I have long known that Dave Weigel is one of those “bleeding heart” libertarian. These are the kind of libertarians I was when I was a libertarian: very concerned with social justice—left leaning, you might say. But such libertarians are still (1) libertarians and (2) wrong. Weigel showed this today by making a bit of fun at Alex Sink, Democratic Congressional Candidate Has Big Questions About Libertarianism. He notes, “It is not actually inconsistent to believe in small government as it pertains to economics and also believe in small government as it pertains to social issues.” Ha! That’s a good one!

One of the biggest myths about libertarianism is that it is for small government. This is no more true of them than it is for Republicans. Think about what kind of government institutions libertarians are in favor of. They believe in the military. They believe in copyrights and patents and other kinds of property rights enforcement.[1] And most of all, they believe in courts. This last one is the killer. In exchange for normal regulations, libertarians are for a legal system in which everyone is suing everyone else all the time. As a result of this, the true libertarian utopia would turn out to be one with a huge government doing things in the most inefficient way possible. It’s either that or system so unjust that the poor just give up trying to have their rights enforced. But that second kind of libertarianism wouldn’t be acceptable to the heart bleeders. So you’re only left with: big government.

Weigel wonders that anyone could still be unclear about what libertarians believe. He writes, “You think, what with all the attention paid to the Paul dynasty and to Edward Snowden and to the Koch family, that people basically understand what ‘libertarianism’ means.” Let’s look at that list. Snowden’s anarchist thinking has hardly been big news. I’ve been following him closely and it is only because I pretty much used to be an Edward Snowden that I understood where he was coming from.

What do the Pauls believe in? They are both anti-choice. So on the biggest social issue in modern America, they come down very clearly on the state intervention side of things. I’m more than willing to accept that a libertarian case against late term abortions can be made. Even middle term abortion. But first term abortions? No. And “citizenship begins at conception?” That idea is absurd.

But it goes further than that. At least Ron Paul believes in drug legalization. Rand Paul has only ever been willing to accept cannabis legalization. That’s not a libertarian argument: “You can do whatever drugs you want as long as it is one that I think is okay for you to use.” That’s the same old philosophy of liberal democracy, which is great. But it ain’t anything like libertarianism.

And the Koch brothers? Really?! I’ll admit, in a fundamental sense, they are libertarian: they care only and forever about keeping their taxes low and government regulation impotent. Regardless, they may talk libertarian, but when it comes to social policy, they are (Again!) anti-choice. As for the rest of their agenda, they might be for some libertarian social policy, but it doesn’t matter to them. They’re willing to allow gay people to marry, but if that gets in the way of their tax cuts, its true importance becomes clear. As Robert Greenwald wrote:

So I think we should cut Alex Sink a little slack. What libertarianism means in modern America is not the “pure” system that I’m sure Dave Weigel has constructed in his mind. Instead, it is what conservatives have been my entire life. Proponents talk about broad freedom, but they push economic libertarianism with social conservatism thrown in to get the votes necessary to get elected. My advise: Weigel should find a new name for what he believes, because it won’t be found in a major American political party, most especially the Republican Party.

Afterword

I am generally sympathetic to libertarianism. The fundamental problem with it is that it attempts to define an end point. One of the big ideas of liberal democracy is to work toward maximizing freedom. When I was a libertarian, I found that my work for the cause only led to more libertarian economic policy. So the rich got richer, but the poor, if anything, got less free. That’s not a bargain that I’m willing to make. I don’t see how a libertarian could look at Obama and Romney and think, “Romney will better maximize my freedom!” That’s just nonsense. That’s the thinking of someone who believes that freedom only applies to marginal tax rates.

[1] Some might take exception to this. It’s true that “serious” libertarians are very much against our intellectual property laws. But this is a minority, based upon my experience over the last thirty years. And notice how it leaves the door open to creeping government control. Suddenly, hunting down kids who are ripping DVDs isn’t an intrusion; it is just the government doing what a government properly does: protecting property rights! Once you start making those kind of arguments, you might as well be arguing for droit du seigneur.

I haven’t had anything to say about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) up until now. The truth is that there isn’t a lot to say. It is yet another trade agreement and that is pretty much always a bad idea in an economy that is as unequal as the one we have in America today.

The issue is quite simple. Under ideal circumstances, such a deal would allow more trade so that both sides would get richer. And in an economy with relative income equality, those extra riches would be broadly shared. But in an economy such as ours, almost all of the extra money would go to the owners of capital. Of course, these people are already doing as well as they ever have. So why are we even bothering with such a deal? Surely we could better use our resources.

We know why there is a big push for the TPP, of course. The rich want it. Now I’m not saying that just because the rich want something that means it is bad. But it is most clearly the case that we are not discussing the TPP because a bunch of politicians got together and decided that it would be broadly beneficial for the nation. And it turns out that—Get ready for a surprise!—the TPP is not broadly beneficial for the nation. In fact, it is estimated that within 10 years, the TPP will increase GDP by 0.13%. In other words, a negligible amount that will be so far in the noise as to not even be measurable.

As Dean Baker has discussed, we already have relatively few barriers to trade with the countries involved. So if the deal isn’t about reducing barriers to trade, what is it about? “Rather the point of the deal is to put in place a structure of regulations that will be more friendly to the large corporations who are in many cases directly part of the negotiating process.” Mostly this is exactly the opposite of free trade. It is an effort to make pharmaceutical companies and Hollywood studios even more wealthy.

The big thing about all of the “free” trade deals that we’ve signed over the last few decades is how targeted they are. It is always middle and lower income workers who are put in direct competition with cheap labor over seas. It is never doctors and lawyers. So while the wages of the poorer classes go down, the cost of living stays high because these politically connected rich folk can’t ever be forced to compete globally. Add to that increased prices on drugs and entertainment and you’ve got an outrage that isn’t discussed in the mainstream media. It is outside the Overton Window. It is just assumed as God given that trade agreements should only affect the middle class and never the upper class, except in so much as it enriches them.

Of course, if the TPP passes, it won’t be a big deal. It will be a huge windfall for certain industries and companies. But for the economy generally, it will just be another step in our long journey to neo-feudalism. But it is interesting that at the same time that Obama is supposedly focused on income inequality, his administration is working—largely in secret—to negotiate a trade deal that will push more money to the wealthy at the expense of the rest.

The whole thing highlights what I am most focused on in the area of politics. When it comes to economic issues, we don’t have anything like liberalism in the United States. The Democrats are conservative and the Republicans (in as much as they make any sense at all) are revolutionary. The sad thing is that it looks like our only chance to stop the TPP is via the revolutionaries. The Democratic Party is so used to thumbing its nose at the liberal base, I don’t think it matters how much we yell and scream about this.

Afterword

This does not mean that we shouldn’t yell and scream about the TPP as well the administration’s efforts to fast-track it. Do yell and scream! Raise your voice. Write your Congress members. This is important. Above all, it is important the Democratic Party understand these economic issues are the things that really matter to us as well as the rest of America. If they want us to show up and vote for them, they have to offer more than a handful of liberal social issues. And last time I checked, same-sex marriage isn’t a liberal issue. It’s an everyone issue. (Freaks aside.)

I do wish all the world would shut the fuck up about the “heroin epidemic” that is underway in the United States. Is there a heroin epidemic? No. Heroin use seems to have been on the rise for the last decade or so, but there isn’t anything especially dramatic about its rise. Drug use waxes and wanes over time, just as do all human behaviors that are not physical necessities. But all day long, I’ve been treated to scare articles about how many people are using heroin and how many people are dying from heroin and this new super potent heroin. I want to rip my fucking hair out.

It is sad that Philip Seymour Hoffman has died of what looks like a heroin overdose. He has a long history with the drug. I don’t doubt that there is some amount of psychic pain that is involved with all of this. I also don’t doubt that this had something to do with his skill as an actor. When I recently saw A Late Quartet, I thought that Hoffman’s highly emotional performance seemed pretty close to the surface, as though there wasn’t a great deal of difference between actor and character. But I gather that is true for a lot of actors. Regardless, audiences always seem to want great artists but are intolerant of what they see as their non-productive habits.

Can’t we leave this man in peace? He was a fine actor. But now he is being turned into an unwilling spokesman for the “ain’t heroin awful” campaign. This is, of course, the campaign that seems only interested in “helping” addicts by throwing them in jail. And it is only sad when a junkie dies if he’s famous. The truth is that junkies die all the time and no one gives half a fuck about them. In fact, as I’ve argued at length elsewhere, most people just want junkies to crawl away and die so the society doesn’t have to deal with them. And the legal status of the drug and the treatment of its users bears this out.

What’s going on with Philip Seymour Hoffman is the same thing that goes on with heroin users all over the nation. He is losing his individuality in order to paint him as the face of heroin addiction. But he’s a lucky one. I suspect that in 20 years, he will be remembered for a handful of movies he made. That is as it should be. This media blitz will not last. But that doesn’t make it any less disrespectful. And here I’m not just talking about Hoffman. I’m even more focused on all the heroin users who just don’t matter to anyone in the nation except in so far as it can vote for another “three strikes” law or another “get tough on crime” politician.

I would much rather people just admitted that they didn’t care. After all, would it be any less sad if Philip Seymour Hoffman had died of cancer or in a rock climbing accident? And in my experience, when people start talking about “heroin epidemics,” their solutions are most likely bigger penalties for drug crimes. When I see someone riffing off Hoffman’s death for the purpose of providing greater access to methadone treatment, I’ll be on board. But that’s not what I’ve seen. And I’ve been following this stuff for over two decades.

Dave Weigel wrote a very good article over at Slate today, Bill O’Reilly, Asking the Wrong #Benghazi Questions. In it, he goes over why conservatives are so focused on exactly what the administration said about the attack. Bottom line: they have a very simplistic take on the attack. In reality, a number of things led to the attack, and the very first thing was anger about the video. But in the right wing media, there is no room for nuance. It was either entirely about the video, or there was an administration cover up. This is indicative of a level of intellectual immaturity that ought to shock the nation. But instead, it is business as usual.

O’Reilly went into the interview thinking he was going to blow the lid off the conspiracy by getting to the bottom of what the very first thing Secretary Panetta told him. It’s just pathetic. But no one bats an eye. It’s just to be expected even though it was just slightly less ridiculous than Alex Jones asking the president when he’s going to send in the black helicopters. Of course, O’Reilly had similarly “clever” traps set regarding Obamacare and the IRS non-scandal, where he pressed the long debunked talking point about the IRS chief bing “cleared into the White House 157 times.” Somehow, this is all acceptable.

Bill O’Reilly is often called out for his bad journalism. This is because he wants to be accepted in polite company. He wants to be allowed on The Daily Show. So his argument is that he’s just an entertainer—just a clown. And that he’s not a hard news guy; he’s an opinion guy. The rules are different for him and Hannity. But when it is the turn of Fox News to do the pre-Super Bowl interview with the president, no “hard news guy” is available and so they send in the clown. Funny that.

I should be clear: I think we as a nation show far too much deference to the president. So I don’t have a problem with a reporter being direct and asking tough and tenacious questions. I was, for example, thrilled with Carole Coleman’s interview with Bush the Younger. I would argue that what O’Reilly has now done twice is not that. The whole point of his interviews seems to be to signal to his audience his disdain for the president. But regardless what he’s trying to do, O’Reilly would certainly be against it if anyone were doing the same thing to a Republican president. (And yes, I am well aware that O’Reilly claims to be independent. He also claims to be pro-choice. He flatters himself that he is something other than a right wing ideologue. He isn’t.)

But what I really don’t understand is why President Obama agreed to do the interview. It isn’t like pre-Super Bowl interviews are required in the Constitution. I understand that Obama has nothing to worry about being interviewed by a mediocrity like Bill O’Reilly. And Obama did indeed destroy the angry pundit. But it soils the office to have someone like O’Reilly get to do his interruption and innuendo infused interview. There is no way that the president can be that close to the intellectual filth that is at the center of Fox News without being soiled himself. An interview with Bret Baier or Chris Wallace would be okay, I suppose. But Fox News has said what they think of the president by allowing a joke pundit to interview him. I don’t see why the White House is okay with that.

Matt Yglesias made a keen observation about the State of the Union address, Sorry, Equal Opportunity Isn’t Good Enough. It’s about how both Obama and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (in her “response” to him) focused on “equality of opportunity.” It’s true: people just love the idea of opportunity. It’s like motherhood: no one is against it. And as such, it is meaningless to talk about.

Yglesias focuses on the general idea that just because someone is born slow and stupid doesn’t mean they should be relegated to a short and painful life. There is something fundamentally wrong with that idea. Just the same, you don’t want to give everyone the same amount or a random amount of wealth. This would suck the vitality out of the society. Incentives really do matter.

The randomly distributed wealth example is a good one. I think it is more or less the system we now have. I know that conservatives want to think that money stays in certain families because of great genes. But that isn’t my experience. I find that people’s abilities are mostly due to their environments. Look at Bush the Younger. There is no doubt that born to poor or middle class parents, he would not be rich. Yglesias discusses the random distribution case and notes that it would provide bad incentives for people. That’s true. And I think we are seeing much the same thing in our economy. People don’t generally think, “I’m going to work hard at this entry level job because I want to be Bill Gates!” They think that the entry level job may lead to a reasonable life. But that expectation is looking more and more like wishing to become Bill Gates.

It does seem to me that Yglesias poses the question right. There are two things that we are trying to maximize: fairness and incentives. An economy where everyone gets the same would not provide anything in incentives. An economy that allowed a small group to get the vast majority of wealth would not provide fairness. We should look for something in the middle that provides both fairness and incentives. I don’t have the ultimate solution as to what that might be. I’m not even sure there is a single system. But one thing is certain: our society is tilted entirely toward the incentives.

What’s especially bad is that if Bill Gates were worth only $30 billion instead of $60 billion, I don’t see that he or anyone else would feel more incentivized to work. There is a point of inequality past which we don’t get any extra incentives. And we are well past that point in the United States and in the world. So our society could provide a whole lot more fairness without losing any incentives for the young up-and-comers. Truly, I think a 99% tax on wealth above a billion dollars would have no negative effects on the society. But clearly, less extreme measures wouldn’t.

I like Yglesias’ framing of the issue. But there is a deeper issue: there cannot be anything close to equality of opportunity when absolute equality is so far out of whack. This sets up a situation where the children of the rich get every conceivable advantage, even apart for actual cash payments. This is not a meritocracy. This is, as I’ve discussed before, inviting the poor in to play your Monopoly game after all the properties have been purchased. I wish we could cut the crap, but that seems unlikely. Conservatives argue about these issues the same way they argue about global warming. First they argue that there is no inequality problem. Then they argue that there is inequality, but the real issue is mobility and that is fine. Then they argue that equality just means laws that specifically stop people from doing something. Then they argue that mobility doesn’t matter. If they were honest, they would just admit that they like the way things are and they have no reason.

The bottom line to all of this is that talk of opportunity is a distraction. We all believe in it. Hooray! We don’t ever have to talk about it again. But if we really care about it—if we want to provide it to everyone—we need to do something about inequality. This isn’t class warfare. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is an effort to lessen class distinctions. Regardless, discussing opportunity without income and wealth inequality is just lip service. It means nothing.