Mailvox: why do what you do

Angelbeast expresses a degree of annoyance:

Forgive me for venting my frustration on you, but I’m finding you very long on pointing out the problems, but short on issuing forth viable solutions. If there are no viable solutions, why waste the time to vent? Why not just broker deals for nice houses in Beliz to those who see the coming sunami of doom ?

Or is there another reason you continue to point out the latest fallen brick from our nation’s spiritual wall? Are you trying to pull the last few out as firebrands from a fire? Do you even know why you post what you post?

While I am very sympathetic to Angelbeast’s point here, I take some issue with the notion that it is of no value to diagnose problems, regardless of whether or not one has a solution to offer. Considering how very few people currently agree with me with regards to the mere existence of the problems, still less their nature and extent, I don’t think that a continued focus on the problems is inappropriate.

While I have given a few solutions to various specific problems over the past few years, I find that I very much dislike the natural tendency of people to argue about solutions they find distasteful, especially when the solutions are largely theoretical anyhow. In any event, I believe that the larger problems we currently face are usually caused by the public and government reaction to perceived and pre-packaged crises, therefore the correct solution to most of these problems is to do nothing.

For example, the best short-term solution to the Iraqi problem is to knock off the heads of the various parties struggling for power and then pull out. The internecine strife will keep the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and Iranians busy for at least three years and quite possibly more. The best long-term solution to the terrorism problem is to admit that there is no solution for it, nor will there ever be as long as the existence of the terrorists gives our government an excuse to do what it seeks most, expand. (Umberto Eco wrote an essay about the symbiotic nature of terrorists and supranational interests called Striking at the Heart of the State back in 1983, describing it as a natural biological consequence of multinational rule.) The only aspect of it that can reasonably expected to reduce the terrorist “risk” is addressing the immigration issue (intermediate-term) and the demographic issue (long-term). Just to give two examples, anyhow.

Do I know why I post what I post? Not always. I don’t even know why I write the columns I write most of the time. Next week could be anything from an overdue interview with Tucker Max – except I still haven’t sent him the questions – to a critique of Ricardo’s defense of free trade based on comparative advantage.

I don’t have any particular goals here except to perhaps persuade a few people to open their eyes to what is happening around them. If history moves on waves of mass human emotion as the evidence suggests is the case, then there is very little that any individual can do except to pay enough attention to avoid sitting where the next big wave is going to land. Libertarians are supposed to be idealists, but I feel more akin to Juvenal than Jefferson, not so much dreaming of a better world as providing mordant commentary on the last gasps of a murdered Republic.