Reason.com
New at Reason
Cathy Young remembers the late author and two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
John M. Joy|3.7.06 @ 9:58AM|#
Um, try "significantly fewer" dangers. And once again we're confusing "noninterventionism" with "isolationsim."
C'mon, Cathy, still won't admit you got it woefully wrong on the "War on Terriers?"
JMJ
|3.7.06 @ 9:58AM|#
RIP, Harry Browne. In a world of red ties picked by television consultants, he wore a purple tie, because he liked it.
Now, onto Cathy Young. First she writes, "Meanwhile, most Democrats who support choice on abortion also seem to believe that Americans aren't smart enough to manage their retirement or their children's daycare and schooling."
Then, a little further down, she criticized Browne for his irresponsible policy positions. "Browne's vision of minimal government allowed for no state role in environmental protection, health and safety regulations, or building and maintaining highways."
Cathy Young doesn't think Americans are smart enough to avoid pollution. Cathy Young doesn't think Americans are smart enough to keep their workplaces safe. Cathy Young doesn't think Americans are smart enough to see to their own transportation. Etc etc etc.
|3.7.06 @ 10:07AM|#
joe, I noticed that, too. Everyone draws the line somewhere. I like my government without cream and sugar, but some like it double mocha latte with a twist. Canyonero-sized :)
We'll have the ideal mix of government and freedom when (1) we perfect human beings and human culture, (2) the robot overlords take power and create a utopian society for their poor human ex-masters, or (3) God intervenes and begins directly ruling the Earth (kind of a hobby for the omnipotent, like Sea Monkeys for us).
|3.7.06 @ 10:28AM|#
This is the worst piece of shit I've ever seen from Cathy Young, and that's saying something.
"Browne's vision of minimal government allowed for no state role in environmental protection, health and safety regulations, or building and maintaining highways. His platform included immediate repeal of the federal income tax and dismantling of Social Security."
Horrors! What was he, some kinda fucking libertarian???
"In its own way, purist libertarianism is no less utopian than communism, and no less na�ve in its apparent faith in the fairness of markets and the goodness of humankind."
Is Cathy Young even vaguely familiar with the topics she writes on? The average writer at The Nation understands libertarianism better than this bozo. How the hell does she qualify as a Reason regular contributor?
|3.7.06 @ 11:12AM|#
Harry Browne was my first real introduction into libertarianism. I remember seeing him at the kiddie table debates in 2000 and suddenly realizing that a lot of what he said made sense. Of course, when I brought up the point I was soundly rebuffed by my liberal friends, but his words stuck with me. The old ridiculous saying that everyone is a libertarian, they just don't know it yet was actually fairly true in my case, and I have Harry Browne to thank for cracking open the window for me.
|3.7.06 @ 11:18AM|#
Most often I enjoy CY's writings, but she's a little off on this one:
... purist libertarianism is ... no less naive in its apparent faith in the fairness of markets and the goodness of humankind."
If by fairness she means equitable, she's right that markets aren't always fair. But she's wrong that libertarians think markets are fair in this sense. If by fairness she means just, then she's right on what libertarians believe but wrong on markets.
And what libertarian believes in the goodness of mankind? Spend an hour reading the posts on H&R and you can see most libertarians don't have a lot of faith in their fellow man qua man. We need government to butt out because mankind has a large number of flaws, so giving any group of people sweeping power is a recipe for disaster.
|3.7.06 @ 11:20AM|#
You know, I would say all the "let's not take libertarianism too far" schlock is just pandering to CY's Boston Globe audience. But the piece isn't credited as originally running there. Anyone know where this piece originated?
|3.7.06 @ 11:49AM|#
you can see most libertarians don't have a lot of faith in their fellow man qua man
I got T. to switch his planned fast food chainstore investment to a less profitable homemade ice cream store with just a simple appeal to his goodness. It can work.
|3.7.06 @ 12:02PM|#
Ghost, I hate to break it to you, but my wife and I have long dreamed of selling ice cream some day.
But go on thinking that you have the power to shape my thinking.
Hope you wear a red CTU uniform, Phil.
Tim Cavanaugh|3.7.06 @ 12:25PM|#
Thanks for the heads up, Smappy. The piece did appear originally in the Globe, and Cathy's bio line has been corrected to show that.
|3.7.06 @ 12:52PM|#
FYI, Dave W., a dessert with a whole bunch of cream, sugar, and eggs will be fattening whether it's made in my kitchen or in a factory.
|3.7.06 @ 12:54PM|#
FYI, Dave W., a dessert with a whole bunch of cream, sugar, and eggs will be fattening whether it's made in my kitchen or in a factory.
|3.7.06 @ 1:24PM|#
By what metric is Browne the LP's "best-known nominee"? Better known than Ed Clark, who got almost a million votes?
|3.7.06 @ 1:32PM|#
Better known than Ed Clark, who got almost a million votes?
Sorry, that name doesn't ring a bell. I've heard of Browne a lot, though.
uncle sam|3.7.06 @ 2:09PM|#
Just you wait Cathy. The government isn't done expanding. True conservatives will find that they have noo home in the GOP.
strat|3.7.06 @ 2:17PM|#
RIP, Harry. You were a formative influence on my political thinking.
In later years, I came to view some of his speeches as a bit shrill, but I can't deny his consistency, in contrast with most everyone else out there.
Living near the Beltway reality-distortion field, I find it often requires that one say shocking things in order to even begin to be heard.
The thing that depresses me is the worseningly tribal nature of the republicrats these days. They always used to throw away their principles to stick it to the other guy. Now they throw away their principles while grousing about their own guys.
I'm grateful to Harry Browne for articulating a message that makes that clear to normal people, if they take the time to listen.
Mark Bahner|3.7.06 @ 5:13PM|#
Cathy Young writes, "Browne's vision of minimal government allowed for no state role in environmental protection, health and safety regulations, or building and maintaining highways. His platform included immediate repeal of the federal income tax and dismantling of Social Security."
Eyesrolling responds, "Horrors! What was he, some kinda fucking libertarian???"
Even worse, he was a Presidential candidate who would actually have honored his ***oath of office*** to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."
If Cathy Young would like, I'd be happy to debate her on whether the Constitution permits federal financing of Social Security, the Big Dig in Boston, or any other federal programs Harry Browne opposed.
Why do we have Presidents who routinely violate the Constitution? Because we have citizens like Cathy Young who actually criticize presidential candidates who propose to follow the Constitution!
Gene Berkman|3.7.06 @ 6:03PM|#
Cathy Young almost has it right when she says "Under President Bush, the Republican Party seems to be losing its connections to small-government ideals." I just disagree with her use of tense - she uses present progressive instead of past perfect.
Treasury Secretary John Snow is right now warning that the Federal Government will go into default unless Congress raises the debt limit to 9 Trillion dollars. The present limit of $8.2 trillion has been reached, and Snow is drawing from federal employee retirement funds to pay current bills.
When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 the federal debt was $980 billion. Since then, it went up by $1.4 trillion under President Clinton - all the rest of the debt increase - $5.8 trillion - came under Republican Presidents.
That seems pretty definitive on the issue of whether the Republicans have any concern for limiting government
|3.7.06 @ 6:13PM|#
my wife and I have long dreamed of selling ice cream some day.
Something I actually know something about. The secret is in the butterfat content -- the more the better. Shoot for 18%.
|3.7.06 @ 6:15PM|#
Wow, I guess it takes a Harry Browne thread for the actual lp supporting libertarians on hit and run to speak up...quite refreshing for me to see.
I quite like a lot of Cathy Young's writing, even though I frequently disagree with her. The case that an interventionist military will increase the safety of it's citizens has always seemed pretty weak to me, and it is sadly a trap that Cathy tends to fall into quite a bit.
The notion that America gets attacked because of our freedom has never been particularly convincing. What is the biggest difference between The United States and Canada as far as this is concerned? Basically the United States has the biggest military in the world and Canada essentially has no military. Maybe the US gets attacked where Canada does not because the terrorists really want socialized medicine, but I find that unlikely. The non-military explanations for why we get attacked (rights for women, pornography, etc) are largely true of every western nation...the biggest difference across the board is the degree to which their militaries are involved in the middle east. If you want to make an altruistic argument for military involvement in the middle east, then go ahead, but I've seen no particularly good evidence that suggests that it makes us "safer."
|3.7.06 @ 10:31PM|#
The Republican slide from small government to nanny state makes me look back rather fondly on the Libertarians, and wish I could change my 2000 vote for Bush to a symbolic one for Browne.
Symbolic only, of course.
Someday Cathy's going to have to teach me how I can have my cake and eat it too. I'm dying to know.
|3.8.06 @ 1:01AM|#
Browne's vision of minimal government allowed for no state role in environmental protection, health and safety regulations, or building and maintaining highways. His platform included immediate repeal of the federal income tax and dismantling of Social Security.
Though I recall her saying once that she favored limited social intervention (or something along those lines), this doesn't sound like typical Cathy Young. ????
OTOH, how many of the people grumbling around here now, will be arguing in favor of the EPA in principle and in spirit, if not in actual fact, on another thread around here in the near future? Because after all it's scientifically clear that man is destroying the planet and we have to stop him now (the bastard anyway).
I predict it'll be more than a few but maybe I'm wrong.
Serious question: how many of you would outright banish the EPA tommorrow if it was an option? Don't let's get into the environment debate, I just wonder how many of you really would do away with government meddling in this arena if it was a real option.
_____________________________________________
This, however, sounds more like authentic CY
In its own way, purist libertarianism is no less utopian than communism
and it's got some bite to it, because she's right for a number of reasons. Just to pick something at random --
A fatal flaw of communist manifesto is the idea that a truly class-less society can be created. This is impossible because people don't work that way.
A fatal flaw in libertarian manifesto is that by and large we expect our politicians will do -- well, little of nothing. This is impossible because people don't work that way (for proof just look at the history of this country).
This is particularly evident in foreign policy, where Libertarian doctrine boils down to the isolationist belief that we would face no dangers abroad if we just stopped meddling.
Lots of libertarians seem to believe this. I for one sincerely doubt it. Many of our current problems might no exist if we didn't do stupid things like carve a notch out of the ME and create Isreal.
But in an alternate reality where we did the non-interventionist thing, I predict that we'd have just as many foreign problems as we do now. They'd be different problems, but no less intractable.
|3.8.06 @ 1:13AM|#
I wish she wouldn't have bothered with this obit. She starts out on a bad note:
"He was a man for whom I never voted, but sometimes wish I had�though only as long as I could be sure he wasn't going to win."
Young lives in Mass. and in 1996 and 2000 went Democrat by large margins. She continues:
"Democratic and Republican politicians believe Americans are dysfunctional children who need government to act as their parents," Browne wrote on his website. "Both parties seek to impose their values and recognize no limits on their authority."
It's hard to argue against this description."
So she lives in a heavily Democratic state on presidential votes and presumably understands the working of the electoral college. Yet she still voted for either Clinton or Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000 -- brilliant. She'd rather support a nanny state candidate in a safe state than vote for a candidate who supports less government. Sounds like a reason contributor to me.
" In its own way, purist libertarianism is no less utopian than communism, and no less na�ve in its apparent faith in the fairness of markets and the goodness of humankind."
I'm sorry which publication does Ms. Young write for again? Can you say Strawman? Speaking of which:
. This is particularly evident in foreign policy, where Libertarian doctrine boils down to the isolationist belief that we would face no dangers abroad if we just stopped meddling. Browne's recent writings illustrate this na�vet�. Much of his criticism of the conduct of the war in Iraq rings depressingly true; yet he also saw fit to downplay Saddam Hussein's atrocities and declared the war on terrorism a "War on Strawmen."
Militarily meddling and medddling in other ways like the IMF/WB/managed cartelist trade does create enemies for us -- does anyone doubt this? Its also worth noting libertarians are far from the only group that hold this view. No one ever said there will be no problems ever in the world if we stop meddling, but that it is much preferable to our curent policy. Browne and other libertarians are isolationist only in terms of government policy -- most libertarians want the US engaged in the world in all sorts of ways I'll not goo into here.
As for the 'War on Strawmen" this is meant in the context not that there aren't bad evil people out there who do us harm but that the government uses these folks as an excuse to increase the size and scope of the government for their own ends; and to distract us from the fact the the US kills and harms more of its own citizens and others around the world on a yearly basis directly and indirectly than Al Qaeda or any foriegn group ever will do. The same thing rings true for the War on Drugs.
Are there problems with utopian -isms -- yes. Are there problems with the LP, yes. Did Harry simplify things in his campaign speeches and writings -- a necessary evil, yes.
Does Ms. Young really contribute anything but drivel to the pages of reason.com? Would such drivel be allowed in reason if she weren't a woman?