NationStates Jolt Archive

Comment: I think Perry is is only off to the extent that he underestimates the US radical center/centralists. Most Democrats don't relate to MoveOn, nor do most Republicans relate to Pat Buchanan, but
both groups seem to have ever increasing numbers of Central/Big Government regulation mongers. :headbang:

Understanding the Radical Centre (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/)
Perry de Havilland (London)

Guy Herber's excellent article The public mood (while the public moo-ed) (http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008648.html)got me thinking about the nature of the 'Radical Centre'.

The Radical Centre seem to have the same obsession with control that the fascists and communists had but unlike them, it is control for control's sake rather than in the service of some clear ideology: there is no Blairite or Clintonite (or even 'Bushite') 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'Mein Kampf'. They do not seek the triumph of Volk or the dictatorship of the proletariat, they just seek to replace all social interactions with politically mediated interactions. They seek to regulate everything via a total state that does not organise mass rallies or collectivise farms, it just wants a world in which nothing whatsoever is private, everything is political. Their symbol is not the Hammer and Sickle or the Swastika, it is the CCTV camera.

Perhaps this also explains the radical centre's transcendent hatred of the USA's system of checks and balances: the US Bill of Rights takes whole sections of civil society and tries to place them outside politics (free speech, the right to have the means to defend yourself etc.). Sure, it fails miserably as often as it succeeds but at least the notion that not absolutely everything is subject to politics is part of the American cultural DNA and that, rather than the US government's policy towards, well, anything, is what makes the US anathema to the Radical Centre (including the US Radical Centre).

The Radical Centre has also been called 'Authoritarian Populism' because it seeks to impose the popular will by force and it does not much care what that will is. Just as liberty for liberty's own sake is the objective of the Classical Liberal/Libertarian rather than some 'overarching narrative' as was the case with the radical statist left and statist right in the corpse filled 20th century, the Radical Centre seek control for control's own sake with no particular grand reason in mind other than to perpetuate a political class whose reason for existence is to make decisions about other people's lives.

The reason they dislike us (Libertarians) so much is that to attack regulatory statism is to attack these people's very reason to exist and we challange them on a profound psychological level. They need to control other people just as we need to control our own lives.

The Radical Centre is our demonic reflection.

This is truly the most idiotic comment anyone has ever made.

How is there a radical center? The center is supposed to be the middle ground between the two parties... I'm not going to vote for people who want CCTV cameras everywhere, and I don't really care what they call themselves.

To answer the question posed in your thread title (as opposed to the article), here's why the question "Why not just liberty?" is problematic.

There's a direct relationship between individual liberty and the level of complexity a society enjoys--the more complex the society, the less liberty the individual enjoys. Robert Wright's book Nonzero deals with the subject in great detail.

There's a direct relationship between individual liberty and the level of complexity a society enjoys--the more complex the society, the less liberty the individual enjoys. Robert Wright's book Nonzero deals with the subject in great detail.
And, yet, there isn't a direct relationship between how complex something is, and how useful/good for you it is.
Funny that.

And, yet, there isn't a direct relationship between how complex something is, and how useful/good for you it is.
Funny that.
And more often then not, the more complex it is, the more useless it proves to be. Also funny. :)

And more often then not, the more complex it is, the more useless it proves to be. Also funny. :)
Hey, if society wasn't as complex as it is, libertarianism wouldn't even exist.

Complexity in human interaction is a good thing, just as it is in evolution. And as with evolution, it's a natural process.

Hey, if society wasn't as complex as it is, libertarianism wouldn't even exist.

Complexity in human interaction is a good thing, just as it is in evolution. And as with evolution, it's a natural process.
Not always though. Complexity is good when it is needed. It can also go the other way, like a PC with a complex interface.

Hey, if society wasn't as complex as it is, libertarianism wouldn't even exist.
That's like saying that if it weren't for the flu we wouldn't have vaccines. Forgive me if I don't care for the cause so much as for the cure.
Complexity in human interaction is a good thing, just as it is in evolution. And as with evolution, it's a natural process.
In evolution, simplicty tends to win out: The simpler a machine/creature, the less likely it is to become damaged in some new, exciting, and ultimately lethal way. There is a reason for Occam's Razor.

Hey, if society wasn't as complex as it is, libertarianism wouldn't even exist.

Complexity in human interaction is a good thing, just as it is in evolution. And as with evolution, it's a natural process.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that evolution and government are two different things. Complexity develops through evolution to solve problems. Complexity develops in government to ??? I can't think of a rational word to fill in the blank. We know bureacracy is like a herd of rabbits; it will continue to reproduce itself until there is no more host to support it. So complexity in evolution is good. But complexity in government is counterproductive. Unless, of course, you just like government for the sake of government. I don't and I don't think Perry does.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that evolution and government are two different things. Complexity develops through evolution to solve problems. Complexity develops in government to ??? I can't think of a rational word to fill in the blank. We know bureacracy is like a herd of rabbits; it will continue to reproduce itself until there is no more host to support it. So complexity in evolution is good. But complexity in government is counterproductive. Unless, of course, you just like government for the sake of government. I don't and I don't think Perry does.

However, Government itself does. Government is a self propagating idea. It's practically an organism at this point, and it becomes whatever allows it to grow best. It's one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. One could probably make a convincing case that they have more moral value than humans.

However, Government itself does. Government is a self propagating idea. It's practically an organism at this point, and it becomes whatever allows it to grow best. It's one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. One could probably make a convincing case that they have more moral value than humans.
Lions are an organism, and they have developed in a way that allows them to thrive best. Yet, that doesn't mean the zebras should tolerate the lions efforts to regulate their population, nor does it mean that the zebras should accept a large amount of lions in the area.

However, Government itself does. Government is a self propagating idea. It's practically an organism at this point, and it becomes whatever allows it to grow best. It's one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. One could probably make a convincing case that they have more moral value than humans.
Next time I have to buy license plates in person, I'll remember that efficency is never a virtue.

However, Government itself does. Government is a self propagating idea. It's practically an organism at this point, and it becomes whatever allows it to grow best. It's one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. One could probably make a convincing case that they have more moral value than humans.
And manage so well to completely wipe morals out of the equation altogether. Yep, a higher being.

Lions are an organism, and they have developed in a way that allows them to thrive best. Yet, that doesn't mean the zebras should tolerate the lions efforts to regulate their population, nor does it mean that the zebras should accept a large amount of lions in the area.

True, but if one zebra can betray the others in exchange for immunity to lion attack, it makes sense for it to do so.

And manage so well to completely wipe morals out of the equation altogether. Yep, a higher being.

Most do.

True, but if one zebra can betray the others in exchange for immunity to lion attack, it makes sense for it to do so.
So that the lions may later ravage it? Furthermore, how is that morally superior? It sounds like forced protection.

And manage so well to completely wipe morals out of the equation altogether. Yep, a higher being.
But then that would make George Bush like Jesus, and I'm not sure if I'm quite willing to pursue that angle.

True, but if one zebra can betray the others in exchange for immunity to lion attack, it makes sense for it to do so.
But it makes even more sense for the zebras to band together that they might wipe out the lions and live in peace from their encroachment. I think I like the avenue of political thought this opens up, nicely anarchist.

However, Government itself does. Government is a self propagating idea. It's practically an organism at this point, and it becomes whatever allows it to grow best. It's one of the largest and oldest organisms on the planet. One could probably make a convincing case that they have more moral value than humans.
I'd really like to see the argument that government is growing in the best way for its host. That's the governed, right? We have seen totalitarian governments that can't provide for the population. We have seen elected governments that do a better job, but still leave people wanting more. And we've seen primitive governments that enslave their neighbors to do their bidding.

Somewhere there is an optimum size. It isn't the enormous government that we have in the U.S. Simple protection against force and fraud would be enough. Sure government grows, but as it grows, it continues to kill off it's support by overtaxation and overregulation.

But then that would make George Bush like Jesus, and I'm not sure if I'm quite willing to pursue that angle.
Try telling some people that he isn't Jesus. :eek:

But it makes even more sense for the zebras to band together that they might wipe out the lions and live in peace from their encroachment. I think I like the avenue of political thought this opens up, nicely anarchist.
Except the problem is Zebras have little change of surviving this. Maybe humans have the same problem with over-powerful governments. There is one difference though; Zebras are forced to accept the natural power of lions. Humans can refuse to delegate power to a government, which is an artificial entity.

But then that would make George Bush like Jesus, and I'm not sure if I'm quite willing to pursue that angle.


But it makes even more sense for the zebras to band together that they might wipe out the lions and live in peace from their encroachment. I think I like the avenue of political thought this opens up, nicely anarchist.

Issue is, the zebras don't necessarily need to value zebras above lions. If a zebra is able to gain the benefits the lions get by being smart enough, then why shouldn't a zebra exploit fellow zebras? As long as the zebra is able to get enough security and benefit from their position (threatening fellow zebras, etc.) it is in their interest to side with the lions against their fellow zebras. After all, would you rather be an individual living in an anarchy or a crazed dictator with a nation at your complete command? I know enough about you from past posts that I think you would enjoy that last prospect. The government can be a good thing, so long as you're the one that's in charge.

Issue is, the zebras don't necessarily need to value zebras above lions. If a zebra is able to gain the benefits the lions get by being smart enough, then why shouldn't a zebra exploit fellow zebras? As long as the zebra is able to get enough security and benefit from their position (threatening fellow zebras, etc.) it is in their interest to side with the lions against their fellow zebras. After all, would you rather be an individual living in an anarchy or a crazed dictator with a nation at your complete command? I know enough about you from past posts that I think you would enjoy that last prospect. The government can be a good thing, so long as you're the one that's in charge.
Exactly. :)

I'd really like to see the argument that government is growing in the best way for its host. That's the governed, right? We have seen totalitarian governments that can't provide for the population. We have seen elected governments that do a better job, but still leave people wanting more. And we've seen primitive governments that enslave their neighbors to do their bidding.

Somewhere there is an optimum size. It isn't the enormous government that we have in the U.S. Simple protection against force and fraud would be enough. Sure government grows, but as it grows, it continues to kill off it's support by overtaxation and overregulation.

It probably isn't in the best interest of most of its hosts, unless it knows what to do. But it is certainly better for itself and those who are able to exploit it. It's also better for the history books.

Try telling some people that he isn't Jesus. :eek:
I wonder if we've reached the stage where we get to nail him and his followers to trees yet.
Oh, and it seems I have just been added to my 2,000th watch list, tonight, making a new World Record and narrowly beating out the unfortunately named young Adolph "Allah" binLaden that I attended grade school with.
Except the problem is Zebras have little change of surviving this. Maybe humans have the same problem with over-powerful governments. There is one difference though; Zebras are forced to accept the natural power of lions. Humans can refuse to delegate power to a government, which is an artificial entity.
Zebras have numbers. Further (to return to the subject at hand), the people can eventually wield any weapon that the government has.

After all, would you rather be an individual living in an anarchy or a crazed dictator with a nation at your complete command? I know enough about you from past posts that I think you would enjoy that last prospect. The government can be a good thing, so long as you're the one that's in charge.
Shows what you know. I'd prefer the anarchy with plans to instate a dictatorship, power is nice and all, but it is the act of acquiring power that "fires the blood", so to speak.
Once you have something, no matter how great it looked while you were in pursuit, it quickly loses its charm. The struggle to ascend, however, is forever changing and forever rewarding. Sounds stupid, I know, but it is the nature of the beast.

I wonder if we've reached the stage where we get to nail him and his followers to trees yet.
Why waste perfectly good trees?

Zebras have numbers. Further (to return to the subject at hand), the people can eventually wield any weapon that the government has.
Numbers can only take you so far (in their case). :)

Indeed, anyone can enter government. However, there remains the issue of opposition forces within the government itself.

Shows what you know. I'd prefer the anarchy with plans to instate a dictatorship, power is nice and all, but it is the act of acquiring power that "fires the blood", so to speak.
Once you have something, no matter how great it looked while you were in pursuit, it quickly loses its charm. The struggle to ascend, however, is forever changing and forever rewarding. Sounds stupid, I know, but it is the nature of the beast.

No, it makes sense. Challenge is important, and while as a dictator you could fight against your inevitable downfall, it really wouldn't have the same feel to it. I agree that it would be much more fun to build "the new world order" than to just benefit from it. You'd still be reinstating the state, though.

Shows what you know. I'd prefer the anarchy with plans to instate a dictatorship, power is nice and all, but it is the act of acquiring power that "fires the blood", so to speak.
Once you have something, no matter how great it looked while you were in pursuit, it quickly loses its charm. The struggle to ascend, however, is forever changing and forever rewarding. Sounds stupid, I know, but it is the nature of the beast.
Blame that on human nature and a constant need for change contained therein. :)

Why waste perfectly good trees?
What's so good about them? When was the last time a tree let you borrow a $20?
Indeed, anyone can enter government. However, there remains the issue of opposition forces within the government itself.
Well, I was refering to getting nuclear weapons, machine guns, tanks, and that sort of thing. Government authority is less than worthless without an overwhelming amount of power to enforce it on people, and if the people have the same amount of power you do, then taxation will be (at least) a bit of a hassle.

What's so good about them? When was the last time a tree let you borrow a $20?
The tree could be the material used to make those $20. :p

Well, I was refering to getting nuclear weapons, machine guns, tanks, and that sort of thing. Government authority is less than worthless without an overwhelming amount of power to enforce it on people, and if the people have the same amount of power you do, then taxation will be (at least) a bit of a hassle.
Indeed. Without a "Hand of Justice" to enforce governmental power, it's worth little more than delegated power.

This is a Libertarian attempt to demonize their opponents while creating solidarity. By creating a large bloc of people who want Statism(automatically assumed as a negative in Libertarian thinking) for no good reason, you have created the greatest demon in Libertarian Canon.

Not only does it make possible to catagorize Atatists as nihlists with no legitimate ideology beyond curtailing our freedoms - and as such both crazy and evil - but by making this a big group of Anti-Libertarians, Libertarians can go 'Ah! Demonspawn! Libertarians... ASSEMBLE!' (or something like that) and create more unity.

As a tool of propaganda, I totally understand this 'Radical Center.' I have astronomical doubts about the veracity of the tales of its existence however, and seeing as this blogger didn't bother to back up this theory with, well... facts or even logic, I maintain those doubts.

And, yet, there isn't a direct relationship between how complex something is, and how useful/good for you it is.
Funny that.
Hey, if you want to be a hunter/gatherer living on your own without the benefits of society--you know, technology, modern medicine, education, political stability, all that good stuff--then by all means, go right ahead. Me, I'm willing to trade a bit of individual liberty for a measurably better quality of life.

Or maybe I'm just realistic enough to realize that the myth of the rugged individualist is just that--a myth.

Hey, if you want to be a hunter/gatherer living on your own without the benefits of society--you know, technology, modern medicine, education, political stability, all that good stuff--then by all means, go right ahead. Me, I'm willing to trade a bit of individual liberty for a measurably better quality of life.

Or maybe I'm just realistic enough to realize that the myth of the rugged individualist is just that--a myth.
You two are talking about different things being complex. Fiddle is erroneously referring to government. Complex government can never be good. Instead of talking about Zebra and Lions, you are talking about society. I think we can have a complex society, with all the things you mention, but without the complex government that overregulates and overtaxes the participants in society.

You two are talking about different things being complex. Fiddle is erroneously referring to government. Complex government can never be good. Instead of talking about Zebra and Lions, you are talking about society. I think we can have a complex society, with all the things you mention, but without the complex government that overregulates and overtaxes the participants in society.
Indeed. An ultraminimal government perhaps to provide order and that individual rights are respected, but little more beyond that.

You two are talking about different things being complex. Fiddle is erroneously referring to government. Complex government can never be good. Instead of talking about Zebra and Lions, you are talking about society. I think we can have a complex society, with all the things you mention, but without the complex government that overregulates and overtaxes the participants in society.
I disagree. The least complex form of government is the authoritarian dictatorship, from where I sit anyway. I'll take the complexities of a representative republic over that any day of the week. Yes, there can be a level at which government becomes so complex that it's a hindrance rather than a stabilizing force, but all you have to do is look at the history of the US during the Gilded Age to see what happens when there's not enough government regulation. No thanks--I'll take today's version over the one we had a hundred years ago.

I disagree. The least complex form of government is the authoritarian dictatorship, from where I sit anyway. I'll take the complexities of a representative republic over that any day of the week. Yes, there can be a level at which government becomes so complex that it's a hindrance rather than a stabilizing force, but all you have to do is look at the history of the US during the Gilded Age to see what happens when there's not enough government regulation.
The simplest form of government would be a one man despot who rules without assitance from anyone else, but that only works in very select circumstances; A complicated government would be a sprawling bureacracy based on obscure principles of advancement; republics, monarchies, and all the stuff that exists in real life lie about in the middle.
That said, complexity isn't a desireable trait, it is a definite negative in that it weakens the whole, but being "complex" is far from the worst thing that can exist.
No thanks--I'll take today's version over the one we had a hundred years ago.
Regulations of some sort are useful to make life manageable and reliable, but the wrong sort of regulations will make it worse. My original point was simply that just because something can be complicated and regulated, doesn't mean that it should be. Each tiny freedom surrendered should only be done so after every possible effort has been expended to ensure that the benefits will outweigh the costs, and the deal should be made only in the short-medium term, with a peaceful, legal and quick way of regaining the lost freedom.

Maybe my original point was poorly formulated, so I'll try again.

Our society is more complex than it was a thousand years ago, correct? I attribute this largely to the amount of specialisation in skills that we have seen, so to economic pressures, if you will. The sheer complexity of it all has given rise to various intellectual movements aimed at understanding and improving how we live together, and liberalism is one of those movements. Thus, a simple society, in which there are hunters, gatherers and priests for example would neither have liberalism, nor communism, or any other sort of developed political theory.

Secondly, looking at an extreme way, we are more complex beings than dogs. Dogs are more complex than frogs. Frogs are more complex than jellyfish, and jellyfish are more complex than bacteria. Being faced with new challenges, as humans are all the time, usually calls for some sort of specialisation to deal with them - and that increases complexity. The same thing can (not must, but can) be true of government: The more we create and learn, the more things there are that potentially could be improved, or sometimes have to be dealt with, by government. It's only natural that a government would expand over time.

That doesn't mean though that all expansion and complexity in a government is justified and necessary. It needs to be reviewed and occasionally trimmed, but to me it still seems like, in the long term, a government grows with society, moreso than seperate from it.

You can't have liberty all the time because liberties are mutually exclusive. There are freedoms to do things, and freedoms from things. Either you believe that you always have the freedom to do something, always have the freedom from something, or sometimes the freedom to do or from something. You can't always have freedoms to do and freedoms from something at the same time. This is why there are left wing and right wing groups who can both claim that they want the maximum freedom for people, it depends what type of freedom they're talking about.

I disagree. The least complex form of government is the authoritarian dictatorship, from where I sit anyway. I'll take the complexities of a representative republic over that any day of the week. Yes, there can be a level at which government becomes so complex that it's a hindrance rather than a stabilizing force, but all you have to do is look at the history of the US during the Gilded Age to see what happens when there's not enough government regulation. No thanks--I'll take today's version over the one we had a hundred years ago.
I don't think it's fair to compare the late 1800's to the present. There was a lot of chaos during those years as the ambitious rushed to take advantage of the westward expansion. Plus, there was the reconstruction in the South. That wasn't the best planned government effort, either.

The striking part of the "Gilded Age", to me, was the flood of immigration into this country. That has to make one think that conditions here were superior enough to whatever status quo existed in the country of emigration, that a family would make an all or nothing gamble on the U.S.

I'm not saying that the government was better during those years. I think corruption had already spoiled the republic. We need better than we have today. To find that, maybe we need to look a little further into our past.

Why not just liberty.... wow you are very silly.

Okay so everyone is free, hip hip hooorayyyy...
wait... what about Taxes and Welfare?
Oooh shit. your ideology collapses in one fowl swoop.

Comment: I think Perry is is only off to the extent that he underestimates the US radical center/centralists. Most Democrats don't relate to MoveOn, nor do most Republicans relate to Pat Buchanan, but
both groups seem to have ever increasing numbers of Central/Big Government regulation mongers. :headbang:
According to Perry, then, I am more "Classical Liberal" than anything else. Interesting.

Each tiny freedom surrendered should only be done so after every possible effort has been expended to ensure that the benefits will outweigh the costs, and the deal should be made only in the short-medium term, with a peaceful, legal and quick way of regaining the lost freedom.
Makes a good argument for Sunset Laws.

Makes a good argument for Sunset Laws.
I agree. I'd like every law passed to have a requirement that it be revisited every five years or so, just to make sure that it has worked the way it was expected to work. But that would require our legislators to, you know, actually give a shit.

I agree. I'd like every law passed to have a requirement that it be revisited every five years or so, just to make sure that it has worked the way it was expected to work. But that would require our legislators to, you know, actually give a shit.
You and I agree! :eek:

I don't think it's fair to compare the late 1800's to the present. There was a lot of chaos during those years as the ambitious rushed to take advantage of the westward expansion. Plus, there was the reconstruction in the South. That wasn't the best planned government effort, either.

The striking part of the "Gilded Age", to me, was the flood of immigration into this country. That has to make one think that conditions here were superior enough to whatever status quo existed in the country of emigration, that a family would make an all or nothing gamble on the U.S.

I'm not saying that the government was better during those years. I think corruption had already spoiled the republic. We need better than we have today. To find that, maybe we need to look a little further into our past.
Except that the Bush administration is quickly moving back toward that era in terms of business regulation--the Wild West has morphed into globalism, if you will. I don't think there's a hell of a lot of difference between the pre-crash Ken Lay and Rockefeller, other than the fact that there were still enough regulations around that Lay crashed. If this continues, we may see direct analogues between the robber barons and modern CEOs, and that woulod suck for anyone not high on the food chain. I like that working class lives aren't cheap anymore.

It may be that we're looking at this from separate points of view--for me, the important part is that any economy has to be regulated tightly enough that corporations and big businesses aren't able to run roughshod over individuals in their quest for greater profits. I tend to favor the worker and would like to lessen the gap between rich and poor. Because of that, I look at the Gilded Age as a heinous period in US history, and I think corporations are lucky that they got out of it without a bloodier labor revolt.

You and I agree! :eek:Yeah, you get one right every once in a while. :p