Randle McMurphy v. Ennis Del Mar
“If you can’t fix it, Jack, you gotta stand it.”
–Brokeback Mountain
Arnold Kling wonders whether libertarians who “agree” to live in high-tax, high-regulation, anti-freedom regimes aren’t a bit like the patients in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Kling recalls the scene in which the protagonist, Randle McMurphy, is shocked (sorry, poor word choice) — um, surprised to learn that his fellow confinees are self-admitted and can simply flee the cruel, sadistic tyranny of Nurse Ratched any time they like.
Somehow, I thought there was a connection between that scene and libertarians complaining about the decline of the U.S. Constitution while showing a revealed preference for living with the abuses of power that take place.
My response at that blog:
Huh? How is “libertarians don’t riot in the streets” (or move to — um, where?) a revealed preference to anything?The correct analogy would be if Nurse Ratched showed up uninvited at a libertarian’s home, ordered him to lose weight, throw out his porn, use compact fluorescent bulbs and pay for her mother’s pension and eldercare, and then he said, “Eh, who cares?”
But of course that wouldn’t happen. The libertarian would act — because he could.
Compliance at the point of a gun is not “revealing a preference” for being robbed.
Who’s right: Me or Kling?
—
Another commenter at Kling’s post:
There are some choices that libertarians can make. They can move to places that are more libertarian. Move from New York to Wyoming, for example.
First, New York and Wyoming are hardly perfect substitutes — just ask Matthew Shepard’s mother.
Second, why is it the burden of libertarians to “pack up and move” whenever their rights are infringed? A prerogative, perhaps, but not a burden. And how is choosing not to do so an indication of some contrived libertarian “hypocrisy” or “moral failing” or “revealed preference”?
Similar Posts:
- On Beasts and Breasts
- Which States Have the Best/Worst Tax Policies?
- Anti-Gay Bigotry Roundup
- AMT v. PAYGO: Either Way, Democrats Lose
- Questions
Filed under: Uncategorized
I think you're correct. Until there's a perfect libertarian destination, every location will involve tradeoffs. New York has high taxes and regulation, but there's far more culture. I remember something about libertarians recognizing that all tastes and preferences are subjective. The evaluation of trade-offs between living under one non-liberty-minded local government as opposed to living "free" in the wilds of Vermont qualify as subjective.
Your last point is correct. Far too often our society places the burden on the sane to explain why we should reject a default position of insanity. I play the game because I want results, but I won't let that point pass unchallenged.
That patients in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest have no hope of overthrowing Nurse Ratched and replacing her someone better. The same is not necessarily true of libertarians who choose to live in liberty-unfriendly places.
All these supposed "libertopias" have lots of odious government regulations in areas that harm lots of us (especially gay people), and they have no functioning economy for people who desire an environment to use their skills in a thriving market.
Wyoming isn't New York. In fact, making a living in Wyoming would be almost impossible for the average New Yorker.
I'd argue that libertarians who head to those jurisdictions are the ones in denial — trying to scratch out a living in poverty while insisting "the sacrifice is worth it."