Umm, that might have been arms and not heads, come to think of it. Haven’t met the fellow, myself.
Martin? 
Please. Don’t let’s bandy about wild speculations as to my orientation. It’s just not germane. 
Hey Nano, would you like Elendil and the rest of us to just clear out of here, while you carry on this thread by yourself? We don’t mean to intrude.
Sorry. It’s the fuzziness. I’d better go shave, now.
Either way, wondering about fuzziness doesn’t help any of the issues, and your time would be better spent learning a bit of Greek.
While I’ll readily admit to a misspent youth, one thing I did see to then that I don’t regret now was the acquisition of a bit of Greek. Whether I truly took Dr. Johnson’s dictum to heart is for others to decide.
However, having seen to that, I now find myself with sufficient time to pursue fuzziness. And a rewarding pastime it is.
And since we’re all trying to be precise with our wording, I’ll add that I don’t so much wonder about Fuzzy Lib as worry about it. I do keep my Greek up–and not shaving helps give me time for that–but I do still believe that we should all not only worry about Fuzzy Lib but do something about it as well. An excellent start is determining where commonly accepted ideas come from. It’s no waste of time. If you want to help with the issues, it’s best to start with a thorough understanding of the issues. And as a student of Greek I naturally favor the Aristotelean procedure of first reviewing popularly held opinions on a given issue before offering a solution.[/quote]
I hate to post to these political threads, but I’m biting on this one.
I’m one of those fuzzy libertarians – I tend to think of it as moderate or pragmatic libertarianism. As an idealist, I think letting the free market take care of everything is a great idea, but in practice, markets are not free, and people are not perfect. For example, I’m all for free trade, but it has to go both ways – one country can’t have zero tarriffs and zero export incentives while another has both. Most importantly, I don’t think the market will protect the environment for a number of reasons. I believe it was Socrates or Plato who said something to the effect, A society composed of great men has no need for laws. Libertarianism, just as Communism, would function well if all the people were good, but face it, in any collection of a few hundred million people, there are going to be those who are lazy, evil, slow, or any combination of those not-so-desirable charactistics and many others.
I saw Harry Browne (LP candidate for president the last two elections) once, and I loved his approach to moderate libertarianism, as opposed to Andre Marrou’s (previous nominee) approach of pretty strict libertarianism. Browne’s basic philosophy is to rein back the Federal Government so that it’s operating within the limits of the Constitution. (This is one of the traditional American definitions of conservatism – a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.) The Constitution doesn’t ALLOW the Feds to do anything. There are a very few tasks the Feds are REQUIRED to take on, a few things that the Feds and States are BARRED from doing, and all of the in-between is what the States are ALLOWED to do.
Congress has abused the Interstate Commerce Clause so badly that even the Supreme Court has sat up and taken notice. A few years ago, as part of the Brady Law, I think, Congress said that no person may posess a gun within 1000 yards of a school. This was challenged, and was struck down, not on the basis that it violated the Second Amendment, but that Congress had abused the ICC. The Gov’t’s argument was that if a student were shot, this might hinder interstate commerce because this person would probably purchase something that had been transported across state lines. I think that’s pretty lame. But what’s even worse is that within hours of this decision Bill Clinton told Janet Reno to, “Find a way around it,” and continue enforcing this law. And even worse than that, I read a quote in the newspaper at least two years later from a sponsor of the original bill lauding the effectiveness of the law. Evidently the Government just completely ignored the Supremes.
Of course, the States are to blame to a great extent, too, for playing the game. I heard an interview with a school superintendent awhile back who said she was withdrawing from the “No child left behind” act. (Entire states are discussing this, too.) Her school system was getting $150K in Federal aid, and it was costing them $750K to comply. The schools where I live are among the best and wealthiest in the nation. Why are they getting Federal aid? And why are so many school systems continuing to have several employees who are paid just to write grants, and several more to ensure compliance with all the Federal requirements, just to get an average of 7% of their budgets in Federal aid? I think the net return in the vast majority of cases is negative, but I guess it helps employment.
Nano, do you have a Greek?
They’re all Greek to him.
Charlie, let me bite–well, nibble–at a couple of the points you raised.
As an idealist, I think letting the free market take care of everything is a great idea, but in practice, markets are not free, and people are not perfect.
Hayek certainly recognized that a precondition for any market economy is the rule of law. I don’t think that type of libertarianism really even needs to, or should, set up the “free market” as some unattainable yet ideal goal. The ideal, to me, is a just society based on law that reflects reality as it is, and thus allows for all types of human activity. Economic activity will, of course, always be one type of activity and a basically important one.
Most importantly, I don’t think the market will protect the environment for a number of reasons.
I tend to be in favor of letting markets work as freely as possible, but I certainly agree with you on this. The problem as I see it is the unwarranted assumption of what we could perhaps agree to call “ideologically oriented” or “doctrinaire” libertarians that the market will take into account all different types of human goods. The fact is that at least some people will job the system, beggar their neighbors, go for the quick buck, and leave a mess for others to deal with. I’m quite sure Hayek understood that.
Libertarianism, just as Communism, would function well if all the people were good, but face it, in any collection of a few hundred million people, there are going to be those who are lazy, evil, slow, or any combination of those not-so-desirable charactistics and many others.
Here I would quibble and side with Aquinas’ contention that even in a world not afflicted by original sin, government would still be a necessity. I think, however, that a bad system–like Communism–can affect even good people. I’m taking you to mean L & C in the ideologically perfect form–no government, only market operation or pure dictatorship of the proletariate.
May I ask a personal question: were you wearing Hazmat when you posted?
AAAARGH!!!
Invalid session notice AGAIN!!!
I had this nice, bloated screed to contribute, and it was, mirabile dictu, on topic! sigh
I was quite pleased with it, too. It wasn’t too self-serving, either. 
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will now observe a minute of silence to mourn the passing of Nano’s dear beloved, bloated screed.
Best wishes,
Jerry
(Interesting thread, BTW.)
sobs quietly
I’d like to return briefly to Charlie’s post, while Nano gets his screed back together.
The schools where I live are among the best and wealthiest in the nation. Why are they getting Federal aid? And why are so many school systems continuing to have several employees who are paid just to write grants, and several more to ensure compliance with all the Federal requirements, just to get an average of 7% of their budgets in Federal aid? I think the net return in the vast majority of cases is negative, but I guess it helps employment.
Bingo! I blush to admit this about my misspent youth, but in my law school days, after I’d finished two years and was engaged, I decided to get a job (one that paid better than clerking) and finish up at night. So I got a job at a federal welfare agency. Being young, I entered with a completely open mind. I was in the anti-fraud unit. But it didn’t take more than a few weeks to figure out that the real fraud was the program itself. What Charlie neglects to mention are the vast numbers of people at the receiving end: those who process all those grants application, monitor compliance and on and on. That’s where the real hit to employment happens.
But now back to the MAIN POINT.
Back in my last post I referred to Hayek’s recognition that rule of law is a sine qua non for a market economy (sorry, Bloomie, some things you just have to say in Latin). But that raises the question of: just what is law? I would maintain that law arose from the man’s attempt to put himself right with God’s cosmos. In other words, law reflects a religious vision: man’s place in the world. In the West, that means the Christian world view (Israel, Greece, Jesus, Rome, Barbarians, etc.), as we know it still. But in America, what we largely have is the Enlightenment version of Christianity: gentle Jesus meek and mild, turn that cheek again and again, love is all you need, etc. We can go into the merits of all that some other time. What I’m getting at is this: the Fuzzy Lib vision of a radical philosophical individualism (I’m OK, you’re OK, as long as you stay outa my face) ill comports with even the watered down E. version of C. Moreover, having rejected the metaphysical foundations of Christianity and its moral vision, in fact, having rejected all metaphysics, where do Fuzzy Libs get off acting as if everyone will naturally agree with those values? Well, Jim Stone is always here to point out the slippery slope that that kind of inconsistency leads to, but people being what they are, no one will reconsider until a major crackup occurs.
Jerry said:
(Interesting thread, BTW.)
Are those parentheses supposed to indicate when you’re speaking through a Hazmat face mask?
Mffph fumph gomrfeph.
Oh, Greek, eh?
Gone, all gone…rends garment
Basically it was about my conviction that examining issues and attempting critical thinking in informal social settings has dynamic merit, but now that I’ve encapsulated it, it seems a bit vapid.
Well, as I said at the start, this is intended as a come as you are thread. The choice of formal (Hazmat with black tie) or informal attire is strictly a personal expression issue. Call it a totally ambiguous social setting. Fuzzy.
Isn’t a screed something you fry in a pan, lightly breaded, with butter, and a sprig of parsley?
Nope, that would be a char.
No; I’m one of those people with a fear of conflict. It’s just not all that often that people will bring up a political point of view that is close to mine (current).