The first example that comes to my mind is California Proposition 8, more commonly known as Prop' 8. For those who live under a rock and those who just haven't heard of the aforementioned, the proposition involved a popular vote in the state of California to decide whether or not to outlaw same-sex marriage in the state constitution. Now I don't believe government should have anything to do in the tradition of marriage, but considering it already is involved, I personally think that it should recognize all unions, both heterosexual and homosexual. On November 4th, 2008, it was announced that 52.24% had voted in favor of the proposition, supporting the banning of homosexual marriage in the State of California. The majority had voted for the suppression of more than two million people's rights (more than five percent of the population). In this fashion, the democratic process had undermined the liberty of a minority.
Of course sometimes the policies in place for several decades bring some inertia into the equation, and the democratic process fails to bring more freedom to a people. I'm thinking, for example, about the legalization, taxation, and regulation of cannabis in the state of California. The California Assembly Bill 390 was introduced in early 2009, and would change the policies of the state of California in order to regulate marijuana like alcohol, rather than like heroin. While 56 % of Californians have stated they favored the legalization and taxation of the substance in a recent poll, the policies in place don't reflect this popular decision, and probably won't for a couple of years. But the novelty of this majority is part of the issue, for it contrasts with seven decades of prohibition, and representative democracies such as the United States tend to cause a delay between changes in public opinion and changes in policy.
On the other side, too much freedom may also undermine, or should I say distort, the democratic process. Again, I will use the example of California Proposition 8. In this campaign, as in any campaign in today's United States, significant amounts of money were used by interests groups to support one side or the other. Churches and other organizations took part in the campaign to support the banning of homosexual unions, spending a total of forty thousand dollars to alter public opinion. On another, much more global scale, the mainstream media of the nation did not hesitate to attempt at persuading for or against the proposition, using the great influence they have on the population to change the outcome according to their view. Those campaigns play with the population's faith in the media to make the popular vote shift in a direction or another, and often, money becomes a crucial campaigning tool. Often, the power of ideas is replaced by the power of money, and many votes can be altered through a well financed campaigning effort. In this fashion, complete lack of regulation can lead to a manipulation of democracy.
As an international student, I can't help but compare the attitude of the U.S. media with that of other nations. In several European countries, such as France, there is a legal limit to the amount of money that can be spent on a political campaign. I'm not a big fan of government intervention in the media, but if properly set, that limit can enable the population to remain informed about the arguments of diverse positions without having to be flooded by political propaganda. In many ways, this limit enables the public to be educated without being manipulated. The U.S. can learn from policies in place in other nations, and while exporting freedom to other nation-states may not always be a good idea, importing a more democratic or a more free approach to an issue can bring out great outcomes.
Finding a balance between the people's voice in policy making and the extent to which government should not intervene is a complex and continuous problem, which involves myriads of factors and policies, and which is an essential part of sculpting a free democracy, and democratic freedom. In an era marked by the instantaneous sharing of ideas across borders and oceans, America is not an island, and using the templates of other successful nations may be the key to reaching the free society that every American deserves.
It is unfortunate that you portray this blog as libertarian. I was somewhat excited when I first found out about this but after reading some of these posts I find it very disappointing. Government regulation in funding iniatives is not libertarian. I have no problem if this is where your ideals draw you but don't deceive the readership by attempting to call yourself libertarian.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, one poster does not represent the whole group. That being said, though, I do hope you recognize there are varying degrees of libertarianism (even within the United States' understanding of the word). I do sort of make a point of this in my previous post on this blog. As Dragan Vojnovic points out, there is a complex and often contentious decision to be made between the balance of government regulation and intervention and the free market. If you took a survey of American libertarians, I doubt most would argue for a completely anarcho-capitalistic society wherein everything is completely left to free enterprise and laissez-faire markets. There is, I think, a wide disagreement about the precise balance. So while one might think it's completely admissible for the government to say corporations can't falsely advertise, another might not. And I think that's perfectly acceptable.
ReplyDelete"We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media..."
ReplyDeleteThat is from the Libertarian Party's website.
That being said, while I can agree that there are some varying interpretations in this party I must also say that it is dangerous to just put titles onto something regardless of the substance.
All of that is inconsequential though. I was merely pointing out my disappointment in what I personally (yes this is a subjective stance) was hoping for out of a proclaimed "libertarian" blog. I'll keep reading though.
Right, but how many people actually believe in the absolute right to free speech? Most people recognize some limits even on a fundamental right, such as freedom of speech. Most people, even libertarians, for example, don't support the incitement of violence. Most people, for example, wouldn't support the idea of allowing a company to air a pornographic commercial during a children's show. These types of ideas have typically been upheld by the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteSo the point I'm trying to make is there can be disagreement and being a libertarian doesn't mean the absolute dissipation of government, even in terms of communication, the media, political campaigns, etc.
I agree, though, minimal government interference is ideal. That should be the ideal for all libertarians. I hope this blog can be used to spread that message and I'm glad you'll continue reading.
When putting yourself forward as being a member of a party you are not subject to what most people actually believe. Democracy is not the rule when dealing with principles.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that most people would not support the idea of allowing a company to air a pornographic commercial during a childrens show but you think that it would happen without gov't? I'd be willing to bet that the tv station in question would probably regulate themself in this situation. Nitpicking? Yes, but just wanted to point out that the example isn't very strong.
As Benjamin clearly stated, not all libertarians agree on the degree to which government should be minimized. I see myself as a libertarian-minded individual, with many ideas and ideals similar to those of the American Libertarian Party, but I do not limit myself to party lines. My political views on Facebook are listed as "Free-thinking Libertarian," I don't blindly follow an ideology or a political party. Some might agree 100% with a set of ideas and positions, but generally, there are disagreements within members of a political group.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean that this blog is not libertarian? Does it mean that, considering I have some ideas that many libertarians might disagree with, I should be forbidden from posting here? I don't think so. Not all libertarians think the same, we only think similarly on several issues.
"...importing a more democratic or a more free approach to an issue can bring out great outcomes."
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat like the biased logic employed by the democrats when interpreting "all men are created equal." They would have us believe this means that all men should have equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity.
Putting regulations on the amount that can be spent on campaigns-or anything for that matter-does not make any person more free than they previously were. The decisions makers(i.e. voters) are not being restricted to find truth just because one side of an issue is funded better. The only party who's level of freedom is being changed is the spender of those funds.
Let me make this clear: by great outcomes, I never meant to imply that I thought all (wo)men should have equal outcomes. What was meant by that sentence was nothing more than was typed in the first place: that we could be better off using some of the approaches used by other nations.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't believe in most media regulations, I do agree with the French approach to the issue, where campaigning is limited to the policies, and where incredible amounts of money are not the main factor when deciding who wins or loses. In my opinion, which in this case is not very libertarian, I think the people are better off not being bombarded with negative campaigning and mindless propaganda.
While you, Anonymous, may not agree with the views in this blog, as Libertarians we believe in freedom, and that usually aligns with what our forefathers wrote.
ReplyDeleteJames Madison himself wrote a long paper about factions, in which he discussed the majority taking away freedoms from small minorities (such as the 5% mentioned in the above blog).
As a Libertarians Club blog, we have a variety of contributors which vary in age, background et cetera. This means that we appreciate the differing views that we can all bring to the table, through discussion of which can help each of us to formulate our own views.
Personally, I view the Libertarian paradigm as a lens through which I view the political world. Of course, the lens does sometimes fail, and at times, because of the view that government shouldn't intervene in most matters, it leaves me to make up my own mind on certain decisions.
As there have been very few occasions of over the last 150 years, government does sometimes need to intervene. However, on Dragan's idea, the media and spending will never curtail itself.
While Anonymous may be against this idea, it would allow for a freer flow of ideas in the media and in regards to politics in general. A spending limit (while it will never happen) would be good for Libertarians and bad for the two party system.
"A spending limit (while it will never happen) would be good for Libertarians and bad for the two party system."
ReplyDeleteAnd here lies the strange dichotomy between principles and implementation. On the one hand, as libertarians, we value individual "liberty" typically above all else. Yet, we are to believe that liberty can only be achieved through limiting liberty.
Also, in regards to this statement, do we as libertarians believe that freedom of speech should apply to all mankind or only when it benefits us?
"However, on Dragan's idea, the media and spending will never curtail itself."
I'm sure you've considered all possible variables when coming to this absolute statement, of course.
With regards to pornographic materials, I did think about that possibility after posting. However, I still think my point about inciting violence is still valid as is the point that most people, libertarians included, are also against the idea of using speech to threaten others. They believe threats should be illegal, even if that might violate one's free speech.
ReplyDeleteSo, again, this simply reinforces my idea that 1) not all things can be restricted and 2) even libertarians can disagree with the limits of rights and the scope of regulation.
There can also be a dichotomy between democracy and libertarian ideals. Certainly, I believe in both. But which am I to give precedence to when they are in conflict? If a community democratically wishes to ban fast food outlets from their community, or make restaurants label calorie content (against the restaurants' wishes), or even set limits on the amount of spending that political campaigns can use for television advertisements, am I supposed to dishonor the democratic voice or am I supposed to dishonor the libertarian ideals? Both are very much founded on principles. (Certainly there can be egregious examples, like if a community votes to kill a person they don't like. That, of course, wouldn't be acceptable because it violates the person's right to life. But can we say there exists a right to defraud or mislead consumers? That's a bit more strenuous.)
In response to Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Yet, we are to believe that liberty can only be achieved through limiting liberty."
Not at all, in a perfect world our freedoms would be preserved. However, there are those who work to take away our freedoms and quiet that freedom of speech we work so hard to obtain.
These people and entities, while trying to limit our freedoms, do not fight by the same rules as we do.
"do we as libertarians believe that freedom of speech should apply to all mankind or only when it benefits us?"
I am not sure how politically involved you are with the Libertarian party, but if you receive emails from them, you are aware of the difficulties they encounter just trying to get on the ballot in multiple states, even after having jumped through all legal loopholes.
It IS tempting to want to be vindictive and limit the freedoms of others, just to have the chance to let people hear our message. But it remains true that freedom of speech applies to all. And freedom belongs to all citizens. The unfair part of the money involved with campaigning lies in that a large portion of money donated to the two party system comes from third party interest groups.
In these people giving their money to get their own candidates elected, these candidates perform favors for corporations, churches, what have you. These are groups that don't necessarily represent the ideas of Americans, and yet their money, paired with media power, sway the American people to agree with their views (bandwagon, you've heard of it?).
It disgusts me that so many people don't vote, and even moreso that people vote without looking into what people really stand for. (for an expansion on my views on the two party system, see the first entry on this blog).
"However, on Dragan's idea, the media and spending will never curtail itself." ... I'm sure you've considered all possible variables when coming to this absolute statement, of course.
Alright, let me restate that.
Based on what I've learned in my introductory Philosophy class, one form of evidence is that past experiences can help you base your predictions for the future.
In the past, the government has grown in both size and power. I, based on circumstantial evidence, can expect this to continue.
In the past, the (mainstream) media has become more and more biased. (Now you get to choose which bias to watch.) I can expect this to continue and possibly get worse.
As of yet, there have been few to none (successful) attempts to lessen the power of the government or to present an unbiased view of the world.
Not to say that it would be impossible or that it will never happen, but as of yet, it remains highly unlikely, especially with the expansion of government power to health care and governmental control of the market.