Why Libertarians Lose

Nick Gillespie | January 18, 2006

From John J. DiIulio Jr., former head of the Bush admin's faith-based initiatives office, writing in Chronicle of Higher Ed (link via Arts & Letters Daily):

Why is small-government conservatism so little honored by Republican policy makers even now that they control the Congress and the White House? Even a nonlibertarian like me can be moved by certain libertarian ideas and values (especially each April 15). The simple truth, however, is that most citizens, including most who are registered as Republicans, carp about taxes but, when push comes to shove, want--even demand--most of what "big government" does and delivers. No national politician can stay in office long or get things done legislatively if he or she always talks or routinely votes the way a committed libertarian should.

Whole thing here.

Comments

|1.18.06 @ 7:58AM|#

bigger-than-expected win over Sen. John F. Kerry

Hey, I'll be the first to say that a win is a win. But he only won by about 3-4%. That's hardly some surprisingly large margin. A win is a win, but let's not act like it was a landslide.

A New Democrat will win the presidency in 2008, but not by much, not with coattails that carry Democrats into majority status in Congress

If he's right then we'll get sweet, blessed gridlock. And libertarian rhetoric from Congressional Republicans. Oh, what a wonderful world that would be.


And, sadly, he's right about libertarians. It isn't just about druids and ferrets. Our ideas simply aren't popular.

|1.18.06 @ 8:01AM|#

putain!

amazingdrx|1.18.06 @ 8:10AM|#

They lose..because they have been coopted by neo-conservatives. It's just that simple.

The popular aspect is civil libertarianism. That has been abandoned for neoconman talking points.

Scott Ferguson|1.18.06 @ 8:13AM|#

Politics is the art of compromise. Libertarians lose because they would rather be "correct" than win elections.

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 8:16AM|#

Our ideas simply aren't popular.

You are the one who wants a big honking military, T. That is the kind of thing DiIulo means when he says that voters won't vote forsomeone who always talks or routinely votes the way a committed libertarian should. You (and more especially RCD) get off the libertarian bandwagon when it comes to the military, as does much of the Republican party base. You WANT that army, T. You think we NEED that army, T. Time to make changes within T., T.

Ed|1.18.06 @ 8:24AM|#

Americans are comfortable centrists who want to have their cake and eat it too. They are woefully ignorant of economic theory and political philosophy. It has been this way for decades and there is no reason to believe it will change in any meaningful way any time soon. It doesn't matter who is President, as the pendulum will swing only so far off center before it returns to the middle. Everything will be cool until the first Islamist nuke detonates...

Have a nice day.

|1.18.06 @ 8:30AM|#

Perhaps one reason libertarians lose is their refusal to grasp the ethical foundations of support for the welfare state, and their self-serving determination to write off every difference as the failure of ordinary people to understand economics.

When someone says that equity is a legitimate goal, along with growth, drawing a demand curve is a dodge.

|1.18.06 @ 8:38AM|#

I don't remember thoreau clamoring for a super-military.

I agree that most people demand more government service without considering how it will be paid for, the bitch about taxes.

GetOffYourAsses|1.18.06 @ 8:39AM|#

"And, sadly, he's right about libertarians. It isn't just about druids and ferrets. Our ideas simply aren't popular."

Actions speak louder than words. When people actually get off their asses and off the internets, and finally take some initiative, good things CAN happen. But H&R, aside from being a great source of debate and commentary, has served more to be a comfort zone for libertarians with apparently no political home. Stop wallowing in your self pity and defeatist attitude when you know that WE are the ones who make the LP what it is.

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/01/12/libertarian-campus-organizations-will-harvard-beat-auburn/

"Libertarians lose because they would rather be "correct" than win elections."

Thanks for stating the obvious. But others have already said this, and have gone further by actually challenging the status quo of the LP head on. Things are changing...slowly but surely.

http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/01/17/taking-purist-libertarians-behind-the-woodshed/

Tim West, Stephen Gordon, Stephen VanDyke, Thomas Knapp...do you know who these people are? They are people who are actually DOING SHIT, way beyond the feel good therapeutic nature of what this board has become.

http://hammeroftruth.com/liberty-venture/

PUT UP OR SHUT UP...that is all.

|1.18.06 @ 8:43AM|#

They lose..because they have been coopted by neo-conservatives. It's just that simple.

I smell a temporal rat...libertarians have been losing since long before there was such a thing as a neo-con. Remember Barry Goldwater?

|1.18.06 @ 8:44AM|#

Geezuz I'd rather lose every election than becoming a condescending, arrogant ass, joe.

|1.18.06 @ 8:48AM|#

Luckily, Finkelstein, you can do both!

Just keep repeating "You don't understand economics" whenever somebody doesn't want to undo the New Deal.

|1.18.06 @ 8:50AM|#

You are the one who wants a big honking military, T.

I do?

Just because I haven't said things the way you'd say them in the threads that you read doesn't mean that I want the opposite of what you want. I won't engage you in a protracted exchange over "Why didn't you say this? Why didn't you say that? Yeah, well, if you really think that way then why didn't you say such and such? And even when you say this, you still don't say it with enough enthusiasm!"

For the record, I'm no fan of the military-industrial complex. I'm cool with military superiority. But on the one hand I hear how we spend so much more than any other country on the military, and on the other hand I hear that our war machine is in dire need of more stuff. And some of that second complaint comes from the guys in the field. So I'm forced to conclude that the money is going to all the wrong places.

That's all I have to say on that tangent. If I haven't satisfied you, well, too bad.

Finally, it's tough being the right-winger in one guy's head and the lefty in other people's heads. I never thought that anybody would make the mistake of thinking that R C Dean and I have the same views on military matters. That's an insult to R C Dean!

Warren|1.18.06 @ 8:54AM|#

Why is small-government conservatism so little honored by Republican policy makers even now that they control the Congress and the White House?

Looks rhetorical to me. Power corrupts, and politicians that campaigned on libertarian principals soon find their promises an obstacle to wielding the power they now possess. Fortunately (from their perspective) they can be discarded without consequence.

I am one of the few that believes in the viability of the Libertarian Party. If we ever get our Jesse/Arnold our fortunes will change. A successful Governor will go a long way in establishing the LP as a worthy alternative in the minds of many. A rise in membership will also marginalize the tinfoil hatters. Inevitably the LP will become what the Repulocrats are now, and we'll have to start over. However, I think a single generation of Libertarian rule could make real lasting reform.

|1.18.06 @ 8:59AM|#

I'm here inside T's brain, so I can tell you guys what T really thinks. T is a neocon who thinks he's a libertarian. T worships the military-industrial complex. T doesn't care about racism in southern courtrooms. T is a gun nut and corporate apologist. And T....

Aarrgghh! He's drinking corn syrup! It's corroding my circuits! Help! Help!

Daisy, daisy, give me your answer....

|1.18.06 @ 9:01AM|#

A lot of people view libertarianism as the philosphy of "economic might makes right." In an era where many Americans are worried about their financial future, pensions are disappearing, and more and more people fear for their jobs, they'll be hard pressed to vote for someone who says "Let's abolish the minimum wage and all worker-protection laws and any pretense of a social safety net--oh, and Bill O'Reilly had the right to sexually harass his employee unless her employment contract specifically said otherwise." Maybe y'all are perfectly correct in all of this--but good luck convincing the voters of that.

Also, it would help if professional libertarians learned the difference between compromising and selling out.

Ed|1.18.06 @ 9:10AM|#

The best and brightest do not compromise. Nor do they enter politics.

Sandy|1.18.06 @ 9:10AM|#

And at some point, joe, repeating "equity" when faced with the moral argument that the poor are worse off with certain cherished New Deal policies is more charitably described as "a failure to understand economics" than "ignoring the welfare of the less fortunate to assuage one's guilt," or, more succinctly, a dodge. But have it your way.

|1.18.06 @ 9:17AM|#

Wrong Buckwheat!
One Libertarian will be re-elected this year, Dr. Ron Paul.

Warren|1.18.06 @ 9:18AM|#

On the other hand, last weekend I saw Ray Kuzweil speak on CSPAN, and I think the technology will soon over take the politics. A regular topic around here, indeed the feature story of the Jan. Reason, but Ray had a bigger impact on me.

|1.18.06 @ 9:20AM|#

The popular aspect is civil libertarianism.

You're a real fucking comedian.

If the Bill of Rights were put to a vote it would lose in a landslide.

The real winner in American politics will be the guy who packages enshrining Leviticus into the criminal code, building gazilliondollar bridges to every remote island everywhere and free doctoring and medicine for all.

|1.18.06 @ 9:20AM|#

What Ed said.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" - A. de Tocqueville

|1.18.06 @ 9:21AM|#

It also occurs to me: even if America ever reaches the point where it is run on entirely libertarian principles, the changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. By which I mean, the first libertarian president is not going to be elected on the platform "let's abolish public funding for education, privatize the roads and sidewalks, and do away with any and all work-safety laws."

So why not compromise? Right now the majority will never vote to abolish public-ed funding, but a lot of people might vote for a system of vouchers where they can choose where their kids go to school. They won't vote to get rid of all regulations, but might vote for someone who did away with the regulations most people find especially odious. They won't vote to be rid of all government services (no matter how much they'd save in tax money), but they might vote to have their taxes reduced via the end of the drug war (focus on the economics, not the morality of letting people control their own bodies) and the end of corporate welfare.

|1.18.06 @ 9:35AM|#

Perhaps one reason libertarians lose is their refusal to grasp the ethical foundations of support for the welfare state, and their self-serving determination to write off every difference as the failure of ordinary people to understand economics.

I suspect most libertarians grasp the ethical foundations of support for the welfare state just fine -- and they firmly reject many, if not most of them, that's why they're fucking libertarians. Pointing out the public choice and moral hazard problems associated with an expansive welfare state is no more "self-serving" than a Merrimack Valley bureaucrat pointing out how selfish and evil opposition to the welfare state is.

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 9:44AM|#

You were the one with kudos for RCD yesterday when he said we needed the army really bad.

But you do sound sincere about becoming a true libertarian, T. So let me help. When guys don't have enough goodies in the field of combat, if they feel that too many of them are killed for every enemy killed, the libertarian answers are three:

1. get the fuck out of the unneccessary war

2. compare the casualty proporortions you face to the soldiers of history who fought real wars in the past and take comfort in the fact that you ain't them and that you ain't the enemy that is being killed out of all proportion to you guys being killed

and

3. see No. 1

I don't know if you are lefty or righty, T. I never called you a righty. my focus is on making you a fuller and truer LIBERTARIAN.

|1.18.06 @ 9:56AM|#

That's why I'll never be a real Libertarian. A life of marginalization and theoretical purity might be fun if you're a yogi, but it stinks otherwise. I'd be a card carrying Republican or Democrat if either party could offer me a candidate that didn't look like LBJ or Bush II -- as if you could even distinguish between the two (semi-literate Texans with a penchant for big government, frivolous wars, and cronyism).

|1.18.06 @ 10:04AM|#

The truth hurts.

When people are given the choice between do it yourself or have someone else do it for you they will invariably choose the latter. Sure they like to bitch about how someone else does the job, but that doesn't mean they want to get up off their asses and take care of it themselves. 9 times out of 10 when a politician says the answer is to take personal responsibility the voting public's response will be a hearty - Fuck That.

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 10:05AM|#

The recipe for libertarian victory, that Bush guy notwithstanding is simply this:

simultaneous and large cuts to:

ss and the military. cuts big enough to knock the federal budget back by half or so. The cuts should be symmetrical so that ppl don't come out complaining that this is a liberalagenda or a conservative agenda. It is neither and symmetrical cuts will make that clear.

All this pot and eminent domain and free trade stuf are fun marginal things to discuss here, but for voters who care about real issues, libertarians (in national office elections anyway) would do better to stick closely to the platform I have given in this reply.

|1.18.06 @ 10:10AM|#

I've been reading this site for many years now and it has made an influence in my life.

My wife was planning on getting a job now that our littlest is going to school, but instead I encouraged her to volunteer for the Democrats in the last mayoral race. Our thinking was that 1) in this city you have to be a Democrat to have a chance of winning almost any position but mayor, and 2) supporting someone that all political analysts say will lose makes you stand out more than supporting someone everyone says will win.

So she spent 6 weeks giving many speeches at community centers and old age homes and appearing at rallies as basically the token white person.

Sure enough, now she's tight with the democratic machine and getting them donations, and they talking about putting her on the council next year and finding her a paying job. She has attracted attention by knowing a lot of details about the Columbia University eminent domain issue (courtesy of this board) as well as having views that are not so crazy liberal like many of the other folks who are interested in local politics. Hopefully she can use this position to get on the city council and inject a little bit of libertarianism into democratic thought in the city.

I realize that we are lucky in our current family situation to be able to do this but I encourage everyone to look into local politics. I�ve been to some LP meetings in NYC and the Democratic ones are similar in that many fringe people attend and are guided by a few normal people in leadership positions. The biggest difference is that the Democratic Party has 100 people at a monthly meeting while the LP has 10. It is almost pathetic how someone who speaks well and has original thoughts in their head (via Hit n Run) is almost catered to by the party bigwigs, at least in our area.

|1.18.06 @ 10:15AM|#

"but might vote for someone who did away with the regulations most people find especially odious."

Hope you are right Jennifer, but I'm afraid most regulations aren't perceived as odious, they don't directly impact people, they kind of lurk in the background and sneak up.


"they might vote to have their taxes reduced via the end of the drug war (focus on the economics, not the morality of letting people control their own bodies)"

Again, hope you are right, but my anecdotal experience is that most people do approve of at least some morality being legislated, even criminalised. I think there is a deep-seated fear that immorality = country-goes-to-hell.

|1.18.06 @ 10:21AM|#

You were the one with kudos for RCD yesterday when he said we needed the army really bad.

You obviously didn't get the context of that message. I specifically said that I disagree with him on methods, but agreed that the focus should be on things other than "security theater."

That's all I have to say about that.

|1.18.06 @ 10:27AM|#

Libertarians... the autistic savants of the political world, able to count policy toothpicks but unable to function in the real world.

|1.18.06 @ 10:28AM|#

Hope you are right Jennifer, but I'm afraid most regulations aren't perceived as odious, they don't directly impact people, they kind of lurk in the background and sneak up. . . my anecdotal experience is that most people do approve of at least some morality being legislated, even criminalised. I think there is a deep-seated fear that immorality = country-goes-to-hell.

That's why the libertarians need to hire a non-insane, pragmatism-over-principles person with an inkling of promotional skills to get the message across.

For example: to argue against zero-tolerance drug policies in schools, do NOT argue that kids have the right to use drugs; find some nice, photogenic honor student who is having problems because she is not allowed to have her asthma medication. Do NOT talk about the right to make and use meth; find some attractive, boring, middle-class soccer mom (ugh) who has been having trouble buying Sudafed for her allergies because of the new anti-cold-medicine legislation.

In the last election, spin doctors were successfully able to make a potentially AWOL member of a stateside National Guard unit look like more of a war hero than a guy who was actually wounded in Vietnam. And you think a clever person couldn't do even more with an ad strategy based on actual truth?

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 10:31AM|#

You were the one with kudos for RCD yesterday when he said we needed the army really bad.

You obviously didn't get the context of that message. I specifically said that I disagree with him on methods, but agreed that the focus should be on things other than "security theater."

That was the wrong response. The correct response was: we need to cut your military bigtime because that is the libertarian thing to do. I was disappointed in you, T. We need to be firmer with RCD. He thinks he's libertarian somehow. Best not to coddle him further.

|1.18.06 @ 10:34AM|#

Oh, and in addition to my last post: do NOT get a candidate who talks about things like bombing the UN and doing away with driver's licenses. Jesus Christ on a stick, it's like the LP wants to be the party of the insanely marginalized.

|1.18.06 @ 10:34AM|#

A few weeks ago I was truly amazed when T picked up his gun and it didn't fire. I just assumed that touching it would be enough to set it off.

Oh no! He's drinking corn syrup made from gm corn! My circuits are shutting down again!

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 10:35AM|#

I don't remember thoreau clamoring for a super-military.

Probably was thinking of me.

You were the one with kudos for RCD yesterday when he said we needed the army really bad.

As I suspected.

Except what I was saying yesterday was that we should probably treat electronic intercepts of foreign "powers" (broadly defined to included non-state actors like AQ and Hamas) as something other than criminal investigations requiring warrants.

Still, I guess that's easy to confuse with saying we need a super-army really bad.

Politics is the art of compromise. Libertarians lose because they would rather be "correct" than win elections.

Bingo. A pure libertarian solution to just about anything is revolutionary in the modern context. Revolutions don't happen without a crisis. There is no such crisis. Ergo, the only way to make progress is in little salami slice compromises. Kinda like how the Dems have brought us more than halfway to socialized medicine, even though most people don't really want socialized medicine if you ask them in so many words.

|1.18.06 @ 10:37AM|#

Another reason libertarians never get anywhere: discussions of topics like "why aren't we getting anyehere" end up devolving into more-libertarian-than-thou pissing contests.

|1.18.06 @ 10:39AM|#

Discussions like this always remind me of Mencken's quip(s) about democracy, to which I just silently nod my head and continue with what I was doing previously.

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 10:43AM|#

He thinks he's libertarian somehow.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my libertarian bona fides. I am opposed to the drug war, opposed to the nanny state, believe the default solution to nearly any problem should be civil society and the markets, mourn the passing of Constitutional limited government in this country, support drastic cutbacks in government at all levels, etc. blah blah.

Nothing would make me happier than subjecting our government to pretty strict reading of the Constitution, and leaving pretty much everyone else the hell alone.

Of course, I also believe that the fundamental, core function of any government is the protection of safety and security of its citizens.

I'm quite the old-fashioned libertarian, actually.

|1.18.06 @ 10:43AM|#

"Cutting the military bigtime" is not prima facie a "libertarian" thing to do absent any context.

Are you this insufferably smug and dumb in real life?

|1.18.06 @ 10:45AM|#

Nothing would make me happier than subjecting our government to pretty strict reading of the Constitution, and leaving pretty much everyone else the hell alone. Of course, I also believe that the fundamental, core function of any government is the protection of safety and security of its citizens.

But of late, it sounds like you're willing to sacrifice the former in the name of accomplishing the latter. Strcit reading of the Constitution, yet let's allow warrantless wiretaps.

Wait a minute. Didn't I just complain about "more libertarian than thou" pissing contests? Oh, hell.

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 10:47AM|#

I also believe that the fundamental, core function of any government is the protection of safety and security of its citizens.

The current US military goes well, well beyond this in size and budget. Not seeing this fact is what makes you not a true libertarian.

|1.18.06 @ 10:48AM|#

Are you this insufferably smug and dumb in real life?

You could always sue him and find out in the discovery phase.

My hunch is that he's actually a decent guy, but his grouchy side comes out on the internet.

|1.18.06 @ 10:54AM|#

I have to agree with Jen on this, libertarians spend too much time trying to appeal to intellect instead of trying to appeal to emotion.

|1.18.06 @ 10:59AM|#

Yeah, but you believe in God, thoreau -- you have to look for some good in people. As an atheistic misanthrope, I have the luxury of being more caustic. :D

PS If I ever run for office, Jennifer is going to be my campaign manager. That woman understands strategery and the value of gradualism.

|1.18.06 @ 11:01AM|#

Yeah, but you believe in God, thoreau -- you have to look for some good in people. As an atheistic misanthrope, I have the luxury of being more caustic. :D

PS If I ever run for office, Jennifer is going to be my campaign manager. That woman understands strategery and the value of gradualism.

|1.18.06 @ 11:10AM|#

Phil-

She's also worked in advertising. And, given that she used to work in an adult industry, she can still help rally the LP base. Or at least help fulfill the libertarian quota of colorful characters on the campaign staff.

|1.18.06 @ 11:11AM|#

(No, I'm not saying that she should perform at campaign events. But if you want to establish libertarian bona fides you need to be able to remind the base that you have colorful characters in your inner circle.)

|1.18.06 @ 11:12AM|#

I have to agree with Jen on this, libertarians spend too much time trying to appeal to intellect instead of trying to appeal to emotion.

That might be because the pro-nanny state arguments are largely emotional ones, and coming up with emotional counter-arguments is difficult. Jennifers's examples prove that it's not impossible, but it's certainly an uphill battle.

For some reason, people seem predisposed to believing that everything is perpetually getting worse, and that we need to make changes to stop it. They also believe things about society in general that they ignore when contradicted by their own behavior and experience.

|1.18.06 @ 11:17AM|#

i think the war on some drugs is a worthwhile front because it ties into so many other issues - immigration, expanded police power, asset seizure international policy and military deployment/aid, and so forth - and if couched in the correct terms, it doesn't send people running to the hills for the most part.

sativex, however, is probably going to completely derail this. back to the drawing board.

|1.18.06 @ 11:19AM|#

the pro-nanny state arguments are largely emotional ones, and coming up with emotional counter-arguments is difficult

No, it's not. It's just that no serious libertarians have tried to do it.

Remember that story a few months ago about the cute little first-grade girl who almost got expelled for "drugs" because she gave her friend a baggie she'd filled with dirt and wildflowers? You know, typical little-girl stuff? Put that little girl in a cute dress, shove a teddy bear in her hand and trot her out as an example of the type of person being harmed by the drug war.

Remember Kelo vs. New London? I have nothing against Ms. Kelo, but she wasn't the most heart-wrenching person in the group; find that sweet old lady who was about to be evicted from the home she's lived in since birth, and bring HER out to center stage. (If she's a bitchy old lady, ignore that and have the spin doctors portray her as sweet. It can be done.)

Don't argue that kids have a right to go to school without being urine-tested for drugs; focus on the nice kids who have suffered medical problems because they are forbidden to have their asthma medication with them.

Don't argue the intellectual reasons why vouchers are a good idea; find some nice, bright kid who is trapped in a hellhole of a public school and discuss the specific ways he personally is being harmed by our current system.

|1.18.06 @ 11:22AM|#

Just keep repeating "You don't understand economics" whenever somebody doesn't want to undo the New Deal.

Time is against new deal lovers...social security just won't hold up and it has to be reformed...if it is now or later and avoiding doing it now to secure votes and cling to power is dispicable.

Contrary to therou (yea i know i skipped from joe to therou so shoot me) libertarianism is the future...his problem is that he just doesn't want to wait until everything else fails. he thinks that poeple should just come to thier senses and realize that before the end game...never mind that such a thing has never happened in history of man kind.

You need to read more hayak Therou...this stuff is not figured out by reason but by trial and error.

|1.18.06 @ 11:25AM|#

You need to read more hayak Therou...this stuff is not figured out by reason but by trial and error.

More strategy tips: do NOT say anything along the lines of "y'all would agree with me if only you knew as much as I do. You need to read the right books."

Personalize the campaign. For every single law you want to get rid of, find the sympathetic people who have been victimized by them.

Don't talk down to people. Be willing to compromise.

|1.18.06 @ 11:26AM|#

joshua-

You may be right.


joe-

I have never used econ 101 to refute all of the new deal. I've only used it on my pet peeves: protectionism, prohibition, anything that makes rental properties more expensive, and agriculture policy. Maybe a few other things, but that's all I can think of for now.

|1.18.06 @ 11:30AM|#

My view as a non-libertarian who is sympathetic to many of the goals of the party. Below are overly simple characterizations of the conflicting points that, I think, keep Libertarians outside the mainstream.

LPV =Libertarian Party View
MSV = Mainstream View

Libertarian definitions of everyday terms:
LPV: Government = violence
MSV: Government = formalized cooperation of a community (helps to facilitate non-violent conflict resolution)

LP: Taxes = theft
MSV: Taxes = fee for service

LP: Laws = restrictions
MSV: Laws = negotiated social guidelines (that help avoid violent resolution of conflicting desires in the community)

Concepts
LP: An individuals actions are no ones business but their own until they infringe on anothers rights.
MSV: There are very few actions that don't infringe on other people because we live in a community. (Best examples, smoking restrictions, pollution/unsafe workplace, noise ordinances, zoning laws).

LP: Natural rights are obvious and broad (and always include the particular activity I like to engage in)
MSV: Natural rights are poorly defined and therefore we need a democratic process to negotiate what they are.

LP: A business is the same as an individual and therefore has the same rights.
MSV: Business is a social activity that should be regulated so that its overall results benefit the society at large. Business don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

LP: "Freedom From:" only applies to government action.
MSV: "Freedom From: can apply to freedom from the uncivil behavior of others in the society (which is a difficult thing to negotiate, hence law and government).

LPV: And, of course, Property rights are primary.
MSV: Individual property rights are secondary to the overall needs of society (best examples, zoning, land use rules).

This is, of course, a schematic.

Consider and discuss :-)

|1.18.06 @ 11:31AM|#

Joe:

There's an excellent article on the immorality of welfare here:
The Argument from Morality Versus the Welfare State

Ever hear of the Ten Commandmants? Read number ten. Big government is base on violating it. Name your program, it gets support because people want it, and can't (or won't) pay for it themselves. They covet their neighbors goods and are quite willing to use government to get them.

The politicians are more than happy to encourage them, it gets them votes.

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 11:34AM|#

But of late, it sounds like you're willing to sacrifice the former {subjecting our government to pretty strict reading of the Constitution] in the name of accomplishing the latter [the protection of safety and security of its citizens].

First, the Constitution addresses a vastly wider range of issues than where to draw the line between the the domestic, criminal investigations that are the subject of the Fourth Amendment and the military/national security/foreign policy activities of the Executive.

Strict reading of the Constitution, yet let's allow warrantless wiretaps.

It is perfectly possible to be all in favor of a strict reading of the Constition that would drastically reduce the size and scope of every level of government, yet still allow the Executive to engage in warrantless wiretaps of foreign powers (broadly defined).

Anyone who wants a serious consideration of this issue could do worse than to review Tom Maguire's blog.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/

The current US military goes well, well beyond this in size and budget. Not seeing this fact is what makes you not a true libertarian.

I have never, once, opined on whether we need a bigger or smaller military in this country.

Nice strawman, though, Dave. Keep 'em coming!

|1.18.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Jennifer is right, stats don't impress people, anecdotes do. If you have financial stats that back up the story of the sweet little child/old lady all the better!

|1.18.06 @ 11:38AM|#

The sound you hear in the distance is libertarians bursting into flames.

|1.18.06 @ 11:40AM|#

Just a note.
Please notice that the above list is not about how the ideas are presented, but about the ideas themselves.

Arguments like, "you just don't understand economics or political theory" are often wrong. It is so rare for a libertarian to consider the idea that they "don't understand economics or political theory" well enough to reject flaws in the libertarian philosophy as applied to a particular problem (if they, gasp, exist, that is). It is my view that the Libertarian philosophy has many worthwhile principles, but that it is overly simplistic and strict adherence to its ideals is a sign that someone does not appreciate the complexity of the economy or political life in the real world (read, "don't understand economics or political theory"). But that's just an opinion.

amazingdrx|1.18.06 @ 11:41AM|#

"If the Bill of Rights were put to a vote it would lose in a landslide"

Wrong...that IS why you're a loser though. Hehehey.

|1.18.06 @ 11:42AM|#

mainstream:

Nice summary, and very accurate for its brevity.

My observation is that the LP view can be demonstrated as logically correct and beneficial to society. It's also difficult for people that have been so conditioned in the MSV to understand, in spite of its simplicity.

On the other hand the MSV makes good press. It's very east to use spin and sound bites. It also requires effort to spot the deceptions. Effort most people aren't willing/able to do.

|1.18.06 @ 11:43AM|#

Is it too late to start the Reason Party, and assemble our conglomerate of kooks and intellectual shutins into a force to annoy?

I'll bring the cookies and free trade agreement napkins.

|1.18.06 @ 11:44AM|#

to continue: joe's initial post is a great example. there are dozens of things with a libertarian position, but first and foremost in other peoples' heads (in this case, liberals/dems/left/whatever) is "libertarians want to destroy the new deal and eat poor babies." as fucking retarded as that is, it's what we're left to deal with.

a similar rhetorical strain runs in repubs and moral rightists, and is tied to drug use, homosexuality, giving porno to children. it's always "they want kids to smoke crack and get fucked by homos - homos who don't salute the flag!" for the obvious reasons. (retarded: see above)

some of this is the farcical manichean dualism of our age, and we're stuck with it.

regardless, it's very hard to fight this sort of rhetorical onslaught; not that most libertarians are a dispassionate group of people, but there's a bit more abstract thought when dealing with a revolutionary system (as compared to the current system) than dealing with the day to day of typical dem and repub politics.

my typical come-on* is geared towards an anarchist/minarchist sensibility - "do you own yourself? if not, who owns you?" etc etc - is totally useless because the response is "you want to eat poor black babies!" or "the homosexuals will fuck your babies!" or something of that emotional key.

the only solution is using the things each group hates to make them hate their own positions a little bit more. just introduce some erisian sensibility into this manichean clusterfuck, because what else are you going to do on the day to day? the LP is a bunch of fucking losers - the only thing this travelling comic book convention sideshow is missing are furries - and the "libertarian" label is totally buried as a brand. it's tainted, you see. a "liberty party" or a "freedom party" (liberty is a bit too old-school sounding, really) which stresses a few key issues in language which doesn't quote hayek might be the best place to start.

*(with the exception of getting drunk near tax day and getting into fights with liberals in whatever bar i happen to be in by making fun of the irs' "voluntary taxation system" and related hijinks, but that's only for fun, not evangelism. and it's telling that at least once a year someone tells me - in this bluest of blue state cities - that if i don't like it i should move to another country, or that i'm just trying to destroy the new deal. by myself. which is remarkable, because as impressed as i am with myself on a daily basis - and that's mighty impressed, in case you couldn't tell - i don't think i can destroy the new deal, much less "The New Deal," by myself)

|1.18.06 @ 11:47AM|#

but that it is overly simplistic and strict adherence to its ideals is a sign that someone does not appreciate the complexity of the economy or political life

It actually takes a better understanding of a subject to reduce it from a random set of rules to a coherent concept.

But I'll grant you the lack of appreciation of political life

amazingdrx|1.18.06 @ 11:49AM|#

"They won't vote to get rid of all regulations"

Ah ha, an agent of chaos!

|1.18.06 @ 11:49AM|#

"It actually takes a better understanding of a subject to reduce it from a random set of rules to a coherent concept."

Granted. The trick is to recognize that your coherent concept is an incomplete model that is by definition incorrect at some level of resolution.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 11:50AM|#

Just jumped in here, but the quoted passage doesn't say anything but the obvious. Why "even" Republicans want and demand what big government offers is perhaps a worthy subject for inquiry, but even that is largely obvious. The libertarian position is the more subtle one in most respects than the one asking/demanding the central authority to do this or that to supposedly achieve this or that result. I think at a very basic psychological level, abandoning or even restraining the military feels to many like holding one's hands behind one's back while a bad guy gets to punch you in the face, and dismantling the welfare state feels like walking past a drowning man without offering a hand. Why restraining the government is morally and pragmatically preferable is just not easy for the average guy and gal to see. In America or anywhere else.

And that's the way it is, phthththffffft!

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 11:52AM|#

I have never, once, opined on whether we need a bigger or smaller military in this country.

The fact that you don't realize and opine that we need a much smaller military is also the reason you are not a true libertarian.

It is hard not to notice the imbalance on this board. Ppl can't wait to get rid of public schools. Joe gets mocked for taking "equity" (some kind of soft proportionate version of equality?) seriously. I get mocked for thinking that the government needs to keep checking our food for poisons. Oooooh, so libertarian.

Then when I come on and talk about the military budget generally or specifically (10X China's budget is my specific on this for right now), then it gets really quiet. Like the military is less a wealth redistro than Joe's equity or my reinvigorated FDA.

That is the imbalance I need to make RCD face and T. understand in his heart. Maybe I am willing to come away from my FDA (especially if there is a tort law remedy) and slavery concerns (especially if there is mandated, prominent consumer information on the labor conditions of stuf I buy) and reservations re vouchers (esp if vouchers aren't a stealth way to defund public education).

However, I am not going to come away from anything for a group of quote-unquote libertarians who don't understand that coddling security freaks is the biggest, baddest wealth transfer going.

No, RCD maybe you haven't called for military cuts yet. Time to start. That is the true libertarian way, instead of mere rationalization of policies that you feel would make you wealthier personally.

grylliade|1.18.06 @ 11:53AM|#

Perhaps one reason libertarians lose is their refusal to grasp the ethical foundations of support for the welfare state, and their self-serving determination to write off every difference as the failure of ordinary people to understand economics.

There ya go, joe. That's exactly what it is. Libertarians don't care about poor people; they think that the poor deserve to be poor. Can't be that libertarians think that the welfare state is more a device to feel good about helping the poor than an actual device to help the poor. I understand full well the ethical foundations of the welfare state; I even share them. Which is why I oppose the welfare state, because I think that the way to actually help the poor be better off is private charity and a largely unregulated market economy.

So I oppose the welfare state, because I think it actually harms the poor. Given my beliefs and knowledge, supporting the welfare state would be a betrayal of the ethics behind it. Your beliefs are different, so you support it. But our goals are the same: helping the poor.

When someone says that equity is a legitimate goal, along with growth, drawing a demand curve is a dodge.

Yes and no. It's not a dodge; it's a failure to understand where the other person is coming from. It's an indication of poor social skills, which I think can be a major failing of libertarians. In fact, that might be the major reason that the LP (and libertarians in general) don't have much influence, as others have indicated. We have a tendency to promote substance over style, when you need both. In my case, my response would be to your assumption that equity is an attainable goal, and indeed whether it's even a good idea to pursue it, given the harm it causes to other aspects of society. But I'm not likely to make any progress, because it's an assumption you make, just as I assume that liberty is more important than equity. That's the root of our disagreement, and we can debate that, but in the end it's hard to change something that fundamental. It's much easier to cast aspersions on the other's motives than to realize that they're making different assumptions than you do.

Americans are comfortable centrists who want to have their cake and eat it too. They are woefully ignorant of economic theory and political philosophy. It has been this way for decades and there is no reason to believe it will change in any meaningful way any time soon. It doesn't matter who is President, as the pendulum will swing only so far off center before it returns to the middle. Everything will be cool until the first Islamist nuke detonates...

This is one of the strengths of America, I think. In the end, I think stable government is more important than "correct" government. I will still fight for liberty, but in the end the muddling through that America's government tends to be might be the best we can hope for. No one's really happy, but the compromises made generally work. They're not ideal, but they don't have to be. Does this mean that we shouldn't fight for changes at the margins? Certainly not. We can improve the government. But a radical change to a libertopia would do more harm than keeping the current status quo. Gradual change in the direction of libertarian ideals would work, but I think that's more a function of the tide of public opinion than anything. Nothing much to be done about that. So I'll continue doing what I can to change people's opinions, and voting libertarian, and working on the margins. I don't look for a collapse of the government, because the bad things we complain about are, in the grand scheme of things, not that bad. A nation can function with them. And people will live their lives largely free of government interference, if not as free as I would like, and that is what will keep this nation great.

Warren|1.18.06 @ 11:55AM|#

I agree that Libertarians suffer from the whack-job factor. However I am skeptical of the pragmatic approach. I would agree that public education and social security should be addressed incrementally, in spite of the compromise with principle, for pragmatic reasons. But there are a couple of pitfalls that must be avoided when being pragmatic.

First, the pragmatic solution must actually result in a more libertarian environment. Re-regulation in the name of de-regulation is counter productive. Vouchers will increase competition but they also increase the percentage of students receiving government subsidies to 100%. Charter schools can also offer competition, but if they are required to operate exactly like public schools, they will fail.

Second, I feel it is essential that we not surrender the moral high ground when we compromise for pragmatism. It may be politically impossible to do away with Social Security. However, if we lend our support to a proposed 3% privatization, and argue that this will increase benefits, and make SS more sustainable. There is an implicit concession that providing retirement benefits is a proper function of government to begin with. Likewise every libertarian who begins attacking the WOD by saying "I don't do drugs and I don't think you should either" is conceding the aims of the drug war and invites "more effective" measures in waging it.

I think that a strong, consistent, and principled approach to freedom will resonate with the people. We must also be honest in what freedom means. It means your neighbor is not allowed to pick your pocket or decide how you will live your life. It also means that you must suffer your neighbor as well. He is allowed to say those awful (anti American, blasphemous, obscene) things, he is allowed to print them, he can perform grotesque sexual acts in his house with other consenting adults, he is allowed to paint his house chartreuse and his shutters blood-red, and he is not required to house your father, feed your brother, cure your illness, or educate your children. This is what it means to live in a free society.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 11:59AM|#

There are no political solutions.

|1.18.06 @ 11:59AM|#

It's a lot easier to persuade people that big gov't is evil when it pries into their private lives, than to convince them that it's evil when it tries to provide them with a retirement fund. IMO that's where libertarianism fails to connect.

You can always try the "well-intentioned, but misguided and ineffective" angle, but that doesn't work as well as "evil, traitrous and un-American", as today's Right Wing has discovered when talking about the Left. Good and Evil gets people to the polls more readily than Efficient and Inefficient, I think.

|1.18.06 @ 12:01PM|#

First, the pragmatic solution must actually result in a more libertarian environment. Re-regulation in the name of de-regulation is counter productive.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Here's one example: I know a ridiculously hard-core libertarian who, naturally, opposes the drug war. I asked him what he'd think about a proposal to treat currently illegal drugs like alcohol: heavily taxed and regulated, but an adult won't go to jail for use or possession.

I think this would be a HUGE improvement over our current system, but Mr. Perfect Libertarian would never vote for such a thing. No, he wants an all-or-nothing deal: all drugs must be completely legal and fully unregulated, and he'll never vote for anything less.

Which means, if it's up to people like him, we will never see even the slightest improvement.

|1.18.06 @ 12:01PM|#

...the pro-nanny state arguments are largely emotional ones, and coming up with emotional counter-arguments is difficult.

As a former talk host, I learned this firsthand. Libertarianism will never prevail as long as we live in a world where the dominant media are emotion-driven.

MP|1.18.06 @ 12:02PM|#

Then when I come on and talk about the military budget generally or specifically (10X China's budget is my specific on this for right now), then it gets really quiet. Like the military is less a wealth redistro than Joe's equity or my reinvigorated FDA.

When there is a thread that discusses the military budget, I suspect the general population here will give resounding support to slashing it.

We could cut the military budget by 90% and still be so well protected that we put everyone else to shame. It just takes the intestinal fortitude to tell the rest of the world "Sorry, but you're on your own now".

The belief that we need to secure other countries in order to secure ourselves (both physically and economically) is fundamentally at odds with libertarian philosophy.

|1.18.06 @ 12:04PM|#

mister perfect is waiting for a ship that will never sail.

|1.18.06 @ 12:05PM|#

Even a nonlibertarian like me can be moved by certain libertarian ideas and values (especially each April 15).

I'm starting to think that the best thing libertarians could do to promote the cause of limited government over the short-to-intermediate term would be to push to have Election Day moved up to the first Tuesday following April 15.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 12:06PM|#

Dave W,

First, who gives a fuck who or what is or is not a "true libertarian"?

Next, maybe it gets quiet when you bring up the military budget cause it's a boring subject?

The war in Iraq has demonstrated that there's a clear split among many who broadly identify with libertarianism when it comes to the use of the military. Many who post here are clearly as opposed to that action as the wildest eyed leftist (including, to a large degree, me). But the military budget? Well, most libertarians are what is generally known, I think, as 'minarchists,' meaning they believe in minimal government but recognize the legitimate authority of the government to tax for the common good. Given such a position, there is no clearly correct level of military funding. Should we fund the military just enough so that we could likely fend off an invader, or should we fund it enough that all potential invaders in the world together would stand no chance? There simply is no "libertarian" answer to such a question, and thus libertarians might disagree. And so friggin' what if our military budget is ten times China's? What the hell does that prove?

grylliade|1.18.06 @ 12:08PM|#

The fact that you don't realize and opine that we need a much smaller military is also the reason you are not a true libertarian.

Pffft. The size of the military isn't the problem; it's the goals it's used for. That, and things like the way that military contracts are awarded. I think a good first step would be restoring the pre-WWII "distribution" of the military; the Marines and Navy are the President's, and the Army is Congress'. The President can use the Navy and Marines without Congress' explicit approval for a while, but funding for them is limited, as are their capabilities. The Army is a stub, a skeleton force of officers and non-coms who can train recruits (or even conscripts) in an emergency, but that takes time to get up to strength. This naturally constrains the scope of operations that the President can undertake without Congressional approval, and allows time to debate the use of force properly while the Army gets up to strength. The Army might well be smaller, but it also might be the same size as at present. But it would certainly be leaner, and more effective in general once it's mobilized.

But of course, that's what a republic does. We're not a republic in many ways now, so we have an imperial army that thinks it's republican. C'est la vie. Again, it's not the size that's harmful, it's the structure and usage.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 12:09PM|#

It's a lot easier to persuade people that big gov't is evil when it pries into their private lives, than to convince them that it's evil when it tries to provide them with a retirement fund.

Yeah, that's why liberals and civil libertarians get all the votes.

|1.18.06 @ 12:10PM|#

"I don't know if you are lefty or righty, T. I never called you a righty. my focus is on making you a fuller and truer LIBERTARIAN."

Dave, if you're a libertarian, then I'm a Jack Russel Terrier.

|1.18.06 @ 12:11PM|#

The fact that you don't realize and opine that we need a much smaller military is also the reason you are not a true libertarian.

See, if you don't agree with me on every single detail you will never, ever qualify as a libertarian. To hell with the idea of working together toward those goals we DO have in common; no, no, let's bicker amongst ourselves and then when we lose our umpteenth consecutive election cycle we can all suck on a big-ass bong and console ourselves with the thought that really, we're ever-so-much better than those fools who consistently refuse to vote for us.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 12:13PM|#

No national politician can stay in office long or get things done legislatively if he or she always talks or routinely votes the way a committed libertarian should.

Except for Ron Paul who has done it many times.

So the idea is to win office, not to save the country from its doom.
I once spoke with the mayor of a small town near D.C. We were working a polling place on election day. Nice guy. He agreed with me extensively and believed the country would not last because people depend too much on government. When I suggest he should become a libertarian, he said: "I'd rather win."
He wasn't trying to avert the doom he expected, he just wanted to keep his position while it lasted. Hard to blame him, everyone has survival issues. But his winning is of significant only to him, for everyone else, it really doesn't matter much who fills that position. Especially when the doom arrives.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 12:24PM|#

it's not the size that's harmful, it's the structure and usage.

Well put. Personally I feel that way about the government in general, which is why I feel less affinity for the idea of "small government" than "limited government." But then, the inherent problems with "big government" aside from its structure and usage are its economic impact and the level of coercive taxation generally needed for its support and the likelihood that the bigger it is the more it will be illegitimately used, and all this would seem to apply to the size of the military as well.

Jennifer|1.18.06 @ 12:25PM|#

If the FDA budget was close to the same size as the military budget you would have a point. It's not. Consequently, you don't.

The military is simply too much of a useless wealth transfer (realtively speaking) to keep quiet on. Cutting that transfer is not a discretionary plank in a true libertarian platform because of the sheer size of the transfer.

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 12:27PM|#

I point out that:

I have never, once, opined on whether we need a bigger or smaller military in this country.

To which Dave replies:

The fact that you don't realize and opine that we need a much smaller military is also the reason you are not a true libertarian.

Thus totally missing the point.

Which was, of course, that he has no frickin' idea what my realizations and opinions are on the size of the military. And still doesn't. And, if this is any indication of his reading comprehension skills, probably never will.

I think fyodor and grylliade do a fine job of laying out some markers on libertarian views of the military.

Jennifer|1.18.06 @ 12:31PM|#

And so friggin' what if our military budget is ten times China's? What the hell does that prove?

I am suggesting that the US bring its military budget *down* to ten times China's. That is why I expect to see more support. Because every true mini-anarchist should agree with that, but very few seem to (with you as a possible exception, of course, F.)

The approach here is aggressive scrutiny of things like public schools and the FDA. I love aggressive scrutiny of that stuf (which is why I come here), but then the posters here give a free pass on the military budget, don't look at it with the same critical eye. That is the hypocrisy that I am getting ppl here to understand and care about.

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 12:32PM|#

if I did a post under the name Jennifer it was an accident

And so friggin' what if our military budget is ten times China's? What the hell does that prove?

I am suggesting that the US bring its military budget *down* to ten times China's. That is why I expect to see more support. Because every true mini-anarchist should agree with that, but very few seem to (with you as a possible exception, of course, F.)

The approach here is aggressive scrutiny of things like public schools and the FDA. I love aggressive scrutiny of that stuf (which is why I come here), but then the posters here give a free pass on the military budget, don't look at it with the same critical eye -- a couple references to "Islamonutters" and "nukes" and there goes half my federal taxes. That is the hypocrisy that I am getting ppl here to understand and care about.

|1.18.06 @ 12:33PM|#

gryalliade,

No, you clearly don't understand or share the ethical foundation of the welfare state, as evidenced by your confusion with the ethical founduation of charity.

"We should be nice to the poor" is the ethic underlying charity. "The system should be structured to protect the weak and expand opportunity for all" is the ethic behind modern liberalism. That this or that program has this or that drawback when run through an economic model isn't the point; such problems can be addressed within a framework that is still consistent with the ethics of liberalism. (Or, if they can't, then that is an indictment of them on practical grounds, and still doesn't go to their ethical foundation).

The difference between your ethic and mine is the difference between a noble throwing a few coins at the peasants, and an assembly eliminating the nobility as an institution.

|1.18.06 @ 12:35PM|#

I will note that I disagree with Jennifer on more than one topic, and quite vehemently at that.

But in this thread, she has, in a single stroke, laid out everything that is wrong with libertarianism as it is today.

My general perception is that libertarianism is a doctrine for philosopher-nerds. It's a very rational, and sane way of looking at the world, and those that adhere to it (myself included) are puzzled and disdained by those who don't get it.

And yet, libertarians in general, and the LP specifically, continue to bash their head against this wall, year after year.

Jennifer's right, and has, in a handful of posts, explained exactly why the Libertarians continue to suck at everything they attempt. For libertarianism to have any pull, it has to put on a warm, more emotional front.

In short, libertarianism has to put down the sanctimonious attitude, take off it's fucking beret, and walk out of the coffee-shop round-table and into the real-world.

|1.18.06 @ 12:36PM|#

At this point in time, the defense budget accounts for about 4% of GDP. Factor in "homeland security" spending and post-budget expenditures for Afghanistan and Iraq, and perhaps you're around 5.5%. Not insignificant by any means, but still only a fraction of the 30% or so of GDP that the various levels of government account for.

The largest sinkholes are easily Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the massive interest payments being made to service the national debt. And all three are set to get worse over the next couple of decades.

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 12:37PM|#

I'm starting to think that the best thing libertarians could do to promote the cause of limited government over the short-to-intermediate term would be to push to have Election Day moved up to the first Tuesday following April 15.

If I could wave a magic wand, I would have election day and tax day be one and the same, and I would get rid of withholding.

I think you would see a big shift in voting behavior if everyone had to write big-ass checks to all levels of government before leaving the house to go vote.

But I'm not a true libertarian, so who cares what I think.

|1.18.06 @ 12:40PM|#

"No, you clearly don't understand or share the ethical foundation of the welfare state, as evidenced by your confusion with the ethical founduation of charity."

char�i�ty Audio pronunciation of "charity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chr-t)
n. pl. char�i�ties

1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity. The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.


Joe, I don't see anything in the definition of the word "charity" that indicates that it is required by the state.

Charity at the point of a gun is no charity at all.

And you've been here long enough to know better.

|1.18.06 @ 12:43PM|#

The "Jennifer" posts at 12:25 and 12:31 were not mine.

|1.18.06 @ 12:45PM|#

Jennifer, it would seem that Dave W. has an affinity for the angora sweaters...

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 12:47PM|#

No, you clearly don't understand or share the ethical foundation of the welfare state

But observing that liberals often don't understand economics is the type of arrogance that keeps libertarians from succeeding. Right.

BTW, joe, what if conservatives say the same things about liberals? Would that be why they don't hold any public offices?

"We should be nice to the poor" is the ethic underlying charity. "The system should be structured to protect the weak and expand opportunity for all" is the ethic behind modern liberalism.

I would say the latter is merely using different words for the same thing when it benefits you. Obviously charities also would like the poor folks they benefit to have greater opportunity. The only substantive difference in the two descriptions is the word "system." Yes, libertarians would not like charity to be institutionalized at public expense. Naturally we will disagree about that. But that does not mean there is anything about this "system" that we fail to understand.

|1.18.06 @ 12:49PM|#

In short, libertarianism has to put down the sanctimonious attitude, take off it's fucking beret, and walk out of the coffee-shop round-table and into the real-world.

My thoughts exactly. Which is why these discussions tend to bore the hell out of me.

To me, libertarianism is the anger I feel when I think about the fact that I'm working a certain amount of time every week to ensure that I am not allowed to try or use certain drugs, or to send a guy to Mars, or to research psychic teleportation, or to keep curse words off of television. Not to mention the fact that that amount of time is increased because I'm footing the bill for giant companies in certain industries due to corporate welfare.

Honestly, the idea that I might be helping a poor mother somewhere support her 3 kids is for some reason a whole lot less offensive to me. It's just that when I see the other bullshit my government subsidizes with my paycheck, I have a hard time trusting them to actually do that, and I think Joe can at least sympathize with me on that.

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 12:50PM|#

"The system should be structured to protect the weak and expand opportunity for all" is the ethic behind modern liberalism.

Of course, large chunks of the redistributionist state are harmful to the "weak" as well as the wealthy, and large chunks of the regulatory state restrict opportunity for all. I don't think this rather aspirational description of the ethic behind modern liberalism can be squared so easily with its results.

Libertarianism has both a utilitarian and a moral argument. The utilitarian argument for libertarianism is precisely that a minarchist society is, in the long run, safer for "the weak" and creates more opportunity for all. After all, a powerful state is the ultimate victimizer of the (politically) weak, and nothing drags down opportunity like the dead (economic) weight of a large "public" sector.

|1.18.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Who would have thought back in 1970 that evangelical christians would be a major political force in one of the major parties?

Not me, I was just 5.

There was an excellent program on Nova about how the downturn in the oil business in Teas in the late 70s early 80 made folks who lost jobs and homes become more religious, and then take over small political offices, and then get seats in congress and the senate and then good ole W. Maybe we can take the current environment of distrust of government snooping and make some changes in the parties as they are now, but not by throwing out senators but throwing out town council members who are too wedded to the status quo. Start small.

Who knows, maybe the 2032 election will be between a tax cutting Democrat and a welfare state Republican!

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 12:53PM|#

libertarianism has to put down the sanctimonious attitude

Only when THEY do!!!

Ha ha.

But there's a point to my joke. I don't know if libertarians are really any more sanctimonious than anyone else, and joe's posts are often very good counter-examples to the notion of sanctimonious-libertarian-exceptionalism. :-) Maybe we seem to be cause there's less of us so we look more pathetic when we are.

Anyway, I would agree that sanctimoniousness is never a good way to convince anyone of your own POV, and so I would discourage its use as a debating tool. But that said, sanctimoniousness happens, and I won't hold my breath that it's gonna go away anytime soon, from our tribe or any other.

|1.18.06 @ 1:03PM|#

"My general perception is that libertarianism is a doctrine for philosopher-nerds. It's a very rational, and sane way of looking at the world, and those that adhere to it (myself included) are puzzled and disdained by those who don't get it."

Pretty close to the mark. I think you might look at this thread and quickly figure out why Libertarianism is not successful in influencing the masses. I will make a couple of points.

I think, the fact that only two responses were made to someone from the mainstream (me) trying to engage the group on the topic of why you are unconvincing (see list of conflicting substantive issues above)may be a sign that you are uninterested in engaging the mainstream on a serious level. It is easy to blame failure on a lack of trying. It is harder to put forth an effort and fail for reasons of substance. More comfortable to just not try.

The fact that Libertarianism is very rational and sane in your view does not mean that others "just don't get it." It is possible that many "get it," examine it rationally, and reject it for sane and rational reasons.

The failure to recognize that others have legit disagreements with your position (rather than a lack of understanding) makes it hard for you to formulate convincing arguments. This is what I mean by a failure to recognize the complexity of political reality. Same goes for economic arguments. Libertarians often refer to the free market as if it were something that has ever, or ever could, exist. It isn't and won't, so look for a way to move to a freer market with legit restraints, and you may make headway. Hold out for a fantasy and you will wait until we have those star trek transporters working and can upload our brains to argue minutia to eternity.

|1.18.06 @ 1:04PM|#

fyodor, I don't disagree with you, but the other parties are at least able to put a better face on their smug condescension.

I mean, look at joe, he cares, man.

|1.18.06 @ 1:12PM|#

mediageek, read harder.

I was DISTINGUISHING the welfare state from charity, not confusing them. Not defining the welfare state and charity. Differentiating the welfare state from charity. Sheesh.

fyodor, please tell me you know the difference between discussing a particular individual's understanding of something based on his own writing, and blanket statement about a broad group like "liberals." Who, by the way, actually do hold numerous public offices.

'The only substantive difference in the two descriptions is the word "system."'

Which is a rather significant distinction.

"Yes, libertarians would not like charity to be institutionalized at public expense. Naturally we will disagree about that. But that does not mean there is anything about this "system" that we fail to understand."

I didn't accuse you of failing to understand how the system works. I accused you of failing to understand the ethic that says the systems failures should be fixed, rather tha alleviated when and if somebody feels like it.

|1.18.06 @ 1:15PM|#

RC, I understand what you're saying, but to stay on topic, I'll just note that your criticism is a pragmatic one, not an ethical one, and can therefore be addressed within the ethical system of liberalism. The final welfare reform bill, for example, is an attempt to do just that.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 1:18PM|#

Mediageek,

but the other parties are at least able to put a better face on their smug condescension

Yes, and I think that's more to the point.


MainStreamMan,

the fact that only two responses were made to someone from the mainstream (me) trying to engage the group on the topic of why you are unconvincing

Oh come on now, man!! I often make posts here that totally get ignored!!! Or at least elicit no responses (which is a different thing). There's an infinite number of reasons people might not address what you've said, and arrogance is only one of those infinite possibilities. One possibility that comes immediately to my mind is that it's often tiresome to go through Libertarianism 101 because you have to repeat what you've said a million times and be very long-winded to explain yourself adequately, and most people here don't delude themselves into thinking we're really changing the world; we're here for fun!

That said, if you'll tell me the time of your previous post, I'll see if I have the time and inclination to address your issues. And if you think I'm being arrogant, I'm just reflecting the fact that I may or may not feel like it. I often address the concerns of "outsiders" who come here. But hell, only if it's fun, which means only if I feel like it!

Oh, and if you think folks of other persuasions would be more motivated by civic duty or something versus personal interest in determining who to respond to, well, you can just think that. I think it's nonsense, but obviously there's no way to prove it.

|1.18.06 @ 1:19PM|#

I accused you of failing to understand the ethic that says the systems failures should be fixed, rather tha alleviated when and if somebody feels like it.

But this is a little bit dishonest, Joe, since the truth is that you feel libertarians in general Just Don't Care. In some cases, that's true, but that's a big difference from "failing to understand the ethic".

|1.18.06 @ 1:19PM|#

But the system failures are a part of the system. They're built in to the system. They naturally arise from the system. However you want to call it.

The law of unintended consequences ensures the system is fucked.

"The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Or something like that.

And you want to talk about ethics? Is it ethical to force people to provide charity?

But to be quite honest, I'd be all for compromise. It'd be a helluva lot better than what we have now. And I don't even really mind that some of my taxes go to help poor people. What really irks me is that some of my taxes go to huge corporations to subsidise growing cotton or some other shit, for example. It's the rampant waste of resources that pisses me off more than that I'm helping a single mother feed her children.

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 1:20PM|#

MainStreamMan-

I think that one of the reasons that you see that lack of interest in debate and/or compromise is that fundamental to the libertarian belief is the idea that no matter how much debate or compromise goes on, the individual right trumps all.

And many (most?) of us feel that compromise with government leads to enforcement at gunpoint...and to possibly misquote Chekov, "if there's a pistol in a story, it will eventually have to be fired."

As to this point:

LP: Natural rights are obvious and broad (and always include the particular activity I like to engage in)
MSV: Natural rights are poorly defined and therefore we need a democratic process to negotiate what they are.

I can't vouch for everyone, but my personal view is that because those rights are difficult to define, as few as possible should be democratically decided. As a rational anarchist, this makes it easy for me to do whatever I please so long as I'm not hurting anyone else.

Also:

LPV: And, of course, Property rights are primary.
MSV: Individual property rights are secondary to the overall needs of society (best examples, zoning, land use rules).

Don't know if I'd agree that that's the case in re the MSV - perhaps when it's brought up in the abstract, but I don't think many accept land grabs as acceptable when it happens to them.

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 1:23PM|#

If I could wave a magic wand, I would have election day and tax day be one and the same, and I would get rid of withholding.

That is a great idea. I think Fyo, above, was also asking why I am harping on the military budget in this particular thd. Let me answer that:

the Bush guy quoted as the subject of this thread said that true libertarians (he called them "committed libertarians") could not get elected. There is ongoing curioity about why this is. I jumped in to suggest that a true libertarian couldn't even make headway on this board because most here would never go for the military cuts (I used RCD and T. as concrete examples, but I could have chosen some of the lesser lights). If this board can't handle a true libertarian because of their overblown fear of Islamonutters, then it is easy to see that the ex-Bush guy is right: the voters at large won't go for one either.

It is easy to say: I am a true Libertarian except when it comes to gov't spending I like. the challenge is making people look at both the war and welfare aspects of government wealth transfer with an equally critical eye. RCD's proposal about withholding and tax day would be a big step in the right direction.

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 1:24PM|#

Interesting quote, found in today's Wall Street Journal daily politics email:

"The world is changing. And Democratic New Deal politics has been gone for a while, but Ronald Reagan Republicanism is gone, too. The public's up for grabs, and whatever party forms the right viewpoint, both substantively and message-wise, will be the dominant party for the next ten years, at least. Everything's up for grabs" -- Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, quoted in New York Magazine.

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 1:26PM|#

If this board can't handle a true libertarian because of their overblown fear of Islamonutters...

Dave, the reason the board "can't handle" you is because you tend to be kind of a condescending dick, after which you sometimes suggest that we're either being intentionally poisoned or on the 'talking points' payroll of a corporate or government entity.

No offense meant, man, but c'mon.

|1.18.06 @ 1:26PM|#

This type of discussion always gives me an ice-cream headache. Bottom line: the American public is slowly becoming less libertarian over time. Why? Good question, and more than I want to try and delve into. Our politics pretty accurately reflects public opinion. My take: libertarianism is a first principle that cannot always be reduced to easily digestable political positions but works well as a starting point for political discussions.

Politically it could never happen, but there would be one way to make millions of Americans into libertarians overnight: eliminate income tax withholding and make Mr. and Ms. America write a check to Uncle Sugar each month. Then they might get a fucking clue about how much is being stolen from them in the name of "equity," "morality," and "security."

|1.18.06 @ 1:28PM|#

But to be quite honest, I'd be all for compromise. It'd be a helluva lot better than what we have now. And I don't even really mind that some of my taxes go to help poor people. What really irks me is that some of my taxes go to huge corporations to subsidise growing cotton or some other shit, for example. It's the rampant waste of resources that pisses me off more than that I'm helping a single mother feed her children.

Exactly what I said. Libertarians are so hung up on the logical purity of their beliefs that they jump right to dealing with the horror stories in order to defend those beliefs, as if everything they think is invalid if there is a mother somewhere in need; which is really only playing into the hands of liberals, because no matter how reasoned your arguments are, they can be dismissed as window dressing for apathy.

I say, let the mother feed her damn kids, I'll pay for it, just don't make me pay for the government programs that are clearly bullshit (WoD, etc.).

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 1:29PM|#

failing to understand the ethic that says the systems failures should be fixed

Sympathy is not an ethic. The failures cannot be fixed, for they are systemic.

|1.18.06 @ 1:29PM|#

My last post sounds wrong (like I am complaining that you don't like me or some shit). I ain't. There is, I recognize, a bit of back and forth with other non-libertarians going on here.

My comment is more about the general way that the mainstream is engaged (at least on Hit & Run, and when I talk to Libertarians on the street outside my office). If you engage the public as if you are going to correct their misguided viewpoint, you won't get far. It is not just sanctimoniousness, but also rigidity that plays into this failure to engage the "average Joe."

I also chuckle at the notion that libertarians don't make headway because they don't use emotional arguments. From my point of view, it is the reliance on emotional arguments that hurts you the most, or the failure to recognize the emotional underpinning to what you feel are rational arguments. Many libertarian arguments sound more like peevish teenager's complaints than overly rational points from intellectuals. (Not always, I want to emphasize that I am make gross generalizations here). There is an element of emotion in all reasoning. Reasoning without emotion is ineffective (see Antonio Damasio's books if you wonder where that comes from). Failure to recognize that your rational argument is an attempt to justify a position that you hold because of its emotional resonance puts you at a disadvantage when you are trying to engage in an attempt to sway public policy.

That's my additional 2 cents. (I think I am up to around a dime now

Again, consider and discuss ;-)

|1.18.06 @ 1:30PM|#

Politically it could never happen, but there would be one way to make millions of Americans into libertarians overnight: eliminate income tax withholding and make Mr. and Ms. America write a check to Uncle Sugar each month. Then they might get a fucking clue about how much is being stolen from them in the name of "equity," "morality," and "security."

Exactly. Or, for those of us in the media, end every story about government corruption, stupid programs, etc., with the sentence: "And you paid for it."

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 1:31PM|#

I'll just note that your criticism is a pragmatic one, not an ethical one, and can therefore be addressed within the ethical system of liberalism.

Well, no, joe. The utilitarian argument for libertarianism/minarchism is an ethical argument.

What I was pointing out was that, on your terms, there is a legitimate argument Big Government Liberalism is an ethical failure. It burdens opportunity for all, and has created a massive and intrusive government that creates victims wherever it goes.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 1:32PM|#

MainStreamMan,

I remembered I could search on your name, so I found your post. Well, you're right, it's those attitudes that keep libertarians out of the mainstream. Or at least currently. But that doesn't mean we're wrong.

Anyway...

LPV: Government = violence
MSV: Government = formalized cooperation of a community (helps to facilitate non-violent conflict resolution)

The application of the law is a violent thing, it involves the violation of people's rights, and that is why it should only be used once rights have already been violated. People may cooperate to form a government, but the application of the law is still a violent means. My girlfriend has made the argument that some laws are necessary to ward off greater violence, thus the need for 'civil rights' laws that endeavor to force employers and businesses to not act on their own prejudices. She did some research on the civil rights era and found that more violence was committed by whites rebelling such laws than by blacks protesting segregated lunch counters. Which isn't to justify their violence, not one bit. But it shows that such arguments are a stretch because no one can really say what public policies will indirectly result in violence. That said, I do understand that we as a society don't like racial discrimination by private employers and for many that is the more obvious injustice than the government's violation of property rights to try to prevent such behavior. And so it's true that opposing 'civil rights' laws helps to make us unpopular. But it doesn't make us wrong.

Now I'll do some work and maybe address some of your other concerns later.

|1.18.06 @ 1:35PM|#

"As a rational anarchist, this makes it easy for me to do whatever I please so long as I'm not hurting anyone else."

I think, MSV says the debate is over when you're actions are hurting someone else and that it is not up to you to decide, but the someone else (or the group via democratic process).

|1.18.06 @ 1:40PM|#

understand the ethic that says the systems failures should be fixed

Uh, doesn't this presuppose the possibility that the system can be fixed? Has this possibility ever been demonstrated?

|1.18.06 @ 1:42PM|#

So, the two major recommendations are

1) Adopt more popular stances, you libertarian idiot

2) Present your unpopular ideas better.

#1 will obviously work. Become a conservative or a liberal and you'll have a set of goals and desired policies that are far more likely to get carried out. Doesn't do much for this kooky "libertarianism" thing, though.

#2 might conceivably work. But the Republicans have been pushing things like school vouchers for years with their resources - what's the magic touch libertarians are going to whip out on those dieasto suddenly make them more palatable?

|1.18.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"dieasto" = "ideas to"

|1.18.06 @ 1:44PM|#

"...since the truth is that you feel libertarians in general Just Don't Care..."

Untrue, zach. There are clearly a minority of libertarians who do care, do want to do something about the plight of the poor, and who reject, strongly, the social darwinian implications of, for example, the objectivist strain of libertarianism. "Dishonest" isn't actually defined as "not conforming to the opinion I want you to hold."

Lowdog, is it ethical to force people to pay for the courts and police that enforce your property rights?

RC, we're getting into semantics here, but the fact that your pragmatic argument (it won't work, it will make things worse) ties into an ethical argument (we shouldn't make things worse) does not make your pragmatic argument itself ethical.

|1.18.06 @ 1:45PM|#

"That said, I do understand that we as a society don't like racial discrimination by private employers and for many that is the more obvious injustice than the government's violation of property rights to try to prevent such behavior. And so it's true that opposing 'civil rights' laws helps to make us unpopular. But it doesn't make us wrong."

I don't think it is about right or wrong. It is about which one of two rights is more important(or which of two wrongs if you prefer). I think the society's sense that civil rights laws against racial discrimination are needed is made in full recognition of the need to protect private property rights. The society has just decided that one is MORE important than the other. That doesn't make you wrong, per se. But it also doesn't make you right. It means that your position needs to be considered as we cooperatively come up with a solution that balances individual rights with the common good. But to hold a principle that property rights trump all other issues makes you look like you are not weighing the issue rationally, but, rather emotionally.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 1:46PM|#

If you engage the public as if you are going to correct their misguided viewpoint, you won't get far.

That's a good point, but as I've stated many many times before, I still don't think such an attitude is somehow limited to libertarians. Maybe we're worse, but that's hardly clear. So I find it a very unconvincing reason for why our positions are unpopular.

But MainStreamMan, are you a troll? For if you truly hold very different positions from libertarians, wouldn't it be enough for you to simply think we're unpopular because we're wrong? Why do you need to find any other reason to explain our unpopularity?

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 1:47PM|#

I think, MSV says the debate is over when you're actions are hurting someone else and that it is not up to you to decide, but the someone else (or the group via democratic process).

I agree - and to keep from 'hurting others', within the framework of rule deontology I try to keep up with Kant; but the MSV that I am to be held to the mob's decision isn't one that I agree with, so I ignore it as best I'm able.

The democratic process is a societal construct that I give legitimacy to only as a means of change, not because I think it requires (or deserves) any inherent respect or adherence.

Certainly this won't jibe with the MSV, but I think I'm less concerned than most here with that (with the notable exception of Ruthless :).

|1.18.06 @ 1:48PM|#

the American public is slowly becoming less libertarian over time.

My take is that as government grows larger it becomes harder and more costly to fight back. Then the "golden handcuffs" effect begins to take hold. All those goodies are too tempting to get out of line and risk losing. How many people will give up the SUV to pay for a lawsuit? Hey, it's someone else that's getting jailed for smoking a joint, why should I care?

Dave W.|1.18.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Dave, the reason the board "can't handle" you is because you tend to be kind of a condescending dick

I am not going to argue about the dick thing (although I seem to get called names out of all proportion to my namecalling).

However, I wasn't referring to me. I was saying that this board would not be able to handle *anyone* who suggested deep cuts in the US military, condescending dick, awestruck cunt or otherwise.

Ed|1.18.06 @ 1:52PM|#

For the record, I have never owned a beret and I make my own coffee, but I am sanctimonious. And quite adorable.

|1.18.06 @ 1:53PM|#

joe - not really, but that's why I toe the minarchist or anarcho-capitalist line.

However, another person made the same point I did - your system has it's failures built in. How would you address this?

Off topic: I don't really ever think Dave W is a dick, it's just that half the time I have no idea what point he's trying to make or where he's coming from. Sometimes I have no idea what in the fuck he's talking about. Sorry Dave W, but you seem to have thick skin, so I won't sweat it too much. :)

R C Dean|1.18.06 @ 1:54PM|#

joe admits that there are clearly a minority of libertarians who do care, do want to do something about the plight of the poor

Big of you, joe, to magnamimously conclude that the majority of libertarians do not care about the poor.

Try to comprehend that it is possible to honestly believe that the best thing for the poor is the elimination of the culture of dependency created by the welfare state, and the expanded economic opportunities available under a minarchist state.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 1:55PM|#

But to hold a principle that property rights trump all other issues makes you look like you are not weighing the issue rationally, but, rather emotionally.

Just because a particular position makes us look a certain way does not mean that the perception is accurate, nor does it mean we should comprimise on what we believe is a very clearly correct position. Yes, we believe that a property owner's rights to that property is subservient to what others would have him do with his or her own property, as long as the property owner doesn't violate someone else's rights. And since deciding who gets to be on one's property is inherent to owning that property, disallowing someone on it for whatever reason is not a violation of anyone's rights. This is what we believe to be the correct position to take in the matter, and I recognize that most people disagree. If that seems emotional to you, I don't know how I can convince you otherwise.

|1.18.06 @ 1:55PM|#

Untrue, zach. There are clearly a minority of libertarians who do care...

LOL, as in, generally they do not. In accordance with the statement, "libertarians in general Just Don't Care".

|1.18.06 @ 1:58PM|#

If that seems emotional to you, I don't know how I can convince you otherwise.

You're disagreeing with the Mainstream. That's just...irrational, dude.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 1:59PM|#

My experience is that most liberals don't care about the poor much if any more than anyone else. They're mostly motivated by anger at the rich (and conservatives) and the desire to be in the right. In this regard they're really little different and no better or worse than anyone else.

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 1:59PM|#

Really, Dave, no offense meant - but your tone here is, I think, as I described it.

However, I wasn't referring to me. I was saying that this board would not be able to handle *anyone* who suggested deep cuts in the US military, condescending dick, awestruck cunt or otherwise.

Then I misunderstood, and apologize for same. Also, kudos on "awestruck cunt" - that was dirty enough to get a bit of coffee out the nose.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 2:01PM|#

Eric,

lol!! :-)

|1.18.06 @ 2:02PM|#

Joe, in all fairness, I went back and re-read your post. I see what you're getting at.

However, I find the following statement troubling:

"The difference between your ethic and mine is the difference between a noble throwing a few coins at the peasants, and an assembly eliminating the nobility as an institution."

The problem, and one that you fail to recognize, is that by building some concept of "equality" into an institution, you create an entire new set of nobles, in the case of the welfare state, the ones who promise to continue doling out "equality" in exchange for sending them back to congress.

This, of course, is assuming that redistributing wealth that you didn't earn isn't a crime in and of itself.

|1.18.06 @ 2:02PM|#

See, if you don't agree with me on every single detail you will never, ever qualify as a libertarian.

Jennifer, it's even worse than that. If I happen to agree with him, but I don't make the point that he wants to make because I'm thinking of something else at the moment, he assumes that I'm brainwashed.

|1.18.06 @ 2:03PM|#

wait...dave w. isn't a parody?

also, joe: i hope things are ok with you, cause you've become something of an utter fuckface in the last six months or so. what's up?

|1.18.06 @ 2:05PM|#

My experience is that most liberals don't care about the poor much if any more than anyone else. They're mostly motivated by anger at the rich (and conservatives) and the desire to be in the right. In this regard they're really little different and no better or worse than anyone else.

I agree. Most libertarians don't care, either, they're just angry at being told what to do. And most conservatives don't care, they're just angry that the world ain't what it used to be. And we all want to be right, that goes without saying.

So, Revolutionary Discovery of the Moment: Politics are often driven by other things.

|1.18.06 @ 2:06PM|#

dhex - re: joe...I've noticed the same thing over the last few weeks, really. He's been totally trolling a couple of times recently and is even now just trying to bait folks (namely us libertarians), it seems.

You ok joe? :)

And address my point. I hate being ignored!!!! ;)

|1.18.06 @ 2:07PM|#

"Dave, the reason the board "can't handle" you is because you tend to be kind of a condescending dick, after which you sometimes suggest that we're either being intentionally poisoned or on the 'talking points' payroll of a corporate or government entity."

Dude, you mean to say that you aren't on the payroll of a corporate entity? You...you're actually posting here for free?

Like, of your own volition?

*gigglesnort*

|1.18.06 @ 2:08PM|#

"wait...dave w. isn't a parody?"

Only insofar as you choose to take him seriously.

|1.18.06 @ 2:09PM|#

"We should be nice to the poor" is the ethic underlying charity. "The system should be structured to protect the weak and expand opportunity for all" is the ethic behind modern liberalism.

I'd flush any libertarian bona fides I have down the shitter and embrace the "we should be nice to the poor" welfare state if we would actually DO such a thing. But our so-called charitable legislation handcuffs the poor (figuratively and literally) when our system which is supposed to protect the weak and expand opportunity gets so gung ho on victimless crimes like selling certain substances, trading sex for money, child labor restrictions, etc. Some people may be ligitimately charitable asking for nothing in return, but it's more common for people to claim they want to help the poor but only with gobs of strings attached.

During campaigns only the charity is emphasized, when the laws are actually written the limitations and restrictions of that charity are the real emphasis. With friends like that, where's the ethical charity?

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 2:09PM|#

Hmm, so this has devolved from the problems with libertarian politics to problems with each other. Whoops.

Dhex, you use a stupid little razor to shave your head.

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 2:12PM|#

You...you're actually posting here for free?

Well, I'm getting paid at the moment, and have been provided a computer - but I don't recall this having been something I have to do.

I'm pretty sure my boss reads this, though. :)

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 2:13PM|#

"The difference between your ethic and mine is the difference between a noble throwing a few coins at the peasants..."

joe, why do you hate charities?

All seriousness aside, that's a very condescending view of what private charities do, to put it mildly.

And your comparison to ending nobility is a non sequitor as it applies to charity versus welfare. Obviously you should know that libertarians would oppose a publicly supported nobility.

|1.18.06 @ 2:15PM|#

"But MainStreamMan, are you a troll? For if you truly hold very different positions from libertarians, wouldn't it be enough for you to simply think we're unpopular because we're wrong? Why do you need to find any other reason to explain our unpopularity?"

I must admit to having no idea what a troll is. As for why I care. It is my opinion that political debate in this country is far too restricted (as if the Democratic and Republican positions were the only ones available). I would love to see all sorts of view points seriously discussed in coming to decisions about public policy (I believe that is a MSV as well). Until alternative parties can successfully engage in the political power structure, the debate will continue to be restricted and good ideas not considered...

Again, I don't see Libertarians as wrong in principle, but they often feel their principles apply in situations where they don't, or where other principles might dominate. If as a group, libertatians could agree that other points of view are also legit in some circumstances, they might be more successful at pressing their positions when we are talking about public policies where libertarian principles apply, or more accurately where they should dominate.

In otherwords, my interest is totally self-serving and pragmatic. I want libertarians to be more successful (and Greens, and Commies, and Raelians) so that we can get out of the one-party cluster fuck we are currently struggling with (which leads to revolutionary, but idiotic changes in our societies functioning as the Bush administration has aptly demonstrated).

|1.18.06 @ 2:15PM|#

Unfortunately, you don't have any answers for any of the problems the poor face that are inherent to capitalism - those, you're just fine with allowing the poor to suffer through. Liberals aren't.

Not that you don't care or anything.

|1.18.06 @ 2:19PM|#

I think my "two major recommendations" post is still completely describing the on-topic comments.

I'm just amused at the non-libertarians clambering aboard to explain that our problem is that we're, you know, libertarians (just more verbosely).

|1.18.06 @ 2:19PM|#

"If that seems emotional to you, I don't know how I can convince you otherwise.

You're disagreeing with the Mainstream. That's just...irrational, dude."

And off we go...discount an alternative viewpoint (e.g., the mainstream) and it will go away.

the half a bee is usually more balanced, I am disappointed
;)

|1.18.06 @ 2:23PM|#

And the mainstream is usually less vacuous.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 2:27PM|#

I observe that in San Francisco, whenever someone comes of with some modest idea to hel the homeless (such as protable shelters), advocates raise hell at any idea the doesn't go all the way to putting the homeles in middle class housing.

The one I really like is when the group "Food not bombs" tries to give out sandwiches to the homeless, the health department gets on their case for not obtaining food service permits.

|1.18.06 @ 2:28PM|#

Yep, we're doing a bang-up job here of attracting the mainstream voters whose support we'd need if we ever wanted to win an election. Absolutely superb.

|1.18.06 @ 2:28PM|#

And yes, I mean that. The whole "yeah, I like your ideas, but applying them, that just doesn't work" is a point that has no answer and doesn't deserve one. I might as well say, "Your ideas are all conventional and stuff, but they don't work." It's an empty criticism.

|1.18.06 @ 2:35PM|#

Yep, we're doing a bang-up job here of attracting the mainstream voters whose support we'd need if we ever wanted to win an election. Absolutely superb.

Yes, we're doing a terrible job of mind-controlling the people who absolutely disagree with us (and in some cases admit they want us to stay marginal) into accepting our ideas. Why is it so easy for every other political group to bend others' helpless minds to their will?

|1.18.06 @ 2:37PM|#

Yes, we're doing a terrible job of mind-controlling the people who absolutely disagree with us (and in some cases admit they want us to stay marginal) into accepting our ideas. Why is it so easy for every other political group to bend others' helpless minds to their will?

If you ever want to win an election, a better plan would be to focus on those areas in which the people DO agree with you. If libertarianism ever become a political force to be reckoned with, it will happen gradually, not overnight.

|1.18.06 @ 2:37PM|#

The reason that although I sympathize with libertarian ideas I usuallly end up voting for the Democrat is the following:

Libertarians, especially those who are anti-tax, seem to have no understanding of history, economics, or human interactions. This idea that government is by definition Evil and the free market is by definition Good is so simplistic--and Manichean, by the way. This assumption that a task, when grabbed from the hands of the government and immediately privatized suddenly flips from being Bad to Good is so mind-boggingly stupid I have to bang my head against the wall.

If you really hate, hate, hate taxes, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go move to some place like Somalia or Afghanistan?! Of course, you'll have to deal with the local warlords instead, but that's a small price to pay, isn't it? "Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society."

And if Libertarianism is so perfect and natural and self-sustaining, why is it we have not seen one society YET in history that works according to it?!

|1.18.06 @ 2:39PM|#

Eric, I think your point #1 would be better characterized as, stop approaching libertarianism as a complete political philosophy, and start approaching it as a value to be balanced against other legitimate values.

For instance, a completely free market is obviously not going to result in every single mother with 3 kids having the money to feed her family. No one on this board would take that position; so, what to do about the mothers who fall through the cracks? Under the Libertarianism Is the Only Answer to Anything approach, they're fucked.

My approach would be, maintain welfare for these people, as we can all agree that mothers feeding their children is a good thing. Maybe make it more efficient somehow. What it seems like many libertarians don't understand is, I can take this position, and still advocate the elimination of corporate welfare, NASA and the war on the drugs, and a slew of other government programs that almost all libertarians agree are bad things.

Just take this thread for example; it's become frozen on the welfare for poor families issue and has barely addressed the much more convincing positions of libertarianism, such as drug legalization. Part of that is liberals on the board attacking what they see as a weak issue for libertarians, but a big part of that is also all-or-nothing L's arguing their worldview down to the final detail.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 2:40PM|#

The trouble with many libertarians (and most people of opinion) is the tendency to go shooting off at the mouth without consideration of who they are talking to, what they want to accomplish, and difference between ones' intention and others' perception.

Libertarians are latecomers to a rigged game. Of course they won't achieve more than a limited political success. Duh!

|1.18.06 @ 2:43PM|#

Libertarians, especially those who are anti-tax, seem to have no understanding of history, economics, or human interactions. This idea that government is by definition Evil and the free market is by definition Good is so simplistic--and Manichean, by the way. This assumption that a task, when grabbed from the hands of the government and immediately privatized suddenly flips from being Bad to Good is so mind-boggingly stupid I have to bang my head against the wall.

Amen.

|1.18.06 @ 2:43PM|#

Hey guys this thread makes me feel like libertarian ideals will actually come to pass in my lifetime. I see more family bickering than actual deal breakers and think some of you are missing the forest for the trees. I'll come up with more cliches as I think of them, but rest assured there is a least one libertarian with hope still left out there. Maybe that makes me the most delusional libertarian of all.

Joe, please define poverty and we can better respond to the problems the poor face that are inherent to capitalism.

|1.18.06 @ 2:45PM|#

If you ever want to win an election, a better plan would be to focus on those areas in which the people DO agree with you. If libertarianism ever become a political force to be reckoned with, it will happen gradually, not overnight.

"Winning elections" is not a reasonable or even useful goal in the short term. Ron Paul's in office, but how many bills has he managed to spike lately? What rollbacks of government power has he been able to accomplish? "Becoming credible enough to pay attention to" is a necessary first step to accomplishing anything.

And that won't happen by playing coy and pretending to be a liberal or conservative. "Um, no, I don't support legalizing...many...drugs...much...at all."

|1.18.06 @ 2:49PM|#

"Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society."

Wow. I haven't seen anyone dust off that meme in about a decade.

"And if Libertarianism is so perfect and natural and self-sustaining, why is it we have not seen one society YET in history that works according to it?!"

Because it's a relatively new philosophy. Sure the roots* go back a couple of centuries, but let's face it, the most revolutionary libertarian thinkers are all pretty much stacked within the last 70 years or so.

*Bastiat, Locke, etc.

|1.18.06 @ 2:50PM|#

"Winning elections" is not a reasonable or even useful goal in the short term.

Then what ARE you hoping to accomplish? A complete sea change in the attitude of the American electorate? Not likely to happen.

|1.18.06 @ 2:51PM|#

In an attempt to drag things back on topic, how about taking a look at the most successful libertarian politician:

Ron Paul.

How does he do it?

Why is it he seems to be able to dodge the claim that Republicans/libertarians just want to throw grandma and poor kids into the street to freeze to death?

|1.18.06 @ 2:52PM|#

Then what ARE you hoping to accomplish? A complete sea change in the attitude of the American electorate? Not likely to happen.

I hope to fight bad policies, support good ones, and make the tiniest nudge in attitudes. (And yes, I'm rather nicer in conveying ideas when I'm not talking to smug trolls on a message board.) I submit that is far more likely to accomplish anything than one guy in Congress being the sole "No" vote.

|1.18.06 @ 2:54PM|#

Ron Paul.

How does he do it?

No:

Ron Paul.

What does he ever do?

Rich Ard|1.18.06 @ 3:01PM|#

What does he ever do?

Nothing, and it's great.

|1.18.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Is there no middle ground, then?

Or more to the point, if libertarianism is going to compete as a serious force in American politics, as unlikely as that is, we will have to at least accept that there might be.

|1.18.06 @ 3:03PM|#

Think about it; the Republican and Democratic parties today aren't advocating complete systems of government, they're representing competing values.

Um, no, they have rather complete agendas.

Exactly. Is there no middle ground, then?

Depends. But the "middle ground" isn't anything of value in and of itself.

|1.18.06 @ 3:08PM|#

"What does he ever do?"

Nothing, and it's great.

He gives some of us a warm, fuzzy feeling and doesn't slow down the growth of government one iota. You can consider that "great". I think it's a waste of time.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 3:09PM|#

Libertarians, especially those who are anti-tax, seem to have no understanding of history, economics, or human interactions.

LOL. But otherwise we're spot on!! With friends like you...

|1.18.06 @ 3:10PM|#

Put another way, Ron Paul would be doing a lot more good if anyone besides his constituents and us cared about his ideas or, to be blunt, had even heard of the guy.

|1.18.06 @ 3:11PM|#

Um, no, they have rather complete agendas.

Maybe officially, but not in reality. The GOP is supposed to be the party of federalism, remember?

|1.18.06 @ 3:14PM|#

"Um, no, they have rather complete agendas."

Maybe officially, but not in reality. The GOP is supposed to be the party of federalism, remember?

They're the party of what they're the party of, which is a coalition of interest groups and some rhetoric dusted over the whole mess. They end up still having agendas.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 3:15PM|#

Ron Paul.
How does he do it?
No:
Ron Paul.
What does he ever do?

How many members of congress are there? How many Ron Pauls are there?

He keeps getting elected and he speaks, and votes, as libertarian as anyone you'll find in D.C.

No national politician can stay in office long or get things done legislatively if he or she always talks or routinely votes the way a committed libertarian should.

By the logic of John J. DiIulio Jr., he shouldn't even be getting re-elected.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 3:15PM|#

This idea that government is by definition Evil and the free market is by definition Good is so simplistic

And who says anyone has that idea? The good thing about the free market is that it is free. The bad thing about the government is that its support (taxes) and application of power (the law and its punishments) come through coercion. If some individual referred to the government as an absolute Evil and the free market as some all encompassing Good, please address your remarks to that individual. For my part, I recognize that there's pros and cons to everything, but the advantages of freedom are implicit in principle and extensive in practice.

|1.18.06 @ 3:19PM|#

How many members of congress are there? How many Ron Pauls are there?

That's exactly my point. There's the one Ron Paul. Getting a Ron Paul or two in Congress to sit there voting "no" accomplishes nothing.

Elections of libertarians will only matter when the libertarians can accomplish something in those offices. They'll only be able to accomplish something when they have support and numbers. They'll only have that when libertarian ideas aren't considered fringe.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 3:20PM|#

He gives some of us a warm, fuzzy feeling and doesn't slow down the growth of government one iota. You can consider that "great". I think it's a waste of time.

No doubt. But if your goal is to change the world, to make it better, then politics is a waste of time.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 3:22PM|#

Jennifer,

I would love to find common ground with those with whom I disagree. But just like our supposed sanctimoniousness, picking arguments is hardly a libertarian-borne disease. Look at any two people who disagree about things, and if they discuss political issues at all, what do they talk about? What they disagree on, that's what! Did MainStreamMan ask what we can agree on? No, he came here picking a fight! In a polite manner, it's true, and I believe I responded in kind. But he WANTED to address our differences, and so I did! Then Eric made a funny joke and I laughed, and MainStreamMan used it to show how all we did was pick on him. Jennifer, if you're so good at persuasion, perhaps you should use those qualities on us. All I see is you lambasting us for supposedly being so combative. Physician, heal thyself!!

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 3:24PM|#

Evil is the exercise of political power.

M. Scott Peck People of the Lie: The hope for healing human evil.

|1.18.06 @ 3:24PM|#

ll I see is you lambasting us for supposedly being so combative.

Not to mention jumping on a troll and giving him a bear hug for delivering a "all you libertarians are so stupid" line.

MP|1.18.06 @ 3:25PM|#

For my part, I recognize that there's pros and cons to everything, but the advantages of freedom are implicit in principle and extensive in practice.

The "in practice" part of your statement is the key reason for seeing "Free Markets" as a more positive practical method of social interaction than Government. Saying "Privitization Good/Goverment Bad" is not attempting to imply that private activities are always better than goverment run initiatives. It is simply saying that the cost/benefit of freedom outweighs the cost/benefit of statism.

|1.18.06 @ 3:25PM|#

But if your goal is to change the world, to make it better, then politics is a waste of time.

Then this thread can't possibly be of any interest to you.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 3:29PM|#

The Police - Spirits In The Material World Lyrics

There is no political solution
to our troubled evolution
have no faith in constitution
there is no bloody revolution

We are spirits in the material world

Our so-called leaders speak
with words they try to jail you
they subjugate the meek
but it's the rhetoric of failure

We are spirits in the material world

Where does the answer lie?
Living from day to day
if it's something we can't buy
there must be another way

We are spirits in the material world

|1.18.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Did MainStreamMan ask what we can agree on? No, he came here picking a fight!

I read it more as "this is how my mainstream self views things." But here's a bit of advice: instead of arguing your point with comments like "welfare is bad because it keeps the poor in golden handcuffs" (I don't know if it's actually you who said this, and I don't feel like scrolling through 180 posts to find out who did), find and explain some specific, anecdotal stories of individual poor people who have been hurt by welfare.

I'd also scale back on the more hardcore Lib-isms, like "Taxation is a form of slavery" and "all government actions are done through coercion." Yes, I know that's how you feel, and you may even be right, but comments like that will only scare off the people whose votes you are presumably trying to get.

kgsam|1.18.06 @ 3:36PM|#

Just commenting on the: hoped for, desirability of, probablility of, libertarian electoral success. Of course this thread is interesting. Intelligent, mostly articulate, people begging to differ over matters inconsequential. What's not to enjoy?

|1.18.06 @ 3:37PM|#

I'd also scale back on the more hardcore Lib-isms, like "Taxation is a form of slavery" and "all government actions are done through coercion."

I'd agree with the first one as overly outre, but the second one is a major point, not just an applause line. Someone asking "government uses force to accomplish anything - what are you willing to use force against people, put them in jail, or even shoot them to accomplish?" got me interested in libertarianism in the first place.

|1.18.06 @ 3:41PM|#

They're the party of what they're the party of, which is a coalition of interest groups and some rhetoric dusted over the whole mess. They end up still having agendas.

But the vagueness of exactly what those agendas are, like it or not, is part of the reason they're popular. Going back to fyodor's comment at 1:59, many liberals, for instance, are really just angry at rich people and have a need to be right. There is an obvious negative aspect to that, but look at it from the other direction: Modern liberalism has managed to identify itself with a basic inclination; that is, resentment of the rich. This in reality is part of what he represents every time a Democratic official votes on anything. Same thing with conservatism and an innate yearning for the "good old days".

So, I guess the problem with libertarianism is that it has failed to adequately identify itself with, for instance, the basic desire to live your life by your own terms. My point is that this is partly because libertarians are all too ready to argue the finer details of a complete world view, as a matter of principle, rather than keep the focus where it should be, personal choice and responsibility. This seems to be true of unpopular political views in general.

Of course, as kgsam said, we might just be arriving late to a rigged game.

|1.18.06 @ 3:43PM|#

Someone asking "government uses force to accomplish anything - what are you willing to use force against people, put them in jail, or even shoot them to accomplish?" got me interested in libertarianism in the first place.

Yes, it got you interested, but it hasn't been too successful with the other few dozen million registered voters in this country. What works to persuade you isn't necessarily going to persuade a soccer mommy or NASCAR daddy or any of those other people whose support we'd need to have a snowball's chance of seeing ANY aspect of this-here philosophy of ours becoming anything more than an interesting topic to discuss while we lament the way the country's going to hell.

|1.18.06 @ 3:44PM|#

"Depends. But the "middle ground" isn't anything of value in and of itself."

Right, which is why the old saw about getting your foot on the front stoop gets used all the time.

Because it wouldn't make any sense to stick one's foot in, say, the door's threshold...

|1.18.06 @ 3:46PM|#

"The GOP is supposed to be the party of federalism, remember?"

Not since they became the party of Pax Americana.

|1.18.06 @ 3:48PM|#

That may be, Jennifer, but if you yank out enough and tone enough down to make it completely acceptable to every soccer mom or NASCAR daddy, do you really think "this-here philosophy" is going to be left?

Put another way, how many actual conservative ideas and policies did the whole "compassionate conservatism" thing advance?

|1.18.06 @ 3:50PM|#

many liberals, for instance, are really just angry at rich people and have a need to be right. . . . Same thing with conservatism and an innate yearning for the "good old days".

A good Libertarian candidate, willing to compromise, can appeal to both extremes. For example: many people resent corporate welfare, but have no problem with welfare for the poor. So have a candidate run on the platform of "end welfare for rich corporations," but leave food stamps alone. (The former costs more than the latter, anyway.) And then to appeal to the good-old-days conservatives: "Remember the good old days when you could redecorate your house without getting permission from the city first? Remember when you didn't need a doctor's prescription to buy medicine when you had a cold?"

|1.18.06 @ 3:51PM|#

That may be, Jennifer, but if you yank out enough and tone enough down to make it completely acceptable to every soccer mom or NASCAR daddy, do you really think "this-here philosophy" is going to be left?

A hell of a lot more than is in the government we've got now.

|1.18.06 @ 3:51PM|#

Not since they became the party of Pax Americana.

Exactly. Just like the Democratic party, it changes shape over time to reflect the broad, generalized feelings of its base, which for both parties is a strength.

|1.18.06 @ 3:55PM|#

A hell of a lot more than is in the government we've got now.

Maybe. But I think there's more room for accomplishment right now in targeting specific things to support and oppose and working with people who support or oppose those things than in trying to construct "compassionate libertarianism" and foist it upon the world.

|1.18.06 @ 3:57PM|#

Just like the Democratic party, it changes shape over time to reflect the broad, generalized feelings of its base, which for both parties is a strength.

Zach, if the ultimate goal was to have a political party, yeah, that's doable. Tell people what they want to hear, give them pork, and they'll vote for you. I could register as a Democrat or a Republican if I wanted in on that, though.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 3:57PM|#

Jennifer,

I concur with Eric that the only thing I actually said of your examples, that the law is based on coercion, is a perfectly valid point. I sure don't know how to explain my POV without making it.

Regarding MainStreamMan's goals, I acknowledged that he was polite, but he did NOT just give us his POV for our edification. He told us what his view was and how ours differed (in caricatured form) and asked us to explain the discrepancy. And so I did. My point was not that he was doing anything bad, only that he was asking us to address our DIFFERENCES, NOT our potential points of agreement. If you still disagree, I would ask you to re-read his posts. He went on to complain about our indifference to addressing these differences!!

Anyway, now that you've told us what we're doing wrong, how about telling us what we should do differently? And I mean, that we really have an opportunity to do? I believe that 99% of the time, the only way to avoid arguing with someone is simply keep quiet about how I really think. And y'know, that's what I do 99% of the time outside this thread. When you disagree with all your friends, best keep your mouth shut. Cause in that other 1% of the time, my liberal friends ain't any more interested in finding common ground with me than you apparently think I am with them.

|1.18.06 @ 3:59PM|#

Hey, maybe we could have a contest of who will get elected to any position first, Jennifer or Eric? We all chip in 20 bucks and the winner takes all.

|1.18.06 @ 4:02PM|#

Jennifer,
Thanks for your support, but I don't feel like I have as thin a skin as others here seem to. For those who think I am trying to pick a fight, I am not (its called a discussion). For those who think I called them stupid or irrational. I didn't. For those who think that I am a "troll" I still don't know what the means, so I will ignore it. For those that are threatened by me asking you to examine the substance of your arguments from a different perspective, and consider that an attempt to say that you are wrong, well... that was not the attempt. I agree with you on many points. Try and figure out which from my posts and you will be wrong, cause that wasn't the point of the posts.

I thought the topic is why Libertarianism (we are talking about the group as a group, not individuals here) is not as successful as it COULD be. The answer, in my opinion (I could be wrong)lies BOTH in tactics and substantive realms. The jump from position to MOTIVE for that position is one that weakens your case (Eric .5bee lighten the fuck up. I got your joke, you didn't get mine). Reactionary responses only work to shore up those who already strongly agree with you. It may be the thin skin of some Libertarians that prevents more political success for the group.Same goes for the democrats and the greens, by the way. Republicans have a thicker skin. It serves them well.

For those that have discussed why they believe in a position that MSV disagrees with, thanks. For whomever said

"stop approaching libertarianism as a complete political philosophy, and start approaching it as a value to be balanced against other legitimate values."

That is a point we agree on. And it applies to all political philosophies of any stripe.

I like hit and run because there are enough wise, balanced thoughtful opinions about topics to help me examine why I think the way I do about issues. For those who take my active participation in the discussion as a threat, I believe we may have a map of why the ideas stay fringe even in cases where the substance might be convincing to the majority if presented correctly.

That's my superior asshole point of view, I guess. Glazed in civility so it goes down easier.

|1.18.06 @ 4:05PM|#

Eric and Jennifer's solutions are not mutually exclusive.

|1.18.06 @ 4:06PM|#

Hey, maybe we could have a contest of who will get elected to any position first, Jennifer or Eric? We all chip in 20 bucks and the winner takes all.

Weren't paying attention, were you? :)

MP|1.18.06 @ 4:07PM|#

Hey, maybe we could have a contest of who will get elected to any position first, Jennifer or Eric? We all chip in 20 bucks and the winner takes all.

I am a duly elected member of an august body of government.

Please don't send a check.

|1.18.06 @ 4:15PM|#

Zach, if the ultimate goal was to have a political party, yeah, that's doable. Tell people what they want to hear, give them pork, and they'll vote for you. I could register as a Democrat or a Republican if I wanted in on that, though.

I think you know that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the desire to be free is an instinctual one, and that we as libertarians should make more of an effort to identify ourselves as proponents of that; because right now, that's not how we're seen. We're seen as those selfish assholes who hate civilized society. And part of the reason is that we allow ourselves to be caught up with economics and hypothetical situations rather than engaging that basic desire.

|1.18.06 @ 4:15PM|#

But I think there's more room for accomplishment right now in targeting specific things to support and oppose and working with people who support or oppose those things than in trying to construct "compassionate libertarianism" and foist it upon the world.

Perhaps I'm reading you and Fyodor incorrectly, but it sounds to me like you're saying "If compromise is what it takes to win, then we don't want to." Which ties in well with the thread's topic, "Why don't libertarians get votes."

that the law is based on coercion, is a perfectly valid point. I sure don't know how to explain my POV without making it.

There is a difference between explaining your point of view, versus getting people to vote for someone who might actually implement part of it.

Curious--I am not running for office and would never be able to win an election due to my background. I am merely offering advice for people who ARE running for office, and might want to get more than .000001 percent of the vote, for a change.

|1.18.06 @ 4:16PM|#

(Eric .5bee lighten the fuck up. I got your joke, you didn't get mine)

That's my fault? Heh.

I thought the topic is why Libertarianism (we are talking about the group as a group, not individuals here) is not as successful as it COULD be. The answer, in my opinion (I could be wrong)lies BOTH in tactics and substantive realms.

Fuck the success of libertarianism "as a group". Libertarianism "as a group" is something like the LP, a bunch of stoners and tax-evasion seminar wanks having conventions. Sure, they could get more votes if they took more popular positions. The Green Party manages that quite well.

However, I only care about libertarianism as principles that actually influence government policy. People having substantive problems aren't a failure of libertarianism not being as successful as it could be, but their objections to it. If we start changing that substance to suit what other people will accept...Well, again, the Democrats and Republicans already exist, why reinvent the wheel?

|1.18.06 @ 4:18PM|#

Before someone accuses me of it, no, I'm not saying that we should stop talking about an issue when the discussion comes to economics and hypothetical situations. Just that we need to make more of an effort to stick to the point.

|1.18.06 @ 4:22PM|#

Perhaps I'm reading you and Fyodor incorrectly,

Yes.

but it sounds to me like you're saying "If compromise is what it takes to win, then we don't want to."

No, I'm saying that even if changing what I believe and support to something more palatable might make me win an election, it's still no victory.

Whereas, I'm saying that winning an election is unimportant. Making the people who do take into consideration our ideas is far more important.

|1.18.06 @ 4:22PM|#

However, I only care about libertarianism as principles that actually influence government policy.

How does that not mesh with what I've been saying about the importance of compromise? For example, campaign against corporate welfare--it may not be as good as getting rid of all welfare, but it's a damned sight better than what we've got now.

I am suggesting, however, that for the sake of expediency you (meaning a candidate) downplay or even ignore for now those specific principles that scare people away.

|1.18.06 @ 4:24PM|#

Whereas, I'm saying that winning an election is unimportant. Making the people who do take into consideration our ideas is far more important.

Fine, but understand that nobody is going to take all of your ideas as a package deal, so you need to figure out which ones have a chance of actually getting accepted, without trying to force the other ideas that are not yet ripe.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 4:24PM|#

MainStreamMan,

I apologize that for saying you were picking a fight. That was overstating the case. My only point was that you seemed to WANT US to address differences that you raised, and that is why I did so, not because I am too quarrelsome to find common ground. If that's not what you wanted, you sure fooled me.

A "troll" is someone who decides to portray himself differently than he really is. Since you explained your interest in third parties and alternative points of view, I better understand your reason for being here and I retract my question.

Regarding your saying that libertarianism is unpopular because of its substance, well of course. That is the point that Thoreau made near the very start of this thread. But I think you can hardly blame us if we don't decide to think differently just because it's unpopular. That would be somewhat akin to telling an atheist to believe in God because it would help him get to heaven just in case there is a God. Basically, we believe what we believe, and if it's not the most popular POV going right now, well that's life. We can try to sugar-coat our beliefs when expressing them to others, as I think Jennifer wants us to do, but that's only going to go so far. I try to be civil too, but I also like to speak my mind. That's a key reason I come here, cause I don't feel comfortable doing that in most areas of my life.

|1.18.06 @ 4:25PM|#

Mainstream Man,

To be frank, how often do you solicit (or care about) the advice of people who openly say they don't want you to win?

|1.18.06 @ 4:31PM|#

"However, I only care about libertarianism as principles that actually influence government policy."

How does that not mesh with what I've been saying about the importance of compromise?

Because targetting issues is not compromise or denaturing my positions in an attempt to win a single, useless seat in the legislature.

Jennifer, you're the one jumping on me for being some dogmatic, success-fighting hardliner. Why don't you tell me what your beef is and what you arguing against that I've actually said?

|1.18.06 @ 4:32PM|#

but understand that nobody is going to take all of your ideas as a package deal

No shit. That would be the "opposing or supporting specific policies and working with the people who support or oppose those policies" thing.

|1.18.06 @ 4:33PM|#

.5B - sorry, I wasn't paying that much attention.

Jennifer - well, I'd vote for you.

MP - what party? Libertarian?

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 4:33PM|#

Eric,

even if changing what I believe and support to something more palatable might make me win an election, it's still no victory.

How CAN you change what you truly believe?? In lieu of direct mind control, that is?? What you believe is what you believe. The only question is how much of that you are going to reveal and how and where. As a politician, you might be more guarded than you would be here. And that's why we all hate politicians, because they're so mealy-mouthed!!

Jennifer,

"If compromise is what it takes to win, then we don't want to."

Win what?? Elections? FWIW, I don't vote LP. I think various factors make third parties a waste of time. Sorry, thoreau. I don't make a big deal of that here cause I slightly prefer the Democrats and so I'm perfectly okay with folks here voting LP instead of Republican! :-)

If what you mean is winning over people's opinions, well I would very much like to do that. But again, FWIW, I don't come here specifically to do that. I come here to express myself and get ideas from others doing the same. I think I'm often the most civil one around these parts. But not always. If I feel like letting go, I will. Maybe I'll scare someone away that way. And maybe I'll attract someone with my forthrightness. Hard to say. But since I'm not running for office, I can say what I damn well feel and let the chips fall where they may. Thank gawd.

|1.18.06 @ 4:37PM|#

How CAN you change what you truly believe??

I wasn't born a libertarian, so it happened at some point.

|1.18.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Because targetting issues is not compromise or denaturing my positions in an attempt to win a single, useless seat in the legislature.

Why limit yourself to a single seat? The LP has candidates on the ballots in most, if not all, states. And if they'd turn down the whackmobile volume and focus on the ideas which most Americans actually agree with, they'd have the chance to be a hell of a lot more than the irrelevant fringe group they are now.

|1.18.06 @ 4:46PM|#

I feel like we're approaching that point in the thread where we all realize we basically agree but are coming from different angles.

Funny how that so often comes around this time of day.

|1.18.06 @ 4:47PM|#

The LP are whackmobiles, Jennifer.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 4:48PM|#

Eric,

LOL! Um, well, how to express this. You can change what you think because you realize what you thought previously was wrong. But you can't change what you think because it'll help you gain some goal! Or can you? Well actually, that probably happens all the time, but not consciously! Can someone really DECIDE that since believing that taxation is theft is bad for winning elections (or friends) he will no longer believe that? Well, the distinction I'm making is that you can SAY something different, but your inside beliefs are another matter. Although that said, if you say something to people enough, you might just start believing it. Y'know, like in 1984 and such. It's just human psychology. But my point is that if I believe something is true, I'm not going to stop believing that just because there are dire consequences to believing it. Well, in lieu of rats, of course. But what we publicly SAY is another matter. Or how we act on what we believe. I am not of the mind, for instance, that nothing short of total complete legalization of drugs is worthwhile. I support medical marijuana initiatives because I think they make us more free, if only a little bit. Even though I do worry a tiny bit that the underlying logic may possibly be harmful to freedom in the long run. But luckily (in THIS case!) habit affects people's opinions more than logic anyway, so I don't think that's TOO big a worry....

Have I made myself unlcear yet? :-)

|1.18.06 @ 4:49PM|#

I feel like we're approaching that point in the thread where we all realize we basically agree but are coming from different angles.

Actually, I've no idea where you're coming from, Zach. Your explanations make no sense to me.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 4:51PM|#

(re Zach's post)

sob...I love youse all...how could I ever have not realized that? Why can't we all just get along?? You're all my bubbsies, y'know that? No, really. Bubbsies, everyone of ya's...sob

|1.18.06 @ 4:54PM|#

Have I made myself unlcear yet? :-)

No, you I follow.

|1.18.06 @ 4:55PM|#

@tzs

You're banging your head unnecessarily, for the strawmen you describe are your own creations.

Libertarians, especially those who are anti-tax, seem to have no understanding of history, economics, or human interactions.

People like Hayek, Mises and Friedman have no understanding of history, economics and human interactions?

This idea that government is by definition Evil and the free market is by definition Good is so simplistic--and Manichean, by the way.

Clearly, and I know very few people--libertarian or otherwise--who hold it. What is government? Legalized force. What is the free market? The voluntary exchange of goods and services absent the interference of an unwanted party. How are those for definitions?

This assumption that a task, when grabbed from the hands of the government and immediately privatized suddenly flips from being Bad to Good is so mind-boggingly stupid I have to bang my head against the wall.

Then why do you hold it? Again, this strawman is your own invention.

"Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society."

How civilized is it that our taxes are used to both support tobacco production and to curtail tobacco consumption?

Or to build million-dollar bridges to locales inhabited by just a few thousand?

In truth, taxes don't necessarily make a society civilized. They can make it just as uncivilized. The key issue is the level of taxation. Libertarians, overall, don't advocate the abolition of taxes, but only the level necessary to enable government to perform its rightful functions (chiefly, the protection of your individual rights).

And if Libertarianism is so perfect and natural and self-sustaining, why is it we have not seen one society YET in history that works according to it?!

MP|1.18.06 @ 4:55PM|#

MP - what party? Libertarian?

Eh...I'm your typical elected Libertarian...elected in a non-partisan election to a local political body in an election that a ham sandwich could win (i.e. the biggest hurdle is getting your name on the ballot).

|1.18.06 @ 4:56PM|#

OK, I've reviewed and I do have two questions.

How can you get a politician to accept some of your ideas if you can't get anyone to vote for those ideas? The politician wants to be reelected, why would he pick up on a theme that one one wants?

And is there something wrong with incrementalism? If you get elected as either a republican or democrat and manage to bring the party slightly around to your way of thinking on one issue duirn one year, and then more so the next year, isn't that acheiving more than looking like a nut with the whole shebang? Sort of like the acceptance of gay rights?

|1.18.06 @ 4:58PM|#

And is there something wrong with incrementalism?

I dunno, who's arguing against that?

|1.18.06 @ 4:58PM|#

"And if Libertarianism is so perfect and natural and self-sustaining, why is it we have not seen one society YET in history that works according to it?!"

Sorry, this was from tzs.

|1.18.06 @ 5:04PM|#

What I think is incrementalism is going along with 99% of a party's platform in order to get 1% of it is worthwhile, if that 1% can be leveraged into 2% the next year and so on.

Would this be OK?

|1.18.06 @ 5:06PM|#

Actually, I've no idea where you're coming from, Zach. Your explanations make no sense to me.

I can tell, but I think I've repeated them in enough ways that I don't feel responsible. You seem intent on reading something other than what I'm writing down. So change that from, "we all realize" to "at least I realize".

|1.18.06 @ 5:12PM|#

You seem intent on reading something other than what I'm writing down.

At this point, that's very literally true.

Have fun, folks.

fyodor|1.18.06 @ 5:13PM|#

How can you get a politician to accept some of your ideas if you can't get anyone to vote for those ideas?

If no one in the voting populace was willing to support libertarian ideas, then of course no politician would.

But just because the LP is a political failure doesn't mean that no one ever votes for libertarian ideas. It's just that few enough people support libertarian ideas across the board.

Anyway, like all good (and bad) Americans, we labor under the delusion that discussing our ideas may influence others. And if not, at least we'll have fun in the attempt. Howzat?

And is there something wrong with incrementalism?

No.

If you get elected as either a republican or democrat and manage to bring the party slightly around to your way of thinking on one issue duirn one year, and then more so the next year, isn't that acheiving more than looking like a nut with the whole shebang?

Absolutely.

Thar you go, Curious George!

Warning: the views presented within this post belong to fyodor and fyodor alone.

|1.18.06 @ 5:46PM|#

If the LP (since this thread has flucuated between politicians with libertarian ideals and the non-success of the LP) could capture 2 governorships, they could do more for the cause than all the losing Congressional races and winning school board elections could ever achieve.

Say there was a highly liberal state with a very unpopular Democrat incumbent running against a Republican who basically had no chance. A known LP candidate could, with the right message (pro-environment, anti-corporate welfare, pro-choice, etc.) could probably place second, or even win the election. Likewise in a conservative state. The beauty would be showing that Libertarians could actually bridge the gap between liberalism and conservatism while possibly removing the "scare factor" currently associated with the LP.

I could see Penn Jillette as the governor of Nevada. Maybe someone could submit a prominent libertarian from one of the more liberal New England states.

|1.18.06 @ 5:55PM|#

Fyodor

"My only point was that you seemed to WANT US to address differences that you raised, and that is why I did so, not because I am too quarrelsome to find common ground. If that's not what you wanted, you sure fooled me."

No you were right on mark. I didn't want to fight, just discuss. And I read all alternative views with interest.

1/2bee
"To be frank, how often do you solicit (or care about) the advice of people who openly say they don't want you to win?"

Well, to be frank, all the time (as in today on this thread). It is a good way to understand the objectives those who you oppose.

But to be clear, I never said I wanted the Libertarians to lose. I said I wanted them to be more successful and offered an outsiders view on this issue (hoping that some of their principles could be used to implement better public policy). Take it or leave it. You are often the voice of reason on these threads. Today, not so much.

And now that's my buck and I'm out.

b-psycho|1.18.06 @ 11:56PM|#

"LP: A business is the same as an individual and therefore has the same rights. "

MSM: show us where the Libertarian Party actually agrees with this. I've never seen such, and even I don't agree with it. A business is a group, not an an individual, and there is no such thing as "group rights" so a business cannot have "rights".

|1.19.06 @ 1:32AM|#

b-psycho.

Re: "LP: A business is the same as an individual and therefore has the same rights. "

I am trying to learn, but I can explain where I got this from.

I had the above position presented to me by several libertarians in a discussion about smoking restrictions in public places of business. They claimed that a business owner had rights as a business owner that were no different than rights as an individual. I disagreed for different reasons than you give. The libertarians presented me with the cited position as a major tenet of their philosophy based on the priority of property rights. There was some humming and hahhing regarding whether this only applied to sole proprietorships or also to corporations. That's where I got it from. If you say that is not a LP position I believe you, but I do suggest you get the word out.

|1.19.06 @ 2:37AM|#

Dave W.,

I also believe that the fundamental, core function of any government is the protection of safety and security of its citizens.

The current US military goes well, well beyond this in size and budget. Not seeing this fact is what makes you not a true libertarian.

maybe you haven't called for military cuts yet. Time to start. That is the true libertarian way

As a true libertarian I'd beg to differ with you, but then Jennifer would beat me for not getting with the program.

Hell with it, I can take it.

I'm one libertarian who thinks we should have a big, strong, mean military. I read way too many history books, and they tell me that the bad guys always show up on your back porch without warning. No time to prepare to fight them.

OTOH, our military should not be showings its big strong mean self in every goddamned country on the globe (or nearly every), as it now does.

So maybe we don't disagree. Or maybe we don't agree. Or maybe we don't even know yet.

But something inside me just cringes when people start talking about cutting defense budgets. Democracies are notorious for not being militarily prepared. "Bring our military home" I'd go for. If that results in cost savings, hurray.

|1.19.06 @ 2:44AM|#

mediageek,

Ron Paul...Why is it he seems to be able to dodge the claim that Republicans/libertarians just want to throw grandma and poor kids into the street to freeze to death?

How have the republicans ever 'dodged' it? It's been done, though Regan was (rhetorically) the last to do so with some degree of consistency.

And didn't the Republicans get their "mandate" in '94, on the same stump?

In short, libertarianism has to put down the sanctimonious attitude, take off it's fucking beret, and walk out of the coffee-shop round-table and into the real-world.

Oh, man, do you know how complicated that gets? Most philosophers can't even figure out how to prove their own existence.

|1.19.06 @ 2:53AM|#

Jennifer,

A hell of a lot more than is in the government we've got now.

Maybe. But I think there's more room for accomplishment right now in targeting specific things to support and oppose and working with people who support or oppose those things than in trying to construct "compassionate libertarianism" and foist it upon the world.

I often don't agree with your posts, but on this one I think you're nailing it right on. Maybe, I can sway a few others into seeing why.

How far is what you're advocating, from what Reagan did? [rhetorically I mean, let's not debate his preaching vs practice]. Reagan rhetoric ("the government is the problem") was in many ways a hell of a lot better than what we've got now.

Question: could we get away with filtering out some of Reagan's garbage, and still have a platform that sells?

But this makes it sound actually possible.....if we can find the right candidate to put up on the stump.


I'm not so sure the sugar coating is wrong -- if it's done rightly and well-ly. I mean, what libertarian doesn't think their view is ultimately the most compassionate?

We're libertarians because we think this is what's really best for people in the long run. So why they hell aren't we selling it in just exactly that way?

Think: "sugar coating" = "the good things that libertarianism brings about".

Hmmm. I wonder, how far could we actually get with this? Thing is, I haven't seen it actually done yet......

|1.19.06 @ 4:35AM|#

If you want to promote libertarian principles, making everybody mail their taxes to the government every month is the single best idea on this thread.

|1.19.06 @ 7:03AM|#

"Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society."

Uh, no. That's not quite true. Taxes are the price we pay for being allowed to live...PERIOD! In the final analysis it's "your money or your life." Some of us happen to think that in a truly civilized society there would be no taxes or other forms of legalized theft.

Mainstream Man,

I THOUGHT I recognized your style (or tone). Your mention of your comments on the anti-smoking laws thread awhile back cinches it. You are ol' Not That under a different nom de plume. Is it not so?

|1.19.06 @ 11:37AM|#

jw
Huh?
Above reference was to face to face discussion.
Is the confusion an insult or compliment?

MainstreamMan

|1.19.06 @ 12:20PM|#

"Is the confusion an insult or compliment?"

Neither.

|1.19.06 @ 6:01PM|#

jw

FYI
I do, when I want to get long winded and/or abstract post as "science." (sometimes its when I accidently let my browser fill in the field).

Your careful analysis of style makes me guess that you are James Woolsey, former head of the CIA. How'd you like being on the Daily Show Last night?