Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

April 24, 2007

Brian Doherty, who knows a little bit about the subject, weighs the popularity and long-term growth possibilities of libertarianism.

← Hurwitz Trial Update | Main | 200th Wrongly Imprisoned Man Freed by… →

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.

|4.24.07 @ 4:16PM|

Can someone explain to me Ron Paul's gold standard fixation? Are there serious economists that propose this? What are the benefits?

OTC Addict|4.24.07 @ 4:31PM|

I have to disagree that we are that close to a major change of policy as far as drugs. The major drug treaties still control policy on every continent, and I really think we are at least 20 years away from even major cannabis reform. Any country that attempts to alter its policy vs drugs in any way at all other than lockem up is quickly denounced by the US govt and the INCB. By the way, the UN is NOT a front for world government.

|4.24.07 @ 4:38PM|

I was thinking about doing a documentary on the futility of the libertarian movement, covering Ron Paul's inventively doomed campaign, the rifts between the pragmatic and Lew Rockwell psycho, and the cult-like nature the ideology the party can sometimes have. I was going to call it "Sisyphus Shrugged" (get it? GET IT?)

stephen the goldberger|4.24.07 @ 4:46PM|

that was a great ego boost and certainly helped fuel my sense of moral superiority.

seriously, great article.

|4.24.07 @ 4:47PM|

If Ron Paul had a serious chance of winning, and was short of money, it would be immoral for him to refuse public financing.

If the cost of his losing is measured in human lives lost and destroyed - and based on the breathless rhetoric of libertarians, the lack of a libertarian president is costing hundreds of thousands or even millions of human lives per year - then refusing public funds because you don't think that's a very good system is narcissisism.

Politics in the art of the possible. If winning with matching funds is possible, and winning without them is impossible, than Paul has a responsibility to accept them.

|4.24.07 @ 4:50PM|

Libertarian values resonate up and down American culture. I have some friends with fairly extreme left-wing views who will nod their heads about why we need to limit government power.

In the end, it isn't particular civil liberties or specific government actions (like, say, the war) that will garner us victories. It's a common distrust of those in power. Sure, we have to relearn that lesson over and over again, but Lord Acton still gets quoted plenty by people of all political stripes :)

thoreau|4.24.07 @ 4:51PM|

joe, that is a genuinely interesting question that you pose there.

Of course, it's all hypothetical anyway.

Still, very interesting question that you pose.

robc|4.24.07 @ 4:53PM|

joe,

I have no idea if Ron Paul is going to refuse money this time. He is running as a republican after all.

But as a general idea, stealing from a thief to return the money to the owner is okay. Stealing from a thief to donate to charity and help starving kids out is still wrong.

|4.24.07 @ 4:56PM|

If he thinks it violates the Constitution or his principles to take matching funds, then what are you saying? The end justifies the means? Moving along to the extreme end of that spectrum, I suppose he could simply stage a coup d'état and force Americans into libertarian reeducation camps. If he really believes that he's right, that is :)

|4.24.07 @ 4:57PM|

To borrow from New Hampshire, "Live Free or We'll Kill You".

|4.24.07 @ 5:00PM|

If Ron Paul had a serious chance of winning, and was short of money, it would be immoral for him to refuse public financing.



I don't know. Its a good hypo.

Of course first thing to mind: isn't the ability to raise more money then the public matching limit one indicator of a viable candidacy?

stephen the goldberger|4.24.07 @ 5:02PM|

the problem with joe's hypothetical is any sort of benefits he would receive from the increased war chest that comes with public financing would be totally offset by his loss of popularity for going against everything he claims to stand for.

D.A. Ridgely|4.24.07 @ 5:05PM|

If Ron Paul had a serious chance of winning, and was short of money, it would be immoral for him to refuse public financing.

Similarly, if Lincoln could have saved the union only by preserving slavery, it would have been immoral for him to abolish it.

|4.24.07 @ 5:11PM|

Huh. I'm reliably informed that I've made the "Live Free or I'll Kill You" joke before, in the very amusing With Frickin' Laser Beams thread.

[Pausing to read thread] I seem to have introduced the concept of Libertarianism by Decree there, too. Uh, oh. For example:

The Top 100 Things I'd do if I Ever Became a Libertarian President

#40: Train a large cadre of cute, computer-controlled animals and unleash them to impose U.S. libertarian values upon the world. Live free or die the death of one thousand nibbles!



I was thereafter informed that forcing people to act like libertarians was not consistent with my liberal ideals.

|4.24.07 @ 5:14PM|

I have some friends with fairly extreme left-wing views who will nod their heads about why we need to limit government power.

I don't think left-wing means what you think it means.

|4.24.07 @ 5:16PM|

Is campaign financing as important a plank in the Libertarian platform as slavery was to the Republicans in 1860? Should Paul refuse to attend a debate if the arena it takes place in was built via an abusive exercise of eminent domain? Where does he stand on the Louisana Purchase? Can he accept votes from states west of the Mississippi? ;)

|4.24.07 @ 5:16PM|

Would it be wrong for a "serious" candidate who has a moral obligation to win, or try as hard as possible to accept public funding on ideological grounds when he/she could have raised more otherwise?

Does it go both ways?

ACDC?

Is it 5 yet?

|4.24.07 @ 5:17PM|

I have nothing to add, except props for the Iron Maiden reference.

|4.24.07 @ 5:17PM|

R.Totale,
To answer your question, no, there aren't many economists who call for a return to a gold standard. Notably though, Alan Greenspan is someone who does. If you are interested you should read his essay "Gold and Economic Freedom". http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html (sorry I don't know how to make that a link).
And if you like that you would check out www.mises.org. That IS a group of economists who does support returning to a gold standard.

|4.24.07 @ 5:18PM|

DAR writes, "Similarly, if Lincoln could have saved the union only by preserving slavery, it would have been immoral for him to abolish it."

It seems to me that the relative costs of watching the Union fall apart vs. maintaining slavery are at least somewhat debateable.

I don't think anyone who adheres to libertarian philosophy could believe that taking a few million dollars from the federal treasury is even roughly equivalent to passing up the chance to have a libertarian president.

|4.24.07 @ 5:19PM|

R C Dean,

Not at all. The point is that many people hold views that are not consistent. If things got ugly enough, their distrust of government might become more important to them than their anti-corporate positions, for instance. At least, I hope so.

|4.24.07 @ 5:20PM|

joe,
If you think that is morally wrong let me ask you a few questions:
Is it morally wrong for a libertarian college student to accept government loans and grants?
Is it morally wrong to drive on government roads?
Would it be morally wrong for a libertarian to collect welfare for a spell if they were down on their luck or to collect social security?

|4.24.07 @ 5:21PM|

steveintheknow,

I know of no political philosophy that considers accepting government financial aid to be a moral obligation.

RC Dean,

Left-anarchism goes back centuries farther than its rightist counterpart. I don't think you know what "left-wing" means.

|4.24.07 @ 5:25PM|

Sam B,

I'm a liberal. I don't think accepting any of those things is immoral.

But before you put a great deal of effort into formulationg other questions, let me point something out: those who refuse the government assistance/benefits you point to are only harming themselves by doing so. If Ron Paul fails to become president because of his refusal to accept matching funds, he will be harming billions of people all over the world (in the opinion of libertarians).

Think about the difference between rushing into a burning building to save someone, and ordering a crowd of other people to do so. The moral calculus of our actions changes when we're imposing costs on other people, rather than just on ourselves.

|4.24.07 @ 5:29PM|


R.Totale,
To answer your question

Thanks Sam!

thoreau|4.24.07 @ 5:30PM|

Think about the difference between rushing into a burning building to save someone, and ordering a crowd of other people to do so. The moral calculus of our actions changes when we're imposing costs on other people, rather than just on ourselves.

Um, joe, most would say that by accepting the public campaign funds one is ordering other people to fund the effort to save the world.

Say what you will about ends, means, greater good, etc., but I'm not sure you offer the best analogy for the point you're trying to make.

|4.24.07 @ 5:30PM|

Even if a libertarian president were elected, what are the odds that he'd A: be able to implement his agenda, or B: avoid being run out of office if he did implement that agenda?

Nil is my guess.

|4.24.07 @ 5:33PM|

joe,
OK, but my point is that the costs are ALREADY imposed. Ron Paul and other libertarians should not have to martyr themselves just because they are opposed to some government actions, which seemed to be your initial point.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say now.

|4.24.07 @ 5:36PM|

Number 6,
Well, if he got elected that would mean that he already had popular support...
But even assuming he did so by lying and hiding his agenda from the voting public, I still think there are some things that a libertarian president can do that wouldn't get them run out of office like cutting back on the raiding of medical marijuana dispeserires, weaking the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and introducing some Medicare/Social Security reform.

|4.24.07 @ 5:37PM|

I just don't see that abandoning principles and acting in an openly hypocritical way is a good idea. Where does that end? Abandoning principles to win political power is the status quo--what do I need Ron Paul for to maintain that?

If Paul were to win in some sort of Venturian series of events and remain Captain Liberty, how long before he would be impeached? Before he pardoned all the nonviolent drug users? After he started refusing to do anything not authorized (in his view) by the Constitution? I give him six months.

Sam B,

joe was saying that Paul should not stand on principle and should take the money if libertarianism is such a positive good for mankind.

|4.24.07 @ 5:40PM|

I don't think anyone who adheres to libertarian philosophy could believe that taking a few million dollars from the federal treasury is even roughly equivalent to passing up the chance to have a libertarian president.

But then they aren't true libertarians, are they?

Drink!

|4.24.07 @ 5:40PM|

Pro L,
Yeah I see that, but I think we disagree on why.

Also do you really think he would just do that right away? I think he's a bit shrewder than all that at least.

|4.24.07 @ 5:42PM|

thoreau,

"Um, joe, most would say that by accepting the public campaign funds one is ordering other people to fund the effort to save the world."

Yes, but I was addressing the outcome-end of the equation in that statement.

sweetness and Light|4.24.07 @ 5:42PM|

I certainly look forward to paying preotection money instead of taxes in Libertopia. Even if Ron Paul weren't a dorky looking twit--not a good thing in our media age--he couldn't get far selling the utopian shit you call libertarianism. We Americans are way too pragmatic and sensible to fall for it. So dream on, you silly fanatics. Enjoy your little orgasms from jerking each other off on stupid blogs like this. It's the most you'll ever get.

|4.24.07 @ 5:44PM|

I know of no political philosophy that considers accepting government financial aid to be a moral obligation.



I was referring to the all-public campaign finance reform crowd. But my wording has to make its way through my thick skull, so it came out not so good. :)

But then they aren't true libertarians, are they?

Drink!



Ahhhh. But doesn't somebody have to mention like a decoder ring, or demand-kurv or something?

Even so sounds like a good idea.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:45PM|

Pro Libertate,

I just don't see that abandoning principles and acting in an openly hypocritical way is a good idea.

From merely a perception POV it would be a bad move.

|4.24.07 @ 5:46PM|

See joe? Libertarian America would be a utopia. I knew it!

|4.24.07 @ 5:46PM|

Grotius,

It would kind of defeat the purpose.

By the way, are you Penn Jillette?

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:46PM|

Anyway, we ain't going to have a libertarian President so the issue is academic.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:47PM|

Pro Libertate,

I wish. :)

|4.24.07 @ 5:48PM|

Pro Libertate,

"joe was saying that Paul should not stand on principle and should take the money if libertarianism is such a positive good for mankind."

Actually, we liberals believe in the principle that you have a moral duty to do good. Perhaps that's where the disagreement comes in - I believe that weighing the harm of refusing matching funds (the opportunity cost of not becoming president and doing lots of libertarian things) would outweigh the harm of accepting them ($50 million dollars "stolen" from taxpayers), and that moral calculus needs to weigh these harms.

If you don't believe that there is a moral duty to do good, then Paul would not have anything to answer for by throwing away the chance to become president and, say, end the drug war or whatever.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:49PM|

Grotius,

To some I am a wannabe philosopher-king; of course the point Plato was making in the Republic was just what a stupid idea that is.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:51PM|

joe,

There are likely lots of liberals who don't believe that one has a "moral duty" to do good.

Besides which, where does this duty come from?

|4.24.07 @ 5:52PM|

I've been joking with highnumber that Penn must be posting here, since he referred to Hit & Run frequently on his old radio program.

joe,

I understand that, but if we agreed with you that achieving good by doing little bits of evil (to exaggerate the point) were okay, then we'd be Democrats or Republicans. By sacrificing principle to get to ends you deem good, you liberals have lost your way, in my opinion. Ditto those conservative fellows.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:55PM|

Pro Libertate,

Well, even if I was Penn I wouldn't tell you that.

|4.24.07 @ 5:56PM|

Right. Just like joe won't admit that he's Pierre Trudeau.

|4.24.07 @ 5:56PM|

Actually, we liberals believe in the principle that you have a moral duty to do good.

Wow, that is a telling slip. Yes, you believe that others have a moral duty to do "good", as you define it, at the end of a gun if they won't do it on their own.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 5:56PM|

Pro Libertate,

Well, I'm not quite sure how a "moral duty to do good" marries up with "the ends justify the means." After all, if one has a moral duty to do good then presumably one also has a moral duty to abstain from evil.

|4.24.07 @ 5:59PM|

Grotius,

Are you Michael Goudeau?

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 6:00PM|

highnumber,

Who?

|4.24.07 @ 6:03PM|

Teller?

|4.24.07 @ 6:03PM|

Grotius,

I can't speak for everyone who votes a certain way, but the responsibility of each person to aid his fellow human beings is a first principle of liberalism.

"Besides which, where does this duty come from?" Different people believe that morality has different sources.

|4.24.07 @ 6:03PM|

Well, does "moral duty to do good" mean to do good in all things, or to do net good? If the latter, then an ends-justifies-the-means argument seems apropos.

highnumber refers to Penn's co-host on his radio show, aka one of Lance Burton's slaves. What he really wants to know is if you are (the reformed) Jason Bourne, but he's too shy to ask.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 6:04PM|

highnumber,

No.

Anyway, if I was Teller wouldn't I be a lurker? ;)

Teller|4.24.07 @ 6:05PM|

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 6:06PM|

joe,

...but the responsibility of each person to aid his fellow human beings is a first principle of liberalism.

Is that in the by-laws or some such?

Pro Libertate,

Well, if the latter one comes upon a really thorny issue of being able to justify some fairly awful acts. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that's how the Soviet leaders justified de-kulakization.

|4.24.07 @ 6:07PM|

Teller wins the thread.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 6:07PM|

Pro Libertate,

I yam who I yam. ;)

|4.24.07 @ 6:10PM|

Pro Libertate,

The ol' pragmatism vs. principle argument really has nothing to do with the differences between libertarianism, liberalism, or conservatism. Libertarians at this time in history tend to be extremely opposed to pragmatism, but that's a consequence of libertarianism's marginal status, not anything inherent to the philosophy.

You don't think Ron Bailey and Mangu-Ward sacrifice the principle of honesty and transparency for their ends?

|4.24.07 @ 6:10PM|

an obsession with "sovereignty" and contempt for the UN.

Whoa. Why is sovereignty in scare quotes, and why is it un-libertarian to question the legitimacy of a wannabe world govt consisting mostly of tinpot dictators?

Libertarians don't really believe that allowing foreign governments to exercise control over our legal system is going to increase liberty, do they? As gung-ho as our own govt is about infringing our liberties, you can be damn sure that the EU would be even worse.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 6:10PM|

Anyway, when I was in colleged I was taught that the bedrock notion behind liberalism in its many variations was the concept of individual freedom (as opposed to other types of freedom).

excimer|4.24.07 @ 6:12PM|

Grotius, The liberal duty to do good stems from Kant, I think.

I don't actually understand why people aren't just ignoring joe's comment. He's offering a paradox- "By acting morally, Ron Paul is acting immorally," in essence. But the real statement is closer to "Ron Paul is acting morally by the constraints of his own code of ethics, which are inconsistent with joe's ideas of what constitutes Ron Paul's code of ethics." It's a silly statement that just sounds more meaningful than it actually is, and a lot of people took the bait for it.

Mike Laursen|4.24.07 @ 6:14PM|

I've been pretty down on the Libertarian Party for the last few years, but their stock recently went up a little in my estimation. At the Libertarian Party of California convention, a few days ago, there was a big turnover of the Executive Committee. A bunch of guys I can personally vouch for as non-whacky and politically-savvy libertarians are now in charge.

Darn. I might have to put aside my cynicism, and engage in more activism than just responding to trolls on Hit & Run.

|4.24.07 @ 6:14PM|

"Is that in the by-laws or some such?"

What a stupid question. Yes, let's pretend political philosophies don't have core beliefs.

Gimmee Back My Dog,

If I write "You'd really have to be an idiot not understand that the English language allows the use of the second person when writing in the universal sense," it would mean the same thing as "One would really have to be an idiot..."

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 6:14PM|

excimer,

Well, that's a different sort of duty though. We're talking about duties in the realm of politics and political action and to my knowledge Kant never viewed human sociability as being this thick on the ground. Indeed, when it came to politics Kant emphasized a private v. public dichotomy that deemphesizes duty in at least some aspects of the political realm.

|4.24.07 @ 6:16PM|

Even if a libertarian president were elected, what are the odds that he'd A: be able to implement his agenda, or B: avoid being run out of office if he did implement that agenda?


Absent libertarians in Congress, I agree with "nil", whether or not he accepted matching funds or sacrificed a baby to Gozer and unleashed the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man on his statist enemies...

|4.24.07 @ 6:19PM|

excimer,

"Ron Paul is acting morally by the constraints of his own code of ethics, which are inconsistent with joe's ideas of what constitutes Ron Paul's code of ethics." would only be an accurate description of what I wrote only if one believes that it is only I who think that those who get into politics have a moral duty to try to achieve beneficial political outcomes. I hardly think that the statement "libertarians engaged in political activism should work towards libertarian ends" is somehow at odds with Paul's political philosophy.

|4.24.07 @ 6:19PM|

Grotius,

Exactly. My personal feeling is that you have to try to do good all of the time. Abandoning core principles with the idea that you're going to make it all okay later sounds fine on paper, but, in practice, I think it's a bankrupt philosophy. At times like this, I could almost become a Stoic.

joe,

There are those within the libertarian movement who are pragmatists. I'm not suggesting that people won't compromise on a principle for a greater end, but I think the question is what principles can you abandon and still preserve whatever ethos it is that you are claiming to have? If you think limited government is the Holy Grail, then violating the limited government principle is problematic.

|4.24.07 @ 6:21PM|

Pro Libertate,

If you think that limited government is the holy grail, you have a responsible to make a real effort to achieve it.

Not just make show of being on a quest, but actually do what it takes to get the grail.

D.A. Ridgely|4.24.07 @ 6:24PM|

You don't think Ron Bailey and Mangu-Ward sacrifice the principle of honesty and transparency for their ends?

Actually, I don't think that about Mr. Bailey and I simply don't know Ms Mangu-Ward well enough to have an opinion.

In any case, as long as one views the probity of a decision or action from a purely consequentialist perspective, weighing the relative merits of using state largess to oppose the state or, for that matter, union versus slavery, joe's sort of weighing makes sense even if we might disagree with the weight he assigns to this or that.

If, by contrast, one assumes that one of the first principles of libertarianism is the responsibility of each person to aid leave his fellow human beings alone unless and until they agree otherwise and that this principle has only a felicitous relationship to such concerns as "maximizing good," whatever the hell that may mean in the abstract collective, then one views such matters differently.

|4.24.07 @ 6:27PM|

If Paul tells me he's all for limited government, then does things that show that maybe he isn't, why would I vote for him? I've got plenty of politicians who tell me they stand for X, but do things contrary to X--I don't need to go looking for any more.

Look, killing German soldiers to stop Nazis from slaughtering millions of innocents is a moral decision. Sometimes we do end up doing things that are bad to serve a greater good. But avoiding those dilemmas in the first place is the greater good, and living a virtuous life is its own end. Compromising our beliefs too easily is one part of modern society that I don't care much for.

|4.24.07 @ 6:37PM|

Compromising our beliefs too easily is one part of modern society that I don't care much for.

Compromising ones beliefs is an inherent part of politics, even in libertopia. It is the magnitude of the compromise that one must judge.

|4.24.07 @ 6:49PM|

Grotius,
I hate to leave you confused about my earlier questions, so FYI:
We had a whimsical discussion about the possibility of Penn Jillette commenting here under an alias, since we do know that he reads H&R. (We do not know if he reads the comments.) One of the possible identities brought up was one "Jean Bart." I was not familiar with this commenter. Apparently, word on the street is that a certain regular commenter has gone by a number of different names over the last few years and has transformed from a cantankerous, foul-mouthed, and incessantly posting jerk into a thoughtful, intelligent, and persistently posting commenter.

Well, Grotius, you're pretty new around these here parts, so you probably know even less than I. ;)

|4.24.07 @ 6:53PM|

D.A.R.,

"If, by contrast, one assumes that one of the first principles of libertarianism is the responsibility of each person to aid leave his fellow human beings alone unless and until they agree otherwise..." then one doesn't serve multiple terms in Congress and run for President.

Paul could have left his fellow human beings alone just fine - better, actually - as the proprietor of a Photomat.

|4.24.07 @ 6:57PM|

BTW, the above comment is not meant to suggest that Paul is a bad libertarian for serving in Congress.

Merely to point out that, as the existence of a libertarian magazine that devotes most of its text to ideas about government implies, the pursuit of public policies that advance libertarianism is, in fact, consistent with libertarianism.

Or maybe not, and there is no reason for libertarians to ever attempt to influence the political system. But I don't think you people (YOU PEOPLE!) actually believe that.

If Ron Paul had never run for office, some number of ballots wouldn't have to have been printed and counted, at some cost in stolen (sob!) tax dollars.

|4.24.07 @ 6:58PM|

If I write "You'd really have to be an idiot not understand that the English language allows the use of the second person when writing in the universal sense," it would mean the same thing as "One would really have to be an idiot..."

Then again, if you wrote "At least I am smart enough to realize that you shifted from the first person to the second" it would not mean the same thing as "At least you are..."

But my point is not to argue grammar, my point is that the difference between you and me (or is it you and I?) is that you think that others have an obligation to do good and that you have the right to force them to do it at the point of a gun.

|4.24.07 @ 7:36PM|

joe | April 24, 2007, 6:03pm | #
"Different people believe that morality has different sources."



ummm..............no comment.

you're welcome

|4.24.07 @ 7:44PM|

brotherben,

Where do theists get the idea that they have the morality market cornered?

0:-)

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 7:45PM|

highnumber,

Is that supposed to be a compliment? ;)

|4.24.07 @ 7:48PM|

From a book titled "Killing God: the fine art of winning an argument no matter the cost."

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 7:49PM|

joe,

I miss the days when the ballots were printed and distributed by the candidates.

|4.24.07 @ 7:51PM|

oops, I saw your question as Athiests.

Yours sincerely,
Ima Dumbass

|4.24.07 @ 7:58PM|

If Libertarianism wants to ever really become considered a reasonable alternative, you're going to have to squelch the loud-mouth blabbers in the party that come off as several bricks short of a load, if you take my meaning.

For example: Badnerik and his fulmination about The Evil Of License Plates. Not gonna happen. The average American thinks that registration of one's car, if not a fine idea, is something that they can understand (if their kid gets hit by a hit-and-run driver, they'd be damn happy if there's potentially a way of tracking him down if a witness is anywhere around) and there are many many much more important things to worry about. Badnerik just came off as a total ass.

Libertarians have the image as being people who a) want to get rid of public libraries, b) want to get rid of the FDA, and c) want to get rid of all income tax (but have nothing to put in its place.) The average american thinks the public libraries are a Good Thing and poison in the drinking water is a Bad Thing, and they'd prefer regulations preventing stuff going into the water in the first place rather than their kid getting sick at which point they can bring a suit against the water providers and pay lots of money to lawyers for damages if they win and absolutely nothing if they lose with their kid STILL being sick and aren't regulations more efficient in the long run?

In addition, Libertarianism is contaminated by "anarcho-libertarians", who honestly believe that people can live in a system with no government whatsoever and this somehow magically won't collapse into a Somalian warlord/Mafia sort of situation.

In short, Libertarians come off as being unrealistic.

|4.24.07 @ 8:08PM|

In short...

Too late.

...Libertarians come off as being unrealistic.

I won't disagree with you about that perception, but when I read that, inside I screamed, "But everyone else is even more unrealistic!"


Grotius,

You're all right in my book. :)

Mike Laursen|4.24.07 @ 8:21PM|

you're going to have to squelch the loud-mouth blabbers in the party

I agree with you about the detrimental effect from the whackos in the Party. But I think the most appropriate way to deal with the problem, for an organization that has "libertarian" in its name, is not squelching, but to vastly increase competition for its candidate and officer positions.

How can the Libertarian Party increase competition. By increasing its pool of people. By loosening up its rules and culture to accept people who are imperfectly libertarian.

Whether that could ever realistically happen, I'm not so sure. It would help if hardcore libertarians could be convinced to let not-so-hardcore people into the party first, then try to educate them about the finer points of libertarianism. Instead, Libertarian Party culture has historically expected new people to have already learned all about libertarian philosophy, then join.

|4.24.07 @ 8:41PM|

Libertarians need to use ruthless means to impose freedom on the rest of America. Kind of like the Mafia of Freedom.

|4.24.07 @ 8:52PM|

I mean, Jefferson said stuff about killing people who get in the way of freedom. Something about burying them in manure. New Hampshire out and out threatens people with death if they refuse liberty. Our earliest flags have deadly snakes on them.

Maybe we need to stop pussyfooting around and get back to basics.

|4.24.07 @ 9:09PM|

That's exactly what the Emperor told me. If we'd won, we were going to impose a galaxy-wide libertopia. Damned shame that the statists rebels won. Damned shame.

|4.24.07 @ 9:50PM|

"I miss the days when the ballots were printed and distributed by the candidates."

Let no one say that Grotius' pet peeves are cliched.

|4.24.07 @ 11:15PM|

It kinda seems to me that the biggest obstacle
That Delmar and the rest of you fellers face is your intelligence. I mean this as a compliment. You all, (yes even you Joe and yes I know you are a member of another team) are very mensa level folks. The fact is that you at times come across as arrogant in your certainty that you are correct all the time.
The other problem is that (speculation based upon average folk down here) most voters simply arent going to think about issues as much as you. We like our 2 or 3 hot issues and good sound bites delivered in a slightly muddy vehicle.
Libertarianism is way over most folks' head.

Grotius|4.24.07 @ 11:59PM|

joe,

That was a joke. I guess we philosopher-kings are a bit esoteric.

Mike Laursen|4.25.07 @ 12:40AM|

Forgot to say: I think Brian Doherty's wife was/is on the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee. By saying I'm thrilled over the new committee members, I didn't want to cast any aspersions on her leadership. I don't know much about her at all.

|4.25.07 @ 1:17AM|

BTW, the NY Times has just put up an article up on the present status of OSHA, which has gone to a more "industry-friendly" approach.

Trashing the lung capacity of your workers and then stating that "well, there's no proof that this stuff is dangerous because OSHA hasn't come out with any guidelines on it"...yeah, that will really win friends and convince people.

Libertarianism, for it to be a viable system, is going to have to find a way to prove to the average man on the street that the Libertarian system will not end up with a whole bunch of corporations abusing the health of their workers, exposing them to all sorts of environmental dangers, and then, when the chemical cows come home to roost, simply shrug their shoulders and say "too bad, you're out of luck."

The fallacies inherent in assuming a tort approach to environmental and health protection are many-fold: first of all, it assumes everyone has infinite amount of time to spend in litigation and infinite amount of money to pay lawyers. Second, it assumes that all "good" court cases win. Third, it assumes that for any physical handicap created, there is a monetary value that can be placed on it, and the payment of that monetary value is sufficient detriment to incentivize the corporation to not indulge in such behavior in the future (rather than their just writing it off as the cost of business.)

Heck, if I were to discover that I had unknowingly been exposed to sufficient carciogenic chemicals as to have developed terminal cancer by a company who calculated the cost of protecting me from (or even informing me of) such exposure was "just not worth it", I wouldn't want money. I would want DEATH. I would want every single goddamn executive of the company, and every single goddamn person involved in that decision that valued my life so little and their company profit so much to be exposed to equivalent carciogenic material and made to suffer the exact sort of agonizing situation that I was undergoing.

|4.25.07 @ 1:28AM|

To me, I think the more important hypothetical question is, "Would it be possible for Ron Paul to raise his popularity so high that even he couldn't further lift it?"

Quiet_Desperation|4.25.07 @ 1:51AM|

The potential: ZERO

Anyone expecting some sort of Libertarian renaissance is smoking tainted crack or something.

I've given up. The news reports during my morning commute get stupider and stupider with each passing day. The people electted to political office act like mentally handicapped monkeys. This country is going collectively batshit insane at an ever increasing rate.

I'm retiring as soon and as early as I can and heading for Costa Rica or Belize. It's just getting too bugfuck here. Gimme a tropical beach and cheap whores and a crate of double-ply condoms. You kids can keep playing your little ideological games and keep fighting the Marching Morons. I'll light a candle or something in memorial when the Morons' boots trounce you into the mud.

|4.25.07 @ 2:08AM|

To some I am a wannabe philosopher-king; of course the point Plato was making in the Republic was just what a stupid idea that is.

I thought the point of Strauss was that Plato was actually blowing a dog whistle.

|4.25.07 @ 2:17AM|

As a libertarian I would love to vote for Paul, I actually tend toward his side on many issues (by reasoning through libertarian principles) which other libertarians consider to be too culturally conservative...immigration (trespass, soverng. issues), abortion, gay marriage (because it really seems to come down to getting health care out of employers by using un-libertarian anti-discrimination laws and can't private contract cover most of the real marriage issues anyway?...Brian D's implication that this is some sort of layup libertaian issue was really annoying)...anyway I cannot support him in anyway as Paul has consistently tended to be way,way too close to the psycho jobs around the LR sphere...he has chosen to be around truly ugly types that if they were given any real press would totally wipe out any chances libertarians ever would have in the US

|4.25.07 @ 2:50AM|

By sacrificing principle to get to ends you deem good, you liberals have lost your way, in my opinion. Ditto those conservative fellows.

"The problem is that men will not do the evil that good requires." -- Machiavelli

|4.25.07 @ 2:55AM|

he has chosen to be around truly ugly types that if they were given any real press would totally wipe out any chances libertarians ever would have in the US

Is that maybe why he's running as a republican this time?

The LP has been run by lunatics. The inmates have been running the assylum. And the assylum laid off its regular employees a long time ago, on principle.

I read a little while ago that they just found this tiny little planet that might actually be able to support life. We should name it Libertopia, and get Burt Rutan to build us a ship to take us there.

We should even bring joe along, just for amusement.

|4.25.07 @ 3:01AM|

although I agree with you about the LP, my LR reference was to Lew Rockwell...but there is cross over

|4.25.07 @ 4:06AM|

Aw geeze, youse libertarian meatheads. Whens youse gonna wake up from your crack-pipe dreams and realize that if youse wants to be taken seriously, you have to give up your starry-eyed "principles" about small government and lazy fairies and all dat kinda malarkey, hahn? What youse gotta do is compromise dere. The govamint has to be involved in certain areas like da environment and national health care and OSHA and tings like dat, hahn?

In other woids, if youse libertarians wants to be taken seriously, youse gots to give up being libertarians and become Democrats or Republicans. Because it's all about gettin' elected.

Youse gots to realize you ain't gonna achieve no utopias by abolishin' the govamint. Youse achieve utopia by electin' Democrats and Republicans to office. See?

Aw geez, youse meathead space cadets, youse.

|4.25.07 @ 10:43AM|

"Youse gots to realize you ain't gonna achieve no utopias by abolishin' the govamint. Youse achieve utopia by electin' Democrats and Republicans to office. See?"

Well, youse won't achieve utopia by electing Democrats and Republicans, but youse can influence policies if you play ball and improve life in the direction of libertarianism. If youse opts out completely, youse has made a conscious decision to be impotent. Youse becomes that guy sitting in the back of the room judging everyone else.

|4.25.07 @ 10:54AM|

There is something a bit odd about the tendency in some libertarian circles to suddently be interested in polling questions about abstract libertarian beliefs, when in all other cases libertarians stress the importance of revealed preferences in decision making.

Acting as though 7% of peoples votes actually hinge on libertarianism per se is just silly. It is nowhere near that number.

People just prioritize issues or go with cultural identification if they think about the raw politics a bit less rigorously.

I'm a libertarian guy. My decision is already made up for 2008. It didn't take democrats 10 minutes to try to burn me in two separate bills on my most important issue - the right of self defense. If that party controls the executive, much that is significant in the 2nd amendment will be flushed. Voting libertarian says I don't care about the issue enough to do something about it and voting democrat says I will vote in their coalition in spite of their hostility to a fundamental human right.

In some ways, it makes things easy. I don't have to pay attention to anything else anyone says for the next year.

Mike Laursen|4.25.07 @ 12:35PM|

The govamint has to be involved in certain areas like da environment and national health care and OSHA and tings like dat, hahn?

You've really changed, Archie.

|4.25.07 @ 2:07PM|

Aw geez, JasonL, you make some good points dere, hanh?

Now get outa my chair, and stifle.

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site 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

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com