.

Apart from Libertarianism`s problems with application and its sometimes inconsistent proponents, it suffers from another more serious affliction-it basically rules out any of the debt we owe to each other as humans. Libertarianism might say it is immaterial what is owed, and that this `debt` is in the area of buddhist raver theory. Any single individual who succeeds and does well in this life, does not only owe his or her success to their own `great work and determination`. Anyone who had done well has had others who were more than willing to do more than `what the market required` to see that any successful individual did well.

Who set the conditions for the successful types who want to break their ties of responsibility to others? One thousand years ago, there would be no choice for 99% of Libertarians to do anything other than tend to a farm (not that there is anything wrong with that). Was it only the self-interest of others that created favourable conditions for today`s individuals to thrive? Of course not. Millions have died for our freedom. Millions have suffered for their progeny. We are born into the debt of others who have created the favourable conditions for us to succeed.

Of course the debt to each other in a society is often paid back in terms of the tax we pay. Libertarianism, in its quest to break free of government ties, has advocated the idea that `tax is theft`, and that breaking tax laws is in fact acceptable since the government has commited the crime of robbing citizens of their income. While a libertarian would find no argument from this writer about the fiscal irresponsibility or governments in general and the waste they generate, simply opting out of tax laws has its own ethical issues. Tax evaders might be heros in Libertarian writing, but the opting out of tax paying means that the tax burden is left to a smaller law-abiding majority. While some Libertarians may enjoy the social benefits of society while avoiding the legal duties to pay tax, a smaller chunk of the working world picks up the slack with relatively higher taxes (all else being equal).

Forgetting all other criticism for a moment, the basic purpose of a government or state is to protect its people, defend the collective interests, and improve the standard of living. It might be flawed in many of its attempts, but is it worth dismantling just to marginally increase the freedom of the individual? Even if you agree, the rational outcome will be a chaotic mess of competing free mercenary interests looking to impose order for monetary gain. Without a government, we are unable to act to defend ourselves (how many people can personally afford a tank), unable to pursue foreign interests, and unable to care for those around us effectively.

For all the problems associated with Libertarianism, it is not evil or malignant. Its basic premise is promoting personal freedom and individuality. Libertarianism provides a the unique perspective of an ideology that is both pro peace and anti government spending. Libertarians are naturally the friends of fiscal conservatives and should not be disaccociated from their natural allies. It is not likely (it is hoped) that a Libertarian revolution will overcome the west, although it will not be without the help and strength of Libertarians that government will become increasingly accountable. Libertarians are critical of the governmental waste of the west, and despise the imposition of the government`s will when it burdens the individual. These are healthy attitudes that serve to remind others when our governments have overstepped their bounds.

While fiscal conservatives and Libertarians will never agree on their end goals, there is no reason to believe that there will ever be a reasonable choice between these two visions of the role of government. Just as there are forces that disagree on the fine details of the left, but unite for strength and numbers, the Libertarians and fiscal conservatives should stick together for influence and power.

posted by Shamrocks! @ 10:32 PM 7 comments

Japan: Population And Policy

For the last 500 years, the population growth of many countries was seen as a given. In Japan, the massive population explosion of its islands was especially pointed. In the 1702, Tokyo (Edo) registered 1 million inhabitants, and 300 years later the population has grown over to over 30 million. Today though, there is a general panic in some quarters about the state of the nation. While a new emphasis on the appearance of youth masks the true state of the younger population, it's clear from census material that Japan is headed for a clear meltdown, with a huge elderly population weighing down the rest of the population: By 2050 the UN estimates over 42% of Japan's population will be over 60.

In Europe, the short term solution has been to import foreign youth from former colonies to take up positions in low skilled work. Europe, having only a mixed record on assimilating their immigrants, is facing significant challenges in meeting their population needs. Europe, for better or worse, has always been a part of the larger Euro-asian landmass, meaning that immigration flows from the east to west has been a factor. Ancient arab races once moved far west in great numbers, bringing flutes and strange garb that later became the bagpipes and kilts of Scotland.

Japan, by contrast, has been insulated by the "God's Wind" of typhoons that cast the Mongolians and Chinese back to the mainland. There is no history of massive migration to Japan, and no positive history of interaction with Japan's neighbours besides Taiwan. Refugees face a long process of internment and certification before they can stay in Japan, while most foreigners face significant challenges in attempting to stay in Japan. The government encourages snooping and informal reporting on foreigner activity; There are significant and legal glass ceilings on the hiring of foreigners for higher level jobs; There are no foreign communities to support new immigrants. Japan regards its social solidarity and homogeneous nature as a positive aspect to their national character.

In fact, the only time Japan has imported a foreign population was during World War 2 when Japan imported slave labour from Korea to work in Japan's war machine. While most Koreans returned to the peninsula after the war, small communities reside outside Osaka and Japan. These communities are completely insulated from the larger Japanese nation: They refuse in many cases to learn Japanese, have their own schools, and are not hired to work outside "Little Korea".

There is hope for Japan in this regard, however. Japan has long integrated the best of foreign ideas into their own national character because of the flexibility of the Shinto creed, which emphasizes taking the integrating of superior ideas of other nations into the Japanese culture. Shintoism encouraged the integration of Buddhism and Confucianism, and lead the Japanese to start integrating the industrialization that brought prosperity to the west. If immigration and the integration of foreigners becomes a must, Japan might be able to draw on this flexibility to incorporate pluralism into its national character.

In regards to the fertility rates, Japan is very unique in terms of its causes. While in the west, feminism and individualism are seen as two movements that encourage a lower rate, in Japan these movements are very weak in comparison. Japan's movement towards lower rates might because of higher education rates for women (when a woman might be her most fertile), and a far less religious population. In Japan, there is no bible belt of rural communities that usually have larger families to boost the overall population. Most Japanese live in close quarters in small apartments, with a child seen as a huge expense in terms of money, space and standard of living. While poorer societies see children as insurance in old age, Japan's rates of savings and wages see older Japanese being rich and pensioned without need for many children to look after them.

In addition, the Japanese have a system of Ie, that sees the oldest male of the family being the patriarch of the family. Generally speaking, the eldest males are seen as the ones most highly regarded and are given the lions share of respect and resources of a household. Ie also stipulates that the nuclear family, so prevalent in the west, is not the norm in Japan. Older family members, having gained the respect and resources of the youth, will be a burden in terms of needing support of the pensions but also in terms of space in already crowded homes.

The Japanese might not be able to fix their population problems in a generation, and there is no general feeling of crisis amongst the people: they are relatively rich and content despite the low growth in the economy. The government is being proactive in some respects, but using silly schemes to boost the domestic population by boosting romantic walks for couples in areas like Nara and Kyoto.

A key factor that has to be addressed is the lack of viable living space in most communities. The Japanese could start pushing its population into more rural areas like the northern island of Hokkaido with tax incentives and the development of cheaper energy resources allowing central heating for the northern communities, making these areas infinitely more hospitable. Japan also has to start looking to immigration as a viable alternative, and start preparing the people of the island to accept outside cultures. If Japan's policy makers are unable to address this problem of population decline, there will be a social crisis and possibly a face off in the legislatures as the monied and populated elderly vote for proposals that will be unpopular to the under 60 set. And as any student of Japan will tell you, while the Japanese surface emotions are usually stoic in nature, the bubbling undercurrent of passion that spills over in times of crisis is usually an eruption of repressed feelings that reveal themselves with explosive results.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

posted by Shamrocks! @ 5:52 PM 0 comments