The Timelessness of C.S. Lewis: 'tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive'

Photo Cred: Sigurdur Jonsson's flickr

Via My Old Man, from C.S. Lewis's essay anthology "God in the Dock" (1948):

My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

 (Emphasis added)

It's tough to make common cause with Progressives, for the libertarian ends I support (for instance, to legalize marijuana), when they fail to see any problem with the i-legalizing of things like soda over a certain size, or banning trans fats.

It's not helped by certain of my progressive friends, who call themselves libertarians (for contrarian, not principled, reasons), who believe their support for pot legalization and their 'why can't we all just marry who we love' attitude towards same sex marriage makes them libertarians.

Their position on these issues is buttressed by their support for an out and out expansion of the nanny state--especially Obamacare.

When confronted with the inconsistency of their position on these and other issues of the day, they (I kid you not) tell me, 'well, Obamacare is [editorial insert: not yet] as bad as the Iraq War, so there.'

These are the people who elected Barack Obama to a second term.

Sorry, buddy, wanting to be able to smoke your pot legally and thinking that your friends ought to be able to get gay married does not make you a libertarian--at least, not when you also think government should expand its services and increase taxes to support that growth.

That just makes you a liberal. Or a progressive. Which label you prefer makes no difference to me.

Cato: 'Your Bachelor Of Arts Is Worthless'

Be sure to check out this week's Cato series on higher education.

Education should not be made to suffer under a system like this, and neither should those who want to achieve something with their lives. You can read his proposals for education reform in this month’s Cato Unbound. Education economist Pedro Carneiro will have a reply tomorrow, economist Bryan Caplan of George Mason University will reply on Friday, and education policy expert Kevin Carey will have a follow-up on Monday.

Look, I'm not a strict libertarian, but I find that reading their stuff reminds me of things I take for granted: Like, everyone should go to college. Should everyone, really?

College--the 4-6 years many of us spend studying, something--has become a right-of-passage the way high school once was (you know, for everyone except the poor and minorities. ah, vouchers). But should it be that way? Does everyone benefit from attending college? Is a 4-year degree a worthy goal for everyone? Consider Charles Murray's questions:

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that often has nothing to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn’t meet the goal. We will call the goal a “BA.”

Join me, as we read the whole series and question our assumptions about high education.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

Radley Balko: Fiscally Responsible Gov't? Yeah, Right.

Balko is one of the guys who voted me maybe the 4th Best Conservative College Blog (sidebar: does anyone get that joke?). His prescription for The Crisis jives with some of the sentiment I expressed about the $700 billion bailout yesterday.

when congressional leaders and presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain call for more government oversight of our struggling financial institutions, go ahead and laugh. You know you want to. The idea that the private sector would be in better shape today if only we demanded more oversight from our politicians is preposterous. Our politicians wouldn't recognize "fiscal responsibility" if it spat in their ears.

Wall Street moguls may be "greedy," as both John McCain and Barack Obama have described them, but at least there are real consequences when their greed becomes excessive. They go out of business.

Balko is The Agitator.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

On The Bailout

Reader Victor S. writes:

The news today said the price-tag is going to be $700 billion. (That would be about $2333 per American, and on tv today one commentator suggested the price tag might go over $1 trillion. That price of $2333 is including everybody, including children, retired, and others who do not actively contribute to the tax base. That means that for those of us who do it will be much higher.)

This bailout appears to have approval of both parties.

I understand the argument that it will hurt the economy if these companies falter and fail. But look at the obvious. It will hurt the economy to ask every person fork over $2000+ (please, again, remember that those who are paying taxes will have to cover those who don't) just to save some companies who, apparently, made some bad choices.

What I cannot figure out is why they have to rush to get this approved.

A final thought; both parties seem to be supporting the President in this. Nobody can blame their political opponents for this one.

(emphasis added)

Republicans are starting to push back against the bailout because it seems to be the opposite of capitalism--anti-capitalism.

The conservative in me approaches this thing with caution. I think this problem was caused by bad Democrat-influenced policy through their campaign fundraisers, Fannie Mae & Freddy Mac. But just because the problem was caused by government intervention does not, of a necessity, mean that government is best suited to "solve" the problem.

In this instance, Democrat socialists will have significantly harmed the American economy only to accrue to themselves greater control of the economy as a result.

Any believer in free markets should be very skeptical of a government solution to this problem--especially when the problem was, at its core, caused by elements of the government. The tendency in crises like these is to want to do something. That is not always the best response.

The fiscal libertarian in me says, "let the banks fail and the market will pick up the pieces." That's my ideological response.

I'm prepared to be persuaded on practical and pragmatic grounds.


If you have tips, questions, comments or suggestions, email me at lybberty@gmail.com.

So you say you want a Ron Paul Revolution?

Yesterday as we drove through the greater Provo/Orem area here in Utah, we saw people in the process of putting up three garage-door size signs for Ron Paul. This added to an already large number of signs for the libertarian Presidential candidate.

Full of Mormons, Utah is generally considered to be a for-Mitt, by-Mitt, of-Mitt redstate. Not so. A quick google-search revealed a number of ardent Ron Paul revolutionaries (examples here and here). And a second look at the results from Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, showed good results for Paul--when compared to the amount of attention he gets from the MSM.

We believe Ron Paul has a generally positive influence on the Republican Presidential Primary. To us, his foreign policy beliefs seem irresponsible. Additionally, many of his domestic and economic politics appear extreme. But his positions force every other candidate to reconsider the importance of the small-government, libertarian wing of the Republican party.

Winning 10, 8, and 4% of the vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, respectively, shows how much his beliefs resonate with Republican and in some cases, Independent voters. He may be used as a punching bag in debates, but however ridiculed, much of what he says finds enthusiastic believers. His one day record take of over $5 million USD shows his supporters are willing to back up their votes with cash.

None of this would be possible if Paul were to run as a 3rd party candidate. He might take votes from the eventual Republican candidate, aiding in a Democrat win, but more people would resent him for that (Ross Perot) than remember fondly how he reminded Republicans of conservative fiscal policy.

We wouldn't vote for Paul and we disagree with those who predict a break-up of the Reagan coalition (fiscal & social conservatives, foreign policy hawks). George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George W. Bush collectively were not carbon copies of Ronald Reagan politically. In each instance, different wings of the Republican party were more or less satisfied with each President's (or candidate's) positions on a host of issues. But each time, the majority of each part of the coalition voted for the Republican candidate because they best matched their beliefs.

Such will be the case in 2008. By and large, each of the major candidates more closely matches the beliefs of fiscal/social conservatism & foreign policy hawks better than any of the Democratic candidates. The only concern is that one or more of these groups stays home on election day--not that they vote for the Democratic candidate. But the same thing that happened before will happen again--the Republican nominee will do what is necessary to solidify the support of the Reagan coalition. In the meantime, the longer than normal competitive primaries will help Republican candidates and voters alike to sort out what matters most.


If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.