A majority of Americans believe taxes and government spending are too high, and a majority now supports marriage equality. Unfortunately, one party tends to favors greater economic but not personal freedom (with exceptions, such as gun-ownership rights), and the other tends to favor greater personal freedom (with exceptions, such as speech deemed to be offensive) but not economic freedom. Is there an opening for libertarianism?
In an answer to this question, David Boaz, the Cato Institute’s executive vice president, engages in a discussion with The Atlantic on “America’s Libertarian Moment.” Among his observations of particular interest to this forum:
I think you’re seeing a growth of self-conscious libertarianism…. [A] majority of Americans think our taxes are too high, a majority of Americans think the federal government spends too much, a majority of Americans think it was a mistake to get into Iraq. A bare majority of Americans now favor gay marriage, a bare majority favor marijuana legalization, a huge majority think there should be a requirement to balance the federal budget….
We would say that the issue of race in college admissions and the issue of equal marriage rights in the DOMA case are both applications of equal protection of the law. We actually had a similar experience 10 years ago, in 2003, when we were the only organization to have filed amicus briefs in support of Lawrence in Lawrence v. Texas [the case that struck down sodomy laws] and Jennifer Gratz in her lawsuit against the University of Michigan [for its affirmative-action policy]. There were a lot of gay-rights and liberal groups on our side in the Lawrence case, and a lot of conservatives on our side with Jennifer Gratz. We felt that we were asking for equal freedom under law for both Gratz and Lawrence….
What should a libertarian candidate be running on? I would say fiscal conservatism and social tolerance. Get the government out of people’s lives. Why do you care who marries someone else? But that’s one thing that Rand Paul can’t run on in a Republican primary. He’s not in favor of marriage equality….
If somebody’s Catholic values inform what they believe, on welfare or marriage or whatever, that’s their business…. And if your best arguments for banning gay marriage are, in fact, religious, then I think you can expect a limited reception in the courts, because the courts want to know what does the Constitution say. They’re not going to care what your religion says….
There will be more libertarian-leaning politicians in Congress, but we’re a long way from being a caucus at this point. What’s more important is what do the Republicans and Democrats who actually get elected want to do. I hope they will recognize that the country wants to move in a more tolerant direction on marriage and marijuana, and that we are overextended financially and need to restrain spending and the entitlement state.
It’s worth reading the whole thing.
More. This benighted Washington Post piece on “libertarian Democrats” reduces libertarianism to opposition toward NSA spying on Americans. No mention of supporting smaller government and lower taxes, or even issues such as school choice. The Post, of course, is the house organ of the Washington establishment, so no wonder our political elite is clueless.
29 Comments for “The Libertarian Prospect”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I read the article with interest. Boaz is factually mistaken when he says: “So Rand Paul is still behind the curve on that issue. He’s where President Obama was about a year ago, so it’s not like he’s stuck in the 1950s.”
Rand Paul is no where near where President Obama was about a year ago.
A year or so ago (before coming out in favor of marriage equality):
(1) President Obama favored marriage-equivalent civil unions. Rand Paul has never made a statement supporting marriage-equivalent civil unions, but instead advocates private, contractual agreements between same-sex couples.
(2) President Obama made no statements about marriage equality that indicated a personal, religious belief in marriage inequality or a personal animosity to marriage equality. He said that because many Americans considered marriage to be a religious matter, he thought that marriage-equivalent civil unions where the preferred political solution. Rand Paul has made clear statements indicating that he opposes marriage equality and that his objection is both personal and religious (“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage.“). When the President came out in favor of marriage equality, Paul mocked him, saying that he “didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer.” To my mind, that is indicative of animus toward marriage equality and gays/lesbians in general.
(3) President Obama opposed DADT and worked to repeal the law. Rand Paul supported DADT, opining that it “worked relatively well.” He also described DADT as a “nonfraternization policy,” which was patently false. He took office after DADT was repealed, so we don’t know how he would have voted, but he made no statements suggesting that he would have voted for repeal.
I could compare and contrast on other LGBT issues. I don’t need to do so.
I don’t know whether Boaz’s statement arises out of (a) ignorance of Rand Paul’s positions, (b) ignorance of President Obama’s positions, or (c) failure to “compare and contrast” carefully enough, but I do know that it isn’t accurate.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Tom, though I agree with much of what you say, you are incorrect re: Obama’s history on marriage equality.
Obama declared that he opposed marriage equality in 2008 (at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church) by asserting that as a Christian he believed in traditional marriage, that ‘for him, God is in the mix’.
From 2004 until 2012, Obama’s official position re: marriage equality – in which he opposed same sex marriage – would include the ‘as a Christian’, or ‘I believe in Jesus Christ, therefore…’.
In the VP debates, when asked if the Obama/Biden ticket supported ‘gay marriage’, Biden replied:
” No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.”
Garbled though it is, Biden describes the Obama/Biden policy on ‘gay marriage’ as ‘people of faith should determine civil law re: marriage’.
Which, unfortunately, only meant that people of faith opposed to same sex marriage could determine the civil law.
And, just to note, the Obama camp did not correct any part of Biden’s statement after the debate.
posted by Kosh III on
True but Obama “evolved” to the point of almost full support.
The GOP/Teanuts have(with a few exceptions) doubled down on their denial of freedom to gay citizens(and most everyone else for that matter.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
From 2004 until 2012, Obama’s official position re: marriage equality – in which he opposed same sex marriage – would include the ‘as a Christian’, or ‘I believe in Jesus Christ, therefore…’.
The following are excerpts from the August 2007 HRC/Logo debate, where then-candidate Obama spoke extensively about marriage:
I’m not aware of any subsequent statements that deviate from this general line of thought. I’m specifically not aware of any subsequent statements
There is absolutely no flavor of ‘as a Christian’, or ‘I believe in Jesus Christ, therefore…’ in these remarks. I’ll grant you that in the Saddleback forum with Mitt Romney, before launching into a discussion of marriage-equivalent civil unions, Obama said “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix.” The “as a Christian” statement is not about same-sex marriage, but about the sacred nature of marriage, which is something which, I suspect, almost all Christians (including his fellow denominationists, who support marriage equality) hold to be true.
In any event, the Saddleback statement was an outlier, not consistent with his oft-stated position that civil unions were a political solution.
In the VP debates, when asked if the Obama/Biden ticket supported ‘gay marriage’, Biden replied: “No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.”
I don’t see a substantive difference (other than, as you point out, a certain garbled quality) between Biden’s debate statement and the last quoted paragraph of Obama’s statements from the HRC/Logo debate. Marriage-equivalent civil unions with full and equal rights, avoid the “religious connotation”, and let the churches decide whether or not to call them marriages.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t mean to suggest, BTW, that President Obama’s position on marriage-equivalent civil unions ever made any sense. A look back at what I wrote contemporaneously about the debate:
Obama was doing a waffle. I suppose he felt that he had to, given the times, but it was nasty.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I don’t know that it’s worth a lot to revisit Obama’s torturous journey to a ‘states’ rights’ support for marriage equality.
But to describe the Obama/Biden’s position that neither “Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage…”, coupled with his “God’s in the mix” support for traditional marriage, as not expressing “a personal, religious belief in marriage inequality” is not accepting Obama’s stance circa 2008.
Obama references his personal faith as a valid reason to deny civil equality to a minority community. “It’s a sacred union” meant to the Southern Baptists at Saddleback Church, if nothing else, that simple exclusionary fact. (The Southern Baptists do not consider us capable of a “sacred union”, of which Obama was well aware.)
I don’t think there was anyone at the evangelical, Southern Baptist Convention Saddleback Church that day, nor anyone intently following that story, who understood Obama as saying anything other than just that.
And Kosh III – yes, Obama did change his official stance re: marriage equality, though only in a tentative fashion.
By advocating a states’ rights approach to national equality, Obama insults not only the lgbt community, but the historic civil rights battles he links to ours in his 2013 SOTU address (“Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall”). As the ‘states’ rights’ argument has been anathema in each community’s struggle for equality…
posted by Don on
Although it would be nice to have politicians who never “waffle”, I would say Obama did a head-fake. The fundies never believed him for a second. Gay marriage supporters took it in stride looking across the aisle and saying ‘well at least it ain’t that guy and his party’ and the middle of the road queasy types rest assured no major changes. Also helped keep the black religious groups firmly in complete support.
It was a political head fake, that’s all. Everybody knew he would evolve if the political calculus changed soon enough. It did. He “evolved” rather than say “ya’ll know I was gonna do this the whole time”
Politics wouldn’t be so upsetting to people if they realized much of it is horse trading, positioning, and hoo-ha. But he promised! yeah, never had a politician tell me what I wanted to hear to get my vote before.
posted by Lori Heine on
I do think it’s important to remember that right now it’s very fashionable for people on the political Right to call themselves libertarians. Many of them have no clue what libertarianism really is. In Outright Libertarians, we have made the mistake of approaching “libertarian conservatives” about joining up with us — only to be snarled at when they learn what we believe.
The social Right has become so whacko, so totally out-there, that almost any conservative who’s not a hard-core social con now calls him- or herself a libertarian. Not realizing that true libertarianism NEVER panders to social conservatives.
A commitment to non-violence in achieving political ends is exactly that. I’m not sure what part of that soc-con-pandering “libertarian conservatives” have so much trouble understanding.
Also, many on the Left are actually libertarians, without realizing it. They’ve been pumped full of all sorts of nonsense about what libertarians supposedly believe. And they’re confused by people who call themselves libertarians when they’re not. There’s a lot of counterfeit currency floating around these days.
Is Rand Paul a libertarian? Not by a long sight. He is merely less extreme on social issues than the social conservatives. The political Right has been owned by the social Right for so long, it’s got a long way to go before it can extricate itself.
posted by Doug on
In the abstract, yes, a majority of Americans believe government spending is too high, when you query about specific programs like Social Security and Medicare, etc, not so much. Just another fallacy of the GOP/right.
posted by Kosh III on
What does economic freedom mean? Laissez-faire? That’s what many call for, forgetting that the policy led to the economic abuses of the Gilded Age, the Great Depression and most recently the repeal of Glass-Steagall(and others) which led to the Bush Recession which destroyed countless lives. MY 401k has barely recovered from this GOP policy.
Laissez-faire also helped businesses poison the environment. Got DDT?
As to foreign policy–we are the largest Empire in history and quite oppressive–just ask the Cherokee or Palestinians.
Imperialism is part and parcel of US policy regardless of party.
posted by kosh iii on
I read the whole article; the author is factually challenged if he thinks the UK, a rigid class society, is “libertarian.”
“Schedule 7 empowers police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports without needing reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is engaged in any acts of terrorism. Officers may physically detain the person for up to nine hours; search them and their belongings; strip and search them; take their DNA and fingerprints; question them on their social, political and religious views and, although the detainee is not under arrest, they are obliged to co-operate even before their lawyer arrives or risk being arrested for “obstruction’.
posted by Houndentenor on
UK officials just held the partner of a British reporter in an airport (he was changing planes and never officially entered the UK) for 9 hours (the legal limit without pressing charges or getting an extension from a judge). It was pure harassment and nothing more. Yet another reason not to change planes at Heathrow.
posted by Don on
My frustration with the broad statement that the American public strongly supports smaller government and less taxes is that it is a general question posed. Ask children if they would like more ice cream and less spinach and you will get similar poll numbers. The tea party core are the most frustrating to me. Their entire platform should read: cut my taxes and your programs. When the polling is tied to specific programs or particular taxes, the number shift dramatically. Until libertarian writers acknowledge this simple fact, they deserve to take with the derision they are afforded.
Having traveled to South America frequently, I have seen what a much more regressive tax structure and lax to non-existent code brings. Much of it is good. But the income equality from a “pure” market that is “fairer” based on one’s ability to make your own fortune is not a world I want to live in. It all sounds so great when you think you’re going to be one of the rich ones. Until you realize the corruption, the need for private bodyguards, bomb sniffing dogs at shopping malls (because places where rich people are get attacked) and paramilitary forces and castle walls surrounding your local country club. Not a panacea at all.
But there are a ton of things that are much better. I just wish more libertarians traveled the world and had an idea of what works in other countries before touting “all would be better if . . .” It’s no better than liberals wishing if we had a program that did “x” we could solve the world’s ills.
posted by Lori Heine on
My, that’s a hardy little lie. We want “pure” free enterprise? And this may be defined as no government regulation?
With government regulation comes government protection, governmental confiscation of other people’s money to funnel to favored companies and all the rest of what pumps big corporations full of so many steroids they look like Macy’s parade floats.
We are interested to hear how you intend to keep this from happening. “Progressive” as you are.
Some of the libertarians who actually do travel the world (and a few of us do) also observe the special protections for big corporations and the rich that end up arising out of all those regulations enacted to “protect” us.
You think libertarians are heartless. We think you’re phonies, blowing pretty bubbles in the air, or grovelers to the very big corporations and rich people over whose tyrannies you express such outrage.
posted by Houndentenor on
I think that like most political ideas, libertarianism sounds much better in the abstract than it would play out in reality. We had many times in our history with little to no government regulation and the horrors that went on are why most of those regulations exist. No, the FDA and other groups aren’t perfect and need reform, but would you rather there be no inspections of food and medicines sold to the public. There was a time before such regulations and the horrors of those times are well documented in 19th century literature. I’m also old enough to see first hand what will be pumped into the air and water if companies are allowed to do so. I remember visiting Houston as a child and gagging from the sulfur in the air. I’d rather not go back to that and I don’t think for a minute that the same companies wouldn’t go back to the same practices if they could. Yes, a few would market themselves as “environmentally friendly” or as having outside inspectors give their approval. Most would not (and the aforementioned products would be too expensive for most people to afford). As a teacher said to me once as a child…both communism and unregulated capitalism would require perfect people who were not corrupt and wouldn’t exploit other people or take advantage of whatever power they have. Such people are rare to nonexistent. Everything must have checks and balances and accountability. You are right, Lori, that we don’t have enough accountability these days and we need to address that issue and some of that may involve taking away power from corrupt government officials. It will also require breaking up some near-monopolies especially banking and media conglomerates.
posted by Houndentenor on
The horrors of that system is what led to the horrors of communism. No thanks to either extreme. Don’t people read Dickens any more? That’s the world you get with no regulations and no safety net. Sounds like a nightmare to me, not a paradise. Too many seem to think our choices are between Orwell’s Animal Farm and Brecht/Weill’s Mahagonny. I fail to accept that those are our only choices.
posted by Don on
I would be guilty of hyperbole at best. Not a lie. And i’m unaware of any libertarian philosophy that doesn’t believe in almost no regulation whatsoever. the market decides all. libertarians aren’t heartless, they say the game itself creates its own rules – work within them. they’re completely neutral. I don’t see how what I said equates to heartlessness. I haven’t known a libertarian that is genuinely heartless. They generally believe: tough world – get ready for it yourself.
I’m just not such a fan of everything is private sector except defense. which is what all my pure libertarian friends remind me. all of them draw the line in different places. some like private fire departments. want fire protection? pay for the service. Some think that’s insane.
Don’t take it so personally. And don’t suggest that I am groveling or blowing pretty bubbles. You have no idea where I would fit on that spectrum and I have not ascribed any particular degree of free enterprise to your views as I don’t know them either.
As for my experience with libertarians, no, they haven’t traveled much. And if they have, they didn’t contemplate the magnitude of much of their policies upon the populace as a whole. But even I admit, that is a broad generalization as well.
My “progressive” inclinations? Progressive income taxation. I see it as the most powerful countervailing force against income inequality that cuts to the heart of capitalism’s most fatal flaw. it’s why I can’t be a libertarian. I get accused of wanting “equal outcomes regardless of effort” but my motivation is to keep capitalism from descending into chaos periodically while maintaining its core of economic mobility based on effort. Yes, it lacks the pure “fairness” a child demands from life. But I’ll take a grown-up trade off over absolute fairness any day.
posted by Lori Heine on
Don, I definitely should not be assuming you have bad motives for what you’re saying. I merely want to call your attention back to the fundamental reason I — and many other former leftists — have become a libertarian. And it has nothing to do with being children, or wanting absolute fairness.
We do not believe in using force — aggression — violence to achieve political ends. We differ much, from one of us to another, about how we might apply that conviction, but that is at the very core of what we believe.
Those of us who used to be progressives have come to recognize that violence only begets more of the same. That it’s a death spiral, circling the drain of civilization. We also have a deep faith in the people (remember them?) — and that we can solve our common problems without aggressing against one another.
We have come to the conclusion that it’s impossible to advocate the principles progressives favor while remaining committed to aggressive measures for their implementation.
Many of the commenters here will certainly disagree with me about that. But I’d like to see what I keep saying actually dealt with, instead of being swept aside with the same mindless, boilerplate arguments against libertarianism — arguments that all too often distort or totally falsify what we’re saying.
Are there alternatives to reaching for the biggest guns to solve every problem? Understanding, of course, that the biggest guns will always be affordable only to big corporations and the wealthy? In one way or another, I keep asking that question. Not only do I never get an answer, but the question continue to be ignored.
posted by kosh III on
Lori, you may feel your questions get ignored but IMHO it’s because we realize we cannot solve the world’s problems by merely trusting people to do the right thing.
Parents have to spank their kids, governments must punish criminal businesses and people.
Without force we would still have slavery and Jim Crow. I have never heard an intelligible argument on how libertarianism would have eliminated segregation. Do you seriously think Bull Conner was a good and decent man who only had to be asked nicely to stop?
I perused a bit of the Libertarian Party website. They suggest that without regulations there would be no pollution because people would act in their own interests and not do it. Puhleeze. Does anyone seriously think BP would have done even the little bit it did to clean up it’s mess? IMHO, Tony Hayward, Carl-Henric Svanberg and the board should be executed for murder and crimes against nature and humanity. It’s that’s using force–so be it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Kosh, I appreciate what you’re saying. I’d like to clarify just a couple of misconceptions.
First of all, though I am a member of the Libertarian Party, I do not necessarily agree with everything it says.
Libertarians believe that trusting in the government to police good behavior — solely, without any citizen oversight — is trusting the fox to guard the henhouse. That principle, I think, is sound. Many libertarians (including me) believe that some government oversight may be necessary in some areas — but only coupled with citizen oversight, and that the citizenry should hold final authority.
Big government is funded by big business and the rich. It is, therefore, owned by big business and the rich. To blindly trust big government to oversee all operations and interactions between people is insanity.
Furthermore, though you say we cannot merely trust “people” to do the right thing, exactly who do you think we’re trusting if we trust the government to operate without citizen oversight? Are they not also people? Under scrutiny, your assertion falls apart.
Like many left-leaning libertarians, I do not believe that “states’ rights” may be invoked to excuse tyranny at anything below the federal level. Tyranny is tyranny. I believe that, for example, federal troops did, indeed, need to be sent into the South to deal with civil rights violations during the Sixties. Right-leaning libertarians would disagree with me, but I believe that in such an instance, THEIR argument falls apart under scrutiny.
I hope that clears a few things up for you.
posted by Houndentenor on
Now you’re the one using hyperbole (if not lying). Who exactly wants government oversight with no input from citizens. We have elections, we have separation of powers and other things in place. No one wants to simply hand over all power for regulations to a government body. No one.
I think in some cases people left to their own would come up with better solutions to problems than a government agency. I have some sympathy with you there. Creativity works best in a competitive environment with rewards (usually profit). There are also things that need to be done that are not profitable and the private sector is unlikely to deal with such problems. We need a combination of private and public solutions. We should regularly review regulations to see if they still make sense of if they might be improved or even eliminated. But I don’t have as much faith in people as libertarians for I can look around and listen to what people say and realize that most of the south would still be segregated and factories would still be polluting at pre-EPA levels if such things had not been made illegal.
posted by Lori Heine on
Whether there is NO citizen insight or — supposedly — SOME citizen insight, there is not now anywhere near enough. It is hardly plausible to argue to the contrary.
People have been lulled, for the most part, into believing that the government is going to do a perfectly adequate job of this without our help. We’re too busy living our lives to pay attention. How do we get the citizenry more actively engaged in exercising oversight? Well, it certainly won’t happen at all if we don’t think we need to.
All sorts of things are happening that no one really wants to see happen, or intended to let happen. You are confusing intentions with results.
posted by Kosh III on
Yes, thanks. I am glad to hear that it is understood that some ills cannot be fixed by good intentions only.
Certainly citizen oversight of government is needed I have never said otherwise, but what about now when Congress etc are bought and paid for by the Romneys and Kochs and Pat Robertsons? How does libertarianism resolve that?
Maybe it’s changing the subject, but I think politicians should only be allowed to accept money from people in their district. If I call a Rep. in Kansas, they refuse to talk to me-I should call my congressman. Yet they happily would take all the money I could shovel their way. The first step is to overturn Citizens United. I am pessimistic–we are too far down the road to fascism–they GOP is leading the way but too many others help out as well.
posted by Lori Heine on
“[B]ut what about now when Congress etc are bought and paid for by the Romneys and Kochs and Pat Robertsons? How does libertarianism resolve that?”
If Congress wasn’t snooping and meddling in the most intimate details of people’s private lives — which is what libertarianism proposes should be curtailed — then the bigshots would not find political office so appealing that they’d be trying to outbid each other to buy it.
A large part of our argument is that a big and powerful government attracts all the wrong sort of candidates for high office. That these people want not to serve us, but to rule us like potentates. Rich people have certainly always run — Washington and Jefferson were hardly paupers — but people like Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson were also able to be elected. It’s rare for an Obama, or anyone else not born of privilege, to make it into the upper echelons now.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Are there alternatives to reaching for the biggest guns to solve every problem? —
Well, sometimes ‘yes’ and sometimes ‘no’. Not all terrorists are going to go away with a hug and a strong, trendy cup of joe. Sometimes the ‘big guns’ are needed within the context of foreign policy and national security.
If we want to get an idea of libertarian economics, we can look at the Gilded Age of America. The government generally avoided regulating the private sector/industry to protect public health or safety or basic notions of fair play. Private business interests were pretty much free to do what they wanted, when they wanted. This seems to be the sort of setting, which pleases libertarians (at least the Ayn Rand-loving-right-learning ones who tend to dominate the movement and party).
I do not buy the argument that everything that the government does — in terms of public health and safety — is automatically bad. Heck, I do not believe that every thing that a business does is bad either.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t believe that everything government does is bad, either. To me, it’s a matter of responsibility and oversight. I don’t question that everyone in a position of power needs to be watched and held accountable. I just question who’s going to be doing it.
As far as terrorists and industrial poisoners are concerned, most citizens are neither. I have no quarrel with turning guns on terrorists, or with bringing large-scale polluters to justice. My beef is with ordinary citizens using force and coercion to settle issues that ought to be settled reasonably and by persuasion.
Force should be a final resort, never a first one. In our society, it is far too often the latter.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… the other tends to favor greater personal freedom (with exceptions, such as speech deemed to be offensive) but not economic freedom …
I’m curious about this statement.
I don’t see any evidence that “the other” (that is, presumably, the Democratic Party) has fostered a government crackdown on “speech deemed to be offensive”, or otherwise sought to use the government to limit the First Amendment.
Frankly, it seems to me that it is “the one party” (that is, presumably, the Republican Party) that has been more inclined to push for “Don’t Say Gay” laws (laws that prohibit “gay propaganda to children”), the crackdowns on Westboro Baptist’s funeral protests, flag desecration, and similar limitations on free speech.
So I’m curious about this statement.
posted by Don on
I must admit I’m very glad to hear Lori’s take on national security. I have yet to meet a libertarian-leaning (she made clear she isn’t that label) person who is genuinely against military buildup. Although it seems quite natural, and Ron Paul will speak to it often, all the libertarians I know are gun enthusiasts (prolly more accurate to say gun nuts, or weapon-obsessed lunatics, but it’s too derogatory. hell, they’d prolly love the label). And they would heap nothing but more money on the military. They don’t seem to be in that short of a supply.
I don’t think Libertarians get very far because their principled stances are quite radical in changing the way the West lives. Dickensian England is a wonderful example. Why I so often equate, as do others, with the childishness of the outlook is that it is an ideal world. And it ignores many harsh realities. Not just of social/economic inequality, it completely ignores how much better our lives are because of collective government action. Never was a post office? Eliminate public education? I don’t know of any who espouse those radical proposals, but I have never heard a single libertarian explain why they would abandon their “inviolable principles” to keep this or that aspect of western democracy.
As for the left wanting to police speech, for the most part they seem to engage in the libertarian ideal of policing speech: shame not laws. Public pressure for social norms, not making certain things illegal. The right, however, wanted a flag burning amendment. Not to mention banning gays from redressing grievances with their government. (remember Colorado’s Amendment?) The left has their problems, but this ain’t one libertarians should have a problem with.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. I find the thrust of the main article to be a bit deceptive (for reasons that have already been stated). When you ask voters about specific program or policies, suddenly the knee-jerk ‘gov’t is like to big, man’ suddenly fades away. It becomes more like ‘Don’t tax me, but tax the fellow behind that tree’.
2. Libertarianism — in its right wing variety — promotes a survival of the fittest, economic anarchy doctrine, which was largely fined tuned by Ayn Rand and her…’followers’. Public health? Public safety? Transparency and fair play? Such concerns are deemed to be ‘statism’ and ‘socialism’ and we should also just bow and pray before the Gospel of Rand.
3. I have zero problem with the Libertarian Party running candidates for office (yes, I do not like it when it is hard for such candidates to get on the ballot/into debates), and their are also organized quasi-libertarian Democrats and Republicans.
4. By in large, the quasi-Republicans (at least those that I have met) tend to be very leery of actually standing up to the religious right elements within their own party and oftentimes seem to openly embrace the paleo-conservative idea about ‘state’s rights’.
They may make a country club-style plea for ‘tolerance’, or tell themselves that the religious right is just a pawn, but try being a serious GOP candidate if you believe that ‘equal means equal’ or that abortion should generally be safe, legal and rare.
5. Quasi-libertarian Democrats that I have met are much more likely promote more ‘freer trade’ and ‘market-based’ policies. To be sure I do not always agree with these policies (and they are not terribly popular with the more progressive base), but Bill Clinton and his ‘third way’ politics did move the party right-ward on many trade and economic issues.
6. One of the big issues with the ‘palo-conservatives’ is that they are really more like the Constitution Party, then the Libertarian Party. They want the corporations, the religious right and segregationists to run the show, and that is why they do not want the 14th amendment to exist.
7. Honestly, I suspect that — down the road — public policy on gay rights, guns and pot will probably be a bit more libertarian (i.e. equal protection/equal freedom/don’t screw with people unless you have to). Abortion will probably still be something that people fight about, endlessly, and so will immigration.
8. On other hot button issues mentioned…Want to stop flag burning? Make flags about of asbethos. Want to crack down on prostitution/pornography? Force these businesses to comply with ADA, OSHA, minimum wage, affirmative action, etc. Insist on continuing GED/college education requirements for employees and create their own labor unions.