- Most media outlets aren’t mentioning that those four people who found and reported that killer-kidnapper in Idaho were all armed, men and women both. (They didn’t confront the creep because even though they felt something was wrong about the man and the nervous young girl they didn’t realize until they got home who the two were.)
- First dog Bo is so privileged he may soon have to be named Incitatus. But even Caligula probably didn’t make Roman taxpayers fork over bux for his critter’s private progresses through the streets or a $100k per year handler.
- How Nixon ushered in an era of lawless presidents. Well, not that they were any too lawful even before that. But the early 1970s definitely brought us an acceleration of official evils.
- Another death by taser. But of course, there was absolutely NO police wrongdoing as we all know. Because tasers, as we were so heartily assured when they first came into use, would never be used except as life-saving devices when guns would otherwise be drawn. No officer would ever use a taser as a mere “control device” or retaliatory measure. And the villainous young artist had committed two capital crimes — drawing graffiti and running from a cop.
- Where were you when this happened, Mssrs. Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama?
- The U.S. now has a smarter-than-thou, 27-year-old nudge czar. Sigh. I’ve been wondering for a few years how long it would take for the godawful idea of libertarian paternalism to become the next
good bad-government fad.
- I hate joining in the conspiracy theories. I really do. But I don’t think there’s one chance in a thousand that Michael Hastings’ death was an accident. He had offended too many people in the UberGovernment and was about to offend a whole bunch more.
Hmmm, the first blatantly lawless President is Lincoln with all his ignoring the Constitution. All the rest simply took their cues from him since he was so “Great”.
Nudge czar, huh? At 27, I can just see how she’s an expert on life! How many kids does she have?
You will want to check with parents nationwide, to see what happens when you try to nag, bribe, or propagandize someone (with a brain and free will) into changing their behavior. This crap works so well. I give you exhibit A: Prohibition.
Maybe THAT’S why they’re emptying the prisons… so there’s room for those of us who eat chips, drink that one beer or glass of wine too many, and refuse to give up the coffin nails. I need to move to the moon for the next three years — this administration is bad for my blood pressure.
To the rulers, we are farm animals to be taken care of and “nudged” in the correct direction, like cowboys directing a herd. The thing is, to us, the rulers are a bunch of alien parasites sucking our blood and our life force.
Michael Hastings is destined to become one of the heroes of the Revolution.
Libertarian Paternalism – another name for “Friedman’s Creed” (Milton Friedman’s idea of liberty). To attempt to justify directing what choices others make is libertarian _elitism._ It’s bad enough from non-libertarians, but “libertarians” (are they?) should know better. Applying psychology to force people to think your way is not the libertarian way. Whatever happened to honesty in education?
The government and its sponsors want to control everything. If it requires co-opting libertarian ideas to do so, then so be it. A libertarian government would still be a government wanting some form of control over your life good intentions or not.
Shouldn’t that be “Nag Czar”? Or maybe just “Annoyatron”?
When you read the profile of the Nudge Czar, it would not seem unreasonable to presume that she is either Michelle’s or Barack’s girlfriend. But she does fit into the administration well. Liberal education, no job skills, no experience, no qualifications.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153148819110515&set=a.226491315514.290842.188355460514&type=1&relevant_count=1
Claire and Pat,
Over my head here but isn’t “libertarian paternalism” what we do when we try and convey the concepts of the founding fathers and change the thought process of the masses toward freedom and liberty?
Wrong for govt. but still a correct aspect of promoting freedom as it does not violate ZAP.
Not arguing, just asking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-08-13/government-just-spying-giant-peeping-tom-…-or-it-actively-using-information-m
Maybe they’re planning to do more than “nudge”.
Tahn,
I was under the impression we should be trying to educate what libertarianism is all about, and explaining history in a revisionist sort of way (since nobody teaches it right in schools any more).
“Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people’s choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice.”
I understand the authors to say we should re-direct choices by subtle psychological manipulation (or “steering”). Which, if successful, does eliminate freedom of choice, to my way of thinking. But I have little patience with psychological approaches when direct talk can tell someone what we want them to know.
Pat,
I barely made it out of high school but I believe that there are many different methods to communication. Mark Twain, Will Rogers and Jay Leno all have done a fine job of making people think without lecturing on the principles of theory.
I myself try to use sideways thinking when having discussions with liberals. Such as on gun control “What, you don’t believe in a woman’s right to choose..to keep and bear arms?” or “What, you don’t believe women should be physically equal to men” and so on.
“Equipped with an understanding of behavioral findings of bounded rationality and bounded self-control, libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people’s choices in FREEDOM-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice.” Same tool just a different goal.
Maybe I am missing something and no doubt I am but it seems just a tool to be used for good or ill. Turn it back on them.
Tahn – I use different approaches in debating too. But there’s more to that paper than just talk. While there’s no problem in how a libertarian may debate his idealogy, his _actions_ may be questionable here.
I still see the authors as trying to _manipulate_ what people think in order to swing them toward a given preference. It is concerned with “welfare” (of whatever nature the libertarian views that) and how to influence people to the libber’s pre-conceived idea of how they should act or respond.
I can see the Libertarian Party approving of this paper in order to achieve certain political goals, but I doubt that ZAP would. “MYOB!” is the _modus operandi_ of ZAP libertarians in a social structure, and there are definite interferences in people’s lives being suggested in this paper that ZAP would not approve. I think the authors are trying to talk around the ‘purer” libertarian position in order to justify _their_ position.
Tahn — You’re always such an original thinker. 🙂
I suppose, given a completely different definition of paternalism, your idea could work. But as long as paternalism means somebody’s in a “superior” position manipulating others “for their own good” … nope.
I’m with Tahn, although I go further. I’ve even argued at times we should not be trying to persuade people about the superiority of freedom:
http://strike-the-root.com/evicting-statist-within-us
Instead we should simply (as good panarchists) be arguing that we want to be left alone to go our own way. This can never be taken as an attack on a statist’s position. We want simple tolerance.
During the debates about Obamacare I’d as usual try to explain why it couldn’t work (old habits die hard) but at the end would tell whoever I was debating, “I hope you get socialized medical care, if you think that is right for you. I’d just like to be left out if you don’t mind. I don’t want to get it or pay for it. I want to go my own way.” That usually went over pretty well…
The best argument FOR liberty is example, not rhetorical flourishes or even logic. If I have debated somebody and mopped up the floor with him due to the logical excellence of my arguments, what does he think of me? Is he thinking, “Wow, that Paul sure is smart. I guess I will have to support liberty from now on?” No. Even if I was being as nice as possible, what he is really thinking of me is, “What an asshole.” 🙂 Like the old saying goes, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
If we can get them to leave us alone (a much more doable task than a complete change of their worldview), our example will convince them of the superiority and morality of liberty without our having to say a word.
Libertarians need to read Dale Carnegie:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376448609&sr=1-1
They should also read B. Liddel Hart:
http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Meridian-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0452010713/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376448667&sr=1-1&keywords=b+liddell+hart
Tahn, I suspect you’d agree that the most effective way to influence people, and definitely remain within the non-aggression principle, is simply to LIVE our philosophy and demonstrate our convictions by our actions and choices.
That’s what it has come down to for me. I still speak, write and urge people to consider the foundation principles as much as I can, but I concentrate on walking the talk and not worrying about changing other people. Those who have ears to hear will hear, but I’m not responsible for any of them.
In the end, if I was completely alone holding onto this NA principle… I would not consider my life wasted.
Paul, I couldn’t agree more. I studied Dale Carnegie, Zig Zigler and others for years as a professional sales rep. “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.”
Pat, I can see no way that using sales techniques to convince someone without using force, violates ZAP at all.
Claire, living in freedom, as you do, IS a superior MORAL position. We are trying to convince, not control. I can certainly see how the Govt. can misuse it but what can’t they misuse or abuse, when accompanied by force.
ML, I totally agree that setting an example is the best method. That’s why, years ago when I first felt nuclear/coal energy was bad, I unplugged and went solar, wind and wood burning. I believed we should all live a simple lifestyle so I moved to a small shelter in the woods etc. although I would never force someone else to do so. Right on Mama Liberty!
Love You All!
From Paul B; “During the debates about Obamacare I’d as usual try to explain…”
reminds me of a t-shirt I’ve been seeing lately
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.