I had “friended” a person on Facebook some time ago and have been commenting or “like”ing his status for some months. Not entirely sure how I ended up connecting with him, but he posts famous quotes regularly and it was a not entirely uninteresting snippet of the chaotic facebook flow. As an At Large Representative of the Libertarian Party the quotes were along not surprising lines, and as someone who has used the term “libertarian” to describe himself at times in my life there were some I agree with quite strongly. Others were further into the depths of anarchy than I feel is workable, so on those that I saw I would typically provide some commentary as honestly and politely as a Moose should.
Tonight, Mr. Wrights chose to engage me in “discussion”, if casting derision and personal attacks can be classified as such. I am not one to entertain that level of discourse with a troll on a political blog, but hearing it from a leader of a notable US political party was particularly interesting, however disappointing it might have been.
In response I have “unfriended” Mr. Wright. As a parting shot Mr. Wrights sent me a personal Facebook message, which I include below along with the Facebook thread in question and the introduction of my email to Bill Redpath, Chair of the Libertarian Party.
It is a sad day when any leadership member of any recognizable American political party behaves like an unruly schoolchild in public.
Letter to Bill Redpath, Chair of the Libertarian Party:
Mr. Redpath,I would like to draw your attention to a recent exchange I had with your At Large Representative Mr. R. Lee Wrights. I had come to be a Facebook “friend” of Mr. Wrights through a recommendation some time ago and had alternately noted my agreement or disagreement with quotes he posts to his “status” message on a regular basis.
This evening we had an exchange that resulted in my “unfriending” Mr. Wrights and which also in my opinion reflects particularly poorly on both Mr. Wrights and your party. I include both the facebook thread in question and the URL to it below, as well as a particularly insulting personal message Mr. Wrights sent me following my deletion of my connection to him in that forum.
As someone who has used the term “libertarian” to describe himself at various points in my life I find it reprehensible and disappointing that a Leadership member of the Libertarian Party would deport himself so poorly in public. Whatever action you and the board choose to take – if any – is of course entirely at your discretion, but for what it is worth I can only state that I would not be involved at any level with any sort of organization which would choose to place such a person in a position of leadership. As Mr. Wrights himself states, a truly free market will determine whether an individual or organization is successful. In my case I freely choose to remove your party and Mr. Wright from the group of organizations and individuals I would support with my actions.
I have written an article about this exchange – including this email introduction – at the following URL (http://www.motleymoose.com/diary/2218/r-lee-wrights-and-the-downfall-of-the-libertarian-party).
It will be my pleasure to receive any response you or your organization would choose to provide.
Regards,
Chris Blask
Facebook “status thread”:
R. Lee Wrights “Government regulation is nothing but a version of prior restraint, an imposition of burdens on market agents that they have done nothing to deserve, something that in the criminal law is forbidden by due process.” – Tibor Machan
3 hours ago · Comment · LikeChris Blask Have to disagree with this one.
“Capitalism is the engine that drives progress. Social regulation of capitalism is the governor that keeps the engine from melting down.” – chris blask
3 hours ago ·R. Lee Wrights Typical socialist response.
3 hours agoBrian Miller What is “social regulation of capitalism?” It’s basically someone else telling you that you should not be able to engage in a voluntary transaction with another person.
3 hours agoStephen Carter A typical socialist response wouldn’t give any credit to capitalism for all the great things it has done, and would only blame it for our downfalls.
Just food for thought.
3 hours agoChris Blask Thank you, Stephen.
Blanket labels like “typical socialist” of people you don’t know is a tool for fools, Lee. You don’t strike me as a fool, at least inasmuch as you seem to recognize the truth in many great quotes. Unless you are just working from a list, which itself would not be a laurel.
Our Founders recognized the truth of many viewpoints, capitalist and social alike. I bow to their wisdom in many of these issues.
Personally, I as entrepreneurial a capitalist as you are likely to meet. I have created startups and run multi-billion dollar businesses, and I think I might know about as much as is reasonably possible about the extreme necessity of allowing wide range to commerce for personal, societal and national improvement. But I also believe that pure capitalism without any regulation whatsoever is bad both for the society that hosts it and for the system of capitalism itself.
The point worth debating is whether a given approach at regulation is bad or good, with great specificity of argument. Whether there should be much or little – where and why. While my inclination is towards lesser regulation in general, that has to be predicated as a relative statement against some defined alternative.
I am not one to believe in absolutes.
2 hours ago ·R. Lee Wrights What you fail to see is, capitalism has it own regulation. It is called the market place, as long as the market is allowed to remain free. People will not tolerate bad goods or services; and thus, regulation is achieved through incentive to stay in business by offering superior goods and services. Artifical (government) regulation stifles the market and kills capitalism by driving up the costs of business.
about an hour agoChris Blask I’m sorry, but that is an overly simplistic statement.
As one example: monopolies. Capitalism can lead to monopoly through normal market forces. Monopolies in themselves do not have to be bad, but under most (all?) capitalist systems monopolies have to play by slightly altered rules. Without regulation of companies who find themselves in monopoly situations market innovation can be permanently stifled along with other negative market and social consequences.
Society and the market are also served by regulating honesty in trade. A pound of sugar must weigh a pound and must contain sugar. Some party has to externally arbitrate that.
If you take the meaning of regulation outside of the realm of simple business structure then you are talking about safety regulations. There is a social need to ensure that products on the market are safe for use – food is not poison, vehicles don’t spontaneously combust… Allowing market forces to punish vendors who make products that cost lives is (obviously) not good for the people who lose their lives to demonstrate the point, but it also inserts uncertainty into the markets and suppresses trade.
There is not a completely unregulated market in human history which is not embedded in a culture that no person would choose to live in given a choice between that one and this one. Those failed states where trade is completely unregulated also do not achieve effective market function, aside from their social consequences.
This country was not founded on unrestricted trade for a range of very good reasons. The balance of regulation and trade has been a key issue since before the Declaration, and while my liberal friends consider me rather blue-blooded on the topic I agree with the Founders that the optimal system imposes lighter restrictions on trade in general – but not none.
about an hour ago ·Brian Miller Here’s the funny thing… you don’t see the inherent contradiction, Chris.
Monopolies are created by government. Why? Because corporations are a fictional entity created by… government! There has never been a monopoly that didn’t get created by government in the history of the United States.
When people say “who will regulate the corporations if we have a free market,” they show that they don’t understand what a free market is. In a free market, “corporations” don’t exist.
about an hour agoChris Blask Oh for Pete’s sake.
So, Brian, no corporate entities – your solution is what, then? No registration of businesses at all? Anyone runs any sort of business without reporting its existence to anyone? I just get a lot of investors to put their money into my plan based on how I hold my head, and they take my word that some day I’ll be able to sell my unpapered company to someone else (with no way to define the value of the business I’m selling them or document that they now own it) and they’ll get some sort of return on their investment out of the sheer goodwill of it all?
And this is going to occur on this planet when, exactly?
about an hour ago ·Brian Miller Why do businesses need to be “registered?”
Why do “we” need limited liability — privatized profit with socialized losses?
Investors will invest based on whether or not they have an opportunity to make money and if the potential rewards outweigh the potential risks. Limited liability distorts risk by moving it to the middle class and creating a very wealthy elite that can profit with good investments and transfer losses on bad investments to the general population.
If you eliminate that dynamic, entrepreneurship takes root and everyday people get more rewards for their risks — while the ultrawealthy no longer get to unload their losses on everyone else.
Will it happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s undeniable that the skewed distribution of wealth, the creation of a permanent underclass, and the private profit/social loss problem are all directly tied back to the regulated corporate system you support.
about an hour agoL Reichard White If you want to see a very well-done left-wing case against corporations, find or buy “The Corporation.” Start HERE:
http://www.thecorporation.com/…
AND you can find a thorough prospectus here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…
49 minutes agoChris Blask @Brian I’ll answer your question directly.
“Will it happen?”
No.
@Reichard
Thanks for the link, but I’m not a subscriber to the notion that corporations (or businesses under any structure) are intrinsically evil. This is one of the mantras of the left that keeps me from joining their ranks.
The rise of businesses – in part due to the limitation of liability that modern business registration structures provide – is the source of all of the wealth that provides all of the sustenance (digestive and otherwise) we experience in modern society. It allows small businesses and entrepreneurs to create employment and innovations without all of the risk of unlimited liability (aside from negligence and crime).
Large corporations can and sometimes do cause significant harm – and this is an issue worthy of on-going consideration and remedy – but in my (perhaps skewed) perspective the good vastly outweighs the bad. Without the mechanisms of capitalism encoded in our national and global system of trade (including corporate entities) we might still have seven billion people, but I’m pretty certain they would mostly be illiterate and starving.
21 minutes ago ·R. Lee Wrights Chris amuses us all with, “Society and the market are also served by regulating honesty in trade. A pound of sugar must weigh a pound and must contain sugar. Some party has to externally arbitrate that.”
What nonsense. If you buy a pound of sugar but you get a half pound of dirt, you sue for damages and never do business with that merchant again. A free market will not tolerate such nonsense. No business will last giving poor goods and services… except government subsidized businesses or governments themselves.
18 minutes agoChris Blask Mr. Wrights. I have been a respectful viewer of your commentary and have offered kudo and commentary as I believed you deserved. Your attempt to cast me as court jester to your lofty judgement is insulting and demeaning – to yourself.
You may believe that your iterative regurgitation of other people’s words in some way makes you a wise man. Whether you are wise or not is in no way determined by your ability to repeat the words of others, it is if anything demonstrated by your ability to make intelligent statements of your own. Based on your comments in this thread I find no reason to support that supposition, if you are indeed wise I suggest that you reflect that wisdom upon yourself and make your own determination as to whether you measure up to your own estimation.
Good day, and good bye.
R. Lee Wrights Chris is not interested in honesty. He is obviously only interested in hearing himself type/talk. Chris has left the wall. I bid him farewell.
Personal message from Libertarian Party Representative At Large, R. Lee Wright:
Subject: R. Lee Wrights sent you a message on Facebook…
To: “Chris Blask”
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:17 AM
R. Lee sent you a message.——————–
Subject: Good riddance…I see you could not handle the heat of the truth so you choose to leave the kitchen.
You make me laugh.
——————–
Just makes you want to run out and vote Libertarian at the next opportunity, doesn’t it?
27 comments