Voting, Moral Hazard, and Like Buttons

Anti-Statism, Democracy, Libertarian Theory, Vulgar Politics
Share

I was reading Sarah Lacy’s “If You’ve Got Social Media Fatigue, UR DOIN IT WRONG” on TechCrunch and was reminded of a passage from Henry David Thoreau’s seminal essay “Civil Disobedience” that I discuss in chapter 6 of my dissertation.

First the passage from Lacy’s article:

Sometimes metrics can be a bad thing and beware of any so-called “social media consultant” who tells you otherwise. What’s the value of a Retweet or a Like? It’s roughly the equivalent to sitting next to someone during a keynote who nods his head at a salient point. Someone hitting a button in front of them is hardly a heady endorsement—nowhere near the impact of someone calling you to tell you about a story he read. That actually takes more than one-second of attention and work.

This reminded me of the moral hazards of voting in electoral politics and Thoreau’s likening it to a sort of gambling with morality:

All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote.

With this last sentence Thoreau is no longer really speaking of voting, as becomes clear later on when he writes “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence.” He is advocating civil disobedience and participatory democracy.1


  1. For more on participatory democracy, see chapters 6 & 7 of my dissertation 

Voting, Moral Hazard, and Like Buttons Read Post »

Regarding Libertarian Strategy: A Reply to Ross Kenyon

Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory, Statism
Share

Although I find Kenyon’s analysis of the radical socialists interesting, ultimately I disagree with his categorization of libertarianism’s 3 options:

  • Libertarians can allow themselves to be absorbed into the Republican Party and work to expand the Liberty caucus.
  • Libertarians can abandon the Republican Party to work exclusively through the Libertarian Party.
  • Libertarians can jettison electoral politics altogether and refuse to be governed by majoritarianism and statism.

The first one will happen to the Tea Party movement. The second one is not workable, as the author admits.  Nothing can be done about either.  As for the truly radical approach, we are not violent revolutionaries and are never going to be.

What’s missing from that article is something fundamental — people get the government they deserve.  We need to make this country deserve better.  If a choir chants “we” in chorus, it is still the individuals speaking.  Unless libertarians actively change individuals, society will not budge.

Regarding Libertarian Strategy: A Reply to Ross Kenyon Read Post »

Article: What Libertarians Should Learn From Radical Socialists

Anti-Statism, Articles, History
Share

Ross Kenyon analyzes the radical socialist movement of the Progressive Era in an attempt to discern why they failed and how libertarians can learn from their failures in order to create the ideal libertarian society today.

Ross Kenyon is a news analyst with the Center for a Stateless Society and a senior at Arizona State University, where he is majoring in American History and is a member of the ASU Students For Liberty leadership team.

Read the Full Article by Ross Kenyon

Afterwards, discuss it below.

GJA5QE4ZF9YK

Article: What Libertarians Should Learn From Radical Socialists Read Post »

“But without intellectual property . . .”

(Austrian) Economics, Business, IP Law, Technology
Share

The next time someone claims that not having intellectual property laws will squash the little guy and let established companies rule the day, I’m going to remember to bring up Netflix. Mike Masnick at Techdirt reports on Blockbuster’s recent decision to file for bankruptcy — after the heroic Netflix has stolen most of their customers:

Late last week, there were a ton of press reports about how Blockbuster was preparing to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September. It’s not shutting down, but just trying to restructure its debt, get out from under a bunch of store leases and try, try again. That said, this is yet another example of the fallacy of the claim of many that if you have a good idea some big company will just come along, copy it, and be successful. It also demonstrates the huge difference between idea and execution.

Netflix had a good idea and executed well on it. But for years everyone thought it was only a matter of time until the company got destroyed, because all these bigger (at the time) companies were just going to copy Netflix and win. First it was Wal-Mart. The retail giant started a service that seemed almost identical to Netflix way back in 2002. Everyone thought there was no way an upstart like Netflix could compete with the likes of Wal-Mart. Fast forward two and a half years and Netflix took over Wal-Mart’s online DVD rental business, because Wal-Mart’s offering couldn’t compete. …

And, of course, there was Blockbuster. It came out with a Netflix-like offer around the same time that Wal-Mart did, and while it held on for much longer, it was just never able to build up the same sort of userbase that Netflix did, and now the company is going to declare bankruptcy and try to restructure once again.

More at the link. It just goes to show that when you give people a little liberty, you never know what someone will come up with. A giant like Blockbuster or even WalMart can spend as much money as they’d like trying to copy an innovative, well-executed idea, but at the end of the day, the one who best pleases consumers will rule.

“But without intellectual property . . .” Read Post »

Scroll to Top