Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers About Town (and More)
In The Washington Post, reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch spell out the deep meaning of the Ron Paul Revolution and astonishing bull market in being a libertarian. Snippet:
More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq.
In The Los Angeles Times, Matt Welch details how John McCain fudged the facts of his own fact-finding mission about the causes of the Vietnam War. Snippet:
If there is any truly contemporary echo in [McCain's nearly impossible-to-find] War College paper, it's that U.S. troops cannot fight to the best of their abilities if they do not personally support the policies they're enforcing and if they do not have the support of the American people.
And in The Washington Times, read all about how libertarians are the new "'It' Faction" in American politics and culture. Snippet:
Gillespie chuckles at the dark images that talk of libertarianism inevitably conjures up. "We're the Sith Lords of American politics," he says, referring to the "Star Wars" baddies. "We can show up in any group. We're both terrifying and devilishly attractive."
It's not likely libertarianism will become a true third-party alternative; it's a temperament to which both major parties will need increasingly to appeal....
Gillespie compares the ideas that underlie libertarianism to a "marinade."
"Our culture has been soaking in it for years," he says.
Adam W.|11.25.07 @ 8:51AM|#
Tuesday @ noon: WaPo chat w/ Matt and Nick: http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/content/submit_outlook.htm
|11.25.07 @ 8:58AM|#
Such a pleasant experience to spend this sunday morning with my
friends at Reason and a cup of joe.
What next, "Meet the Press"?
|11.25.07 @ 9:23AM|#
...is likely to grow even faster than the size of the
federal government...
Uhh... Not to be negative here, but unlikely.
|11.25.07 @ 9:37AM|#
This little part jumps out from the otherwise fine Washington
Post piece:
"...Nov. 5 -- Guy Fawkes Day, the commemoration of a British
anarchist who plotted to blow up Parliament and kill King James I
in 1605."
I think many might be surprised of thinking of that day as being a
"commemoration" of the man, it's a celebration of his arrest, and
he was anything but an anarchist -- he was a reactionary fanatic
Roman Catholic theocrat of sorts.
Chuck|11.25.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Gillespie compares the ideas that underlie libertarianism to
a "marinade."
"Our culture has been soaking in it for years," he says.
I thought I smelled something.
Jerk|11.25.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Normally when things become popular I rebel. I liked Modest
Mouse, they got a hit, I hate Modest Mouse. I liked the Sin City
comics but stopped after the movie.
I've been a member of the libertarian party for six years now. Now
that being a libertarian is the "It" thing I guess I need to become
an neocon or something. So um, Bush should be made president for
life! He's a great presi....fuck. It's too difficult. I guess I'm
stuck being part of the cool crowd.
|11.25.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Sith Lords? I thought they were for totalitarian big
government.
I always saw myself as one of the Rebels
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 10:20AM|#
This is getting a bit too trendy for me, but where to
turn?
I must now turn my struggle from that of an outsider to that of an
insider.
Must review Batman. He will know what to do.
Quotes on Freedom|11.25.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Robert Hayne said, "There have existed, in every age and every
country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the
devoted advocates of power."
Maybe we freedom lovers are gaining numbers in this
century.....
|11.25.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and
pundits flustered, if not openly hostile.
This shouldn't be a surprise since a smaller central government
also weakens the centralized press and punditry. "Power to the
People", as Laura Ingraham would write, would be devastating to the
"opinion makers" of the world.
The overwhelming majority of people in this country, and likely the
world, hold libertarian or conservative values. They know that big
government doesn't work, that centralized decision making results
in bad decisions, and that government is home to the most corrupt
people on the planet (but they're stealing "for the children" so
that's OK). But small government is anathema to political parties,
they want more control not less so they co-opt every political
movement and fold the ideas into their "big tent" of stifling
oppression.
While the people may be libertarian they vote against their values
for two reasons:
- lack of choice (as the article mentions)
- fear (both major parties run on campaigns of fear)
The Republican Establishment hated Ronald Reagan but the people
loved him. Consider how busily the candidates are redefining the
Reagan legacy and you'll begin to understand what they really
represent.
Thomas Mc|11.25.07 @ 11:08AM|#
A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should do absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy corporations, and those corporations should be free to rule the world - no matter what the cost.
Mike Laursen|11.25.07 @ 11:15AM|#
The government should protect We The People from corporations? The government invented corporations.
Fluffy|11.25.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Strangely, Thomas Mc, the era of true "corporatization" in the
United States began AFTER the state at its various levels started
micromanaging all economic life.
Chart the growth of the state and of economic planning [including
zoning] in the United States during the 20th century, and then
chart things like the share of total consumer goods sold that went
to corporations, or the share of any given market taken by the
largest producers. Then explain the nearly one-to-one relationship
to me.
|11.25.07 @ 11:18AM|#
A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should
do absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy
corporations, and those corporations should be free to rule the
world - no matter what the cost.
Tell me, ThomasMc, what gives your such limitless faith in
government, but endless fear of the private sector?
Governments have killed and enslaved many more people than
corporations ever have.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 11:20AM|#
A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should
do absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy
corporations, and those corporations should be free to rule the
world - no matter what the cost.
Sounds like a funny channeling of Chomsky or Klein.
Interesting fact: corporations are collections of people with
complimentry goals and lacking the police power of the State.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 11:23AM|#
[psychic mode]
Expect the Chomsky impersonator to come back with responses along
the lines of corporations "owning" the government and corporations
being the modern plantation owners.
[/psychic mode]
|11.25.07 @ 11:35AM|#
"Mr. Carey joins the libertarian fold along with the
illusionist-comedians Penn & Teller and HBO talk-show host Bill
Maher, who has called himself a libertarian for several years. It's
not at all clear, to be sure, that the latter understands what the
term means."
I'm glad to hear somebody say that. I can't stand to watch Maher
for that very reason. To watch him verbally fellate Micheal Moore
on his show, then turn around and refer to himself as a
"libertarian", was extremely painful.
Moulitsas has the same problem, although I think that his
redefining of the term is very intentional.
|11.25.07 @ 11:40AM|#
I feel like such a poseur now. I've considered myself a
libertarian for only a year now (though it was before I had heard
of Ron Paul), and now I see that everyone is doing it.
Jerk is right. When the "in crowd" starts believing it you always
feel less attracted to the position. I'm positive that it's some
kind of evolutionary defense against said crowd on account of our
ancestors being picked on by it.
Oh yeah, and I was wondering when the leftists would come to offer
their own perversion of the term. They're like clockwork on this
site it seems.
|11.25.07 @ 11:53AM|#
When the "in crowd" starts believing it you always feel less
attracted to the position.
Speak for yourself. If my beliefs and principles ever waver, it's
because my emotions and/or logic are seeing a flaw in them. Not
because of how many others are agreeing or disagreeing with
me.
"If all the world believed a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
thing."
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 12:07PM|#
JLM,
I second your notion about Maher.
Will add that in Moore's touting of his lifetime NRA membership his
supporters gloss over or ignore the fact that said membership was
purchased by his father for him when he was a kid. The NRA is not a
true 2A supporting organization and Moore is even less so as an
individual.
Mike Laursen|11.25.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Usually, whatever Cesar says goes for me, too. But he completely left out the standard libertarian disclaimer that there are many corporations that are so mixed up with government that they cannot be considered part of the private sector. It's likely these types of "greedy corporations" that Thomas Mc has in mind.
|11.25.07 @ 12:13PM|#
"A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should
do absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy
corporations, and those corporations should be free to rule the
world - no matter what the cost."
Hmmm, let's see here;
Blackwater,
Halliburton,
ADM,
GM,
GE....
If we use Thomas McTroll's criteria we have arrived at Libertopia!
Everyone drink!
|11.25.07 @ 12:20PM|#
When the "in crowd" starts believing it you always feel less
attracted to the position.
Don't worry. If libertarianism follows the course of most other
political movements, by the time the "in crowd" gets done with it,
you won't recognize it (which is already happening).
Try reading Russell Kirk's "The Conservative Mind", and see if you
can recognize anything that resembles "conservatism" as it's
generally understood today.
|11.25.07 @ 12:20PM|#
A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should
do absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy
corporations,
Yes, please good government, protect me from the greedy
corporations that sell me products and services that I want and am
willing to pay for. How dare they try to profit from that!
BlueBook|11.25.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Ahem, 'libertarian' has five syllables, not four.
(My first post on Reason. Is Phonetic Nazism antithetical to
Libertarianism?)
x,y|11.25.07 @ 12:36PM|#
(My first post on Reason. Is Phonetic Nazism antithetical to Libertarianism?)
No, but posting under "BlueBook" is a dead giveaway that you are or
were a law school gunner. And remember, nobody likes gunners.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 12:39PM|#
sage,
Don't forget, they [ghasp!] *ADVERTISE* too! If it were not for
their massive advertising campaigns we would not want anything that
'they' sell!
If we really needed things wouldn't the government give them to
us?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 12:40PM|#
No, but posting under "BlueBook" is a dead giveaway that you
are or were a law school gunner.
I thought he was one of those used car guys with a liberal arts
degree. The one who could not get a bartending gig.
BlueBook|11.25.07 @ 12:49PM|#
I thought it was a dead giveaway that I am, or was, a UFO nut. Zeta Reticulans for Paul?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I thought it was a dead giveaway that I am, or was, a UFO
nut. Zeta Reticulans for Paul?
Dr. Paul is the terrestrial nut. Mr. Kuchinich is the
exteraterrestrial.
|11.25.07 @ 12:55PM|#
That was a phenomenal article by Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. I'm so proud of you guys.
|11.25.07 @ 1:48PM|#
That was a phenomenal article by Matt Welch and Nick
Gillespie. I'm so proud of you guys.
Here's an article that lists bloggers that are rebutting Nick
and Matt's article.
Go get 'em, troops! ;-)
dhex|11.25.07 @ 2:14PM|#
The overwhelming majority of people in this country, and
likely the world, hold libertarian or conservative
values.
i don't particularly think so, actually. particularly on the
libertarian end.
what they may hold is the idea that "i should be able to do xyz"
but balk when it's explained that this means "everyone else should
be able to do xyz."
|11.25.07 @ 2:18PM|#
This 'libertarian insurgency' will carry the seeds of its own
destruction.
Most people will agree to being 'lbertarianish' or holding some
libertarian ideals. Except for one or two tax-hungry programs that
we absolutely cannot do without. All of these individuals will
collaborate and compromise with one another, allowing this program
to survive if that one keeps on. Eventually, we end up cutting
nothing, and those of us who refuse to assent to the pragmatics of
political interchange are marginalized extremists once again.
And so the cycle of state growth, like the joyous first rays of the
spring sun, frees the people from the cold-hearted winter of
libertarian self-reliance.
|11.25.07 @ 2:57PM|#
It could easily go the other way, Hugh. Individuals may see a
government program go away that they thought they "absolutely
cannot do without" and think to themselves, "well, that wasn't so
bad; I don't miss [program name] at all. Let's see what else we can
do without the nannies 'giving' it to us."
I suppose if I'm holding the purse strings and waiting for a budget
to be sent to my desk, I'm telling everyone to cut back a certain
amount, no matter what the department. When it comes to the federal
government, every department could stand a diet.
Bingo|11.25.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Hey guys don't forget the Tea Party this year! Donate a few
bucks to Ron Paul on December 16th; its worth it just to see the
confused pundits on TV!
http://www.teaparty07.com/
src|11.25.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Maybe not everyone is prepared to cut whole organs of government
(like the IRS) but I think there is a sort of general sensibility
that government should be smaller, less intrusive, and less
coercive. Having a really strong executive right now has probably
showed people that they don't like things that way.
One thing I don't hear about, though, is that you don't see many
black or Hispanic libertarians. I'm not sure why that is (don't
they have some experience with abuses of state power?) but it's
something to think about. Is the "insurgency" just white people? Is
that only a stereotype?
|11.25.07 @ 3:23PM|#
"though you'll rarely hear it described with anything like
academic rigor by its mainstream adherents"
I guess I must not be listening to the right mainstream adherents.
Libertarianism is the *only* political philosophy that I've seen
described with academic rigor. Locke, Mill, Paine, Jefferson,
Spooner, Mises, Friedman, Rothbard... I guess these guys aren't
mainstream? Or were they referring to mainstream in the vein of
Parker and Stone?
|11.25.07 @ 3:26PM|#
dhex:
what they may hold is the idea that "i should be able to do
xyz" but balk when it's explained that this means "everyone else
should be able to do xyz."
QFT...freedom for me, not for thee. Human difficulties with the
golden rule aren't a new thing.
|11.25.07 @ 3:31PM|#
We can show up in any group. We're both terrifying and
devilishly attractive.
Then how come so many of us spend our weekends masturbating in our
parents' basements?
It's not likely libertarianism will become a true third-party
alternative; it's a temperament to which both major parties will
need increasingly to appeal.
The 1994 Republicans based their Revolution on libertarian ideas. I
wouldn't exactly say they've worked to increase that appeal, and
neither have the Democrats.
|11.25.07 @ 3:31PM|#
"A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should do
absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy
corporations, and those corporations should be free to rule the
world - no matter what the cost."
Uh... no. A libertarian is someone who believes that with a true
free market, greedy corporations will be forced to serve consumers
or die. As it stands now they don't bother, that would entail
actual work and competence. Why bother when they can just bribe our
representatives to get massive handouts, anti-competitive industry
regulation, and then bailouts when they squander even those
advantages.
|11.25.07 @ 3:34PM|#
I'm curious, does anyone on here have a problem with considering corporations "persons"?
Bingo|11.25.07 @ 3:38PM|#
src: I saw a black teenager decked out in Ron Paul gear getting
thrown out of WalMart the other day for passing out fliers and
such. He didn't even look like he was old enough to vote. I think
that the "insurgency" of new support is more youth-oriented than
anything else.
The older people I know that identify as libertarians are usually
the ones that held their nose and voted for what they thought was
the lesser of two evils. They aren't insurgent as they've always
been around, but they've never had a candidate that represented
them.
|11.25.07 @ 3:39PM|#
A Libertarian is someone who believes the government should
do absolutely NOTHING to protect WE THE PEOPLE from greedy
corporations, and those corporations should be free to rule the
world - no matter what the cost.
Exactly, you got it right: No protection against "greedy"
corporations, because "protection" would mean surrendering our
rights to the government, acquiescing to its whims. Only WE THE
PEOPLE can protect ourselves well from these "greedy" corporations,
and not government - our power emanates from our buying
choices.
|11.25.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Cesar, at the risk of sending this thread spiraling off-topic,
I'll bite.
I've never understood what is meant by that. In what way are
corporations considered persons? Is there a distinction being made
between actual corporate businesses and privately-held companies?
In what way are these organizations legally different from other
incorporated bodies like fire departments and DMVs?
I don't ask to be snotty, I just have never been able to get
straight answers to these questions from the "no corporate
personhood!" crowd.
|11.25.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Just to disambiguate my previous post, try other organizations like the Rotary Club, an organized church, or the KKK.
|11.25.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I've never understood what is meant by that. In what way are
corporations considered persons? Is there a distinction being made
between actual corporate businesses and privately-held companies?
In what way are these organization
IT means, for legal purposes, they have all the rights given to
"persons" by law. That is, free speech, property, etc etc. Hence,
the government can't violate their "rights". Thats how I understand
it, anyway.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Cesar,
I always understood it as "artificial person" and the corporation
as a whole has the protections you mention.
However, as we saw in several corporate cases recently, like
Wordcom and Tycho, an executive can easily "pierce the corporate
veil" and be charged and convicted of inappropriate activity under
the guise of the corporation.
BTW, the place I usually hear the question come up in exactly the
manner that you asked was from Chomsky followers or in his writings
and interviews.
|11.25.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"Yet Paul's success has mostly left the mainstream media and
pundits flustered, if not openly hostile."
Uh, before we talk about Paul's success, can we see how he
*actually does in the primaries?*
(My guess: Much worse than in Internet polls, a little better than
in "scientific" polls.)
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 4:09PM|#
OT: I knew I should not have switched on CNN.
A show about toy recalls is on and the complaint by a couple is
that those who need to answer for bad toys from China are the
corporations and the importers, not "China".
|11.25.07 @ 4:11PM|#
BTW, the place I usually hear the question come up in exactly the
manner that you asked was from Chomsky followers or in his writings
and interviews
I have no idea Chomsky's views on such things, I don't bother with
his political stuff. I haven't found out enough about the issue to
have an opinion on it one way or the other really.
Brian Sorgatz|11.25.07 @ 4:20PM|#
In light of the Star Wars reference, I think it's tasteful for me to mention my SW fan film festival here today.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 4:37PM|#
I have no idea Chomsky's views on such things, I don't
bother with his political stuff. I haven't found out enough about
the issue to have an opinion on it one way or the other
really.
He bases a lot of his hysteria on the fact that "corporations"
enjoy a limited liability status and traces that back to a USSC
decision, IIRC.
However, IF I was following his meandering correctly, he seems to
think that "corporations" have been granted some sort of Super
Chuck Norris level powers and speaks of them as a monolith. In fact
it sounds like he is deeply confusing the limited liability of
individual shareholders with the limits of corporate or executive
liability.
If you are just a common shareholder or debt holder, your liability
is limited to your investment. If you actually have responsibility
for running a corporation then you are exposed to more
liability.
A similar thing exists for partnerships. Silent partners furst must
be truly silent and abstain from making any business decisions, but
their liability is limited to their investment.
Brian Sorgatz|11.25.07 @ 4:48PM|#
More pessimistically, liberal writer Michael Kinsley
recently opined in Time that libertarians are an ugly byproduct of
self-satisfied affluence: "The computer revolution has bred a
generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them
complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society -
nor should anyone else."
In other words, if you're not willing to participate in all the
appropriate moral panics, you're a selfish bastard.
|11.25.07 @ 4:48PM|#
When the "in crowd" starts believing it you always feel less
attracted to the position. I'm positive that it's some kind of
evolutionary defense against said crowd on account of our ancestors
being picked on by it.
Actually, no, I think it boils down to the fact that we feel a
sense of ownership in the things we spend time with. When we see
others starting to spend time with those things -- like, say, a
given band's music -- we feel that our ownership is being diluted.
We can actually get quite irritated by it, because we feel that
others are stealing our claim on that thing.
If you're an insufferable snob -- like, say, an indie rock fan --
the pain is doubled. Because then the people diluting your
ownership are the very "masses" whose Crap-Ass Tastes™ you've spent
so much time defining yourself against.
|11.25.07 @ 4:50PM|#
A show about toy recalls is on and the complaint by a couple
is that those who need to answer for bad toys from China are the
corporations and the importers, not "China".
Someone else that escapes blame, themselves.
In reality, it's a non issue. The media is making a mountain out of
an admittedly large molehill. Still, it's a molehill. The consumers
are punishing the PRC manufacturers and inattentive U.S.
corporations for shoddy business practices as we speak. The PRC
ruling class and U.S. importers will take note and embark on
corrective actions. Not really that hard to figure out, is it?
|11.25.07 @ 4:57PM|#
I should have noted that politics is different, at least in a
democracy, given that the very point of the thing is getting people
to see stuff your way. Not to mention the whole "principles" thing
mentioned by another poster above.
That's why, if you feel let down because other people are starting
to buy into this "libertarian thing" you started digging a year
ago, you may kinda be in this for the wrong reasons. (Not that we
won't take your vote anyway.)
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Found a better show, actually an old movie classic, on yet a
different Turner related channel: TCM.
"How to Murder Your Wife"
The chick playing Jack Lemon's wife is such a babe! Oh, and it is a
lesson from the 1950s(?) on how women completly dominate the world,
but is frequently confused with some sort of back-bench status of
women.
Guessing that the title would never get past the discussion stage
in a women's study program.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Your donations too.
And any good comments you can plant with your MSM friends.
dr_dog|11.25.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Things I've learned from the
WaPo comment thread.
Libertarians are anti-socialists, in the political sense. That may have intellectual underpinnings, but from what I've ever seen, heard, and read of Libertarians, I find them to be among the least socialized of pols. There seems to be a high incidence of Asperger's Syndrome among them.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 5:33PM|#
LOL!
Asperger's
Syndrome
Libertarians are autistic-like? Apparently because they do not
agree with International/National Socialists?
|11.25.07 @ 5:35PM|#
Our culture has been soaking in it for years
Madge? Is that you?
There seems to be a high incidence of Asperger's Syndrome among
them
I've heard this more than a few times, usually from leftists who
want to marginalize libertarians because they don't put much effort
into being seen as caregivers.
The funny thing is "asperger's" is a term that is so overused it is
starting to be equivalent to "logical" or "thoughtful".
shecky|11.25.07 @ 5:41PM|#
GM:
Will add that in Moore's touting of his lifetime NRA membership
his supporters gloss over or ignore the fact that said membership
was purchased by his father for him when he was a kid. The NRA is
not a true 2A supporting organization and Moore is even less so as
an individual.
Moore isn't a true gun rights advocate because his NRA membership
was given to him, and even if he did support the NRA, he's still
evil because the NRA doesn't truly support the 2nd Amend.
Moore Derangement Syndrome?
A show about toy recalls is on and the complaint by a couple is
that those who need to answer for bad toys from China are the
corporations and the importers, not "China".
China's at fault?
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 5:46PM|#
Moore isn't a true gun rights advocate because his NRA
membership was given to him, and even if he did support the NRA,
he's still evil because the NRA doesn't truly support the 2nd
Amend.
Moore is anti 2A and his supporters keep touting his membership in
the NRA as some sort of bona-fides in his favor.
Seems there is some derangement going around though.
shecky|11.25.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Moore is anti 2A and his supporters keep touting his
membership in the NRA as some sort of bona-fides in his
favor.
Understood. But you also said that even if he were an enthusiastic
NRA supporter, he's still evil because the NRA "is not a true 2A
supporting organization". IOW, according to you, Moore can never
atone for his sins.
LarryA|11.25.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Republican pollster Frank Luntz has denounced Paul's
supporters as "the equivalent of crabgrass . . . not the grass you
want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff."
I.e. he wants his supporters like the "real" grass. Follow the
program, be prepared to be sheared often, and no new ideas
from the grandstands.
I think many might be surprised of thinking of that day as
being a "commemoration" of the man, it's a celebration of his
arrest, and he was anything but an anarchist -- he was a
reactionary fanatic Roman Catholic theocrat of sorts.
Well, no. In current usage Guy Fawkes is the guy who inspired Hugo
Weaving in V for
Vendetta. You're thinking about history, which the MSM
thinks of as either "last week" or "movie costume drama."
One thing I don't hear about, though, is that you don't see
many black or Hispanic libertarians. I'm not sure why that is
(don't they have some experience with abuses of state power?) but
it's something to think about. Is the "insurgency" just white
people? Is that only a stereotype?
Stockholm Syndrome. Sort of like liberal Democrat Jews who favor
gun control so big government can protect them, despite 6,000 years
of history where every non-Jewish government they've been under has
screwed them over.
I guess I must not be listening to the right mainstream
adherents. Libertarianism is the *only* political philosophy that
I've seen described with academic rigor. Locke, Mill, Paine,
Jefferson, Spooner, Mises, Friedman, Rothbard... I guess these guys
aren't mainstream? Or were they referring to mainstream in the vein
of Parker and Stone?
The MSM don't consider the folks you list "mainstream" because they
don't get invited to appear on talk shows.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 5:55PM|#
But you also said that even if he were an enthusiastic NRA
supporter, he's still evil because the NRA "is not a true 2A
supporting organization".
If you are going to do a proper Dowdification you need to use
elipses.
Now run along and fabricate things about other people.
|11.25.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Our culture has been soaking in it for years
Madge? Is that you?
mk, I liked that slightly obscure reference.
Mike Laursen|11.25.07 @ 6:52PM|#
That's why, if you feel let down because other people are
starting to buy into this "libertarian thing" you started digging a
year ago, you may kinda be in this for the wrong
reasons.
Tom, well said.
|11.25.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Matt Welch, a former assistant editorial
page editor at The Times, is an editor at Reason magazine and
author of "McCain: The Myth of a Maverick."
Did someone piss off the powers that be?
src|11.25.07 @ 7:49PM|#
LarryA,
Stockholm Syndrome? Whole races are too irrational to know what's
good for them? Seems like a big leap to me. (By the way, I know a
number of pro-2A Jews.)
Brian Sorgatz|11.25.07 @ 8:36PM|#
As a 100-year-old woman, I enjoy giving accurate demographic information to the Los Angeles Times in exchange for the privilege of reading their newspaper online.
Nephilium|11.25.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Guy Montag: One of the reasons that they Asperger's Syndrome is
trotted out is that some studies have said a lot of us hacker type
people have a higher percentage of it then the average
population... in addition, there's a fairly strong libertarian
mindset amongst most hackers.
For more information read on:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/appendixb.html
Nephilium
|11.25.07 @ 10:06PM|#
"One thing I don't hear about, though, is that you don't see
many black or Hispanic libertarians. I'm not sure why that is
(don't they have some experience with abuses of state power?) but
it's something to think about. Is the "insurgency" just white
people? Is that only a stereotype?"
Stockholm Syndrome. Sort of like liberal Democrat Jews who favor
gun control so big government can protect them, despite 6,000 years
of history where every non-Jewish government they've been under has
screwed them over.
I think it has more to do with the collectivistic cultures that
people of african, hispanic, and jewish descent are likely to have
been influenced by than (non-iberian and especially non-catholic)
europeans, who, when colonizing the continental US, were both
descended from a more individualistic culture (especially the
british) and came into contact with freedom loving tribes like the
Haudenosaunee (Thomas Jefferson lived just a mile down the road
from one family of that tribe).
There are always exceptions, of course, but I think it holds in the
general. Someone please correct me if I'm talking out of my
buttocks.
John Markley|11.25.07 @ 10:23PM|#
As someone diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, I'd say the
connection to libertarianism makes some sense. Like a lot of my
sort, I'm more coldly logical and less openly emotional than the
average person, so it's not surprising that 1) I'm attracted to a
political philosophy based on consistent application of basic
principles, rather than the incoherent hodgepodges of the major
political parties, and 2) I'm not impressed by the soppy
emotionalism that most liberals use as a substitute for
thought.
That's not what liberals who make the claim (which I see with some
regularity)mean by it, of course; they're simply following the
longstanding leftist tradition of claiming that anyone who dissents
from their view is mentally ill. If that means slurring hundreds of
thousands of people with autistic spectrum disorders by
perpetuating false and hateful stereotypes about how we're soulless
husks devoid of human feeling, so be it. Their much-vaunted
"compassion" only extends so far.
|11.25.07 @ 10:32PM|#
Britain was a Catholic country when the Magna Carta was signed, Parliament created, etc. Also, there were plenty of Protestant autocracies at the time (eg, Prussia, Sweden, etc). Contrary to the desires of some, there's no correlation between Protestantism and political liberty.
|11.25.07 @ 10:33PM|#
A show about toy recalls is on and the complaint by a couple
is that those who need to answer for bad toys from China are the
corporations and the importers, not "China".
Doesn't the responsibility for lead in toys fall on the people that
brought in the toys and the ones that resold it, not the country
they're in?
However, as we saw in several corporate cases recently, like
Wordcom and Tycho, an executive can easily "pierce the corporate
veil" and be charged and convicted of inappropriate activity under
the guise of the corporation.
You mean Worldcom and Tyco? Those are two extreme example and the
fact that misdeeds have to be that egregious to warrant piercing
the corporate veil says there's something wrong with the
system.
Corporate personhood is a huge fraud hoisted on us. Look at it this
way, if you poisoned a water supply, you would be in jail for a
long, long time if Union Carbide does it, they pay a fine (which is
probably less than legit disposal costs) and a legal slap on the
wrist.
iih|11.25.07 @ 11:15PM|#
Rose Wilder Lane should be "noted (with Ayn Rand and Isabel
Paterson) as one of the founding mothers of the American
libertarian movement and is also considered one of the seminal
forces behind the American Libertarian Party."
Here is something she wrote on Islam:
Islam and the Discovery of Liberty
I like to mention this and contrast it to those libertarians who
are harshly anti-religion in general and anti-Islam in particular.
Here is what Lew Rockwell had to say recently:
Libertarianism is, as Murray Rothbard insisted, a political
philosophy, period. It is not a cultural or lifestyle movement.
Still less does it require an anti-religious or anti-bourgeois
orientation.
One great side-effect of the Ron Paul movement is to make this
clear. People of faith are welcome.
Murray, a pro-Catholic agnostic of Jewish heritage, held that
libertarianism would never get anywhere politically so long as it
was associated with hatred of religion, as in some of classical
liberalism or modern Randianism. After all, he pointed out, the
vast majority of Americans--like the vast majority of people in all
societies at all times--are religious.
Some one, come all to the Ron Paul movement: Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, Baha'i, Unitarians,
Ethical Culture, agnostics, atheists--everyone.
There is no religious test or, more important, no anti-religious
test. Just our political creed of personal freedom, economic
freedom, sound money, tolerance, and peace.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017175.html
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 11:24PM|#
Anybody ever been to Armand's Pizza on Capitol Hill?
C-SPAN2 is replaying M. Stanton Stephen's appearance there speaking
of his book "Blacklisted by History". I was cautious of this book,
but the first 24 min. sounds great.
Guy Montag|11.25.07 @ 11:25PM|#
Mo,
Youseem to bee one of those Chomsky loons I was telling crimethink
about.
Edward|11.25.07 @ 11:51PM|#
If libertaianism is a marinade American culture has been soaking in for years, Ron Paul just fucked it up. The last thing a nascent libertarianism needs is association with a loon who's too stupid to distance himelf from Nazis, 9/11 Truthers, and assorted nutjobs. He won't win fuck all, but libertarianism will lose by association with him.
|11.26.07 @ 1:05AM|#
From the Washington Post article: When a fierce Republican
foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really
trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day
dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and
potentially transformative force is growing in American
politics.
Hey, Gillespie mentioned a plot to kill someone. Doesn't that mean,
by the unwritten banning protocol at Reason, that Gillespie has to
ban himself? ;)
|11.26.07 @ 1:54AM|#
I'm sad to say that I don't believe freedom really is that
popular with a large number of people. It's not to say that you
ask, "Hey, are you in favor of freedom?" and the answer won't be,
"Fuck yeah I am!" But rather that people want to do good things and
live the best that they can. They also want others to get the same.
And the logic seems very simple to most:
"I'd probably be better off if I didn't smoke. Same with you."
-voting for a smoking ban seems like a good idea.
"The poor would be better off if they had money for retirement,
heck, so would I" -now SS looks smart.
And the aggregate of all these good ideas is total government
control of everything. And not by grand design, but by a sick sort
of spontaneous order born of the combination of many individuals
unrelated moral wants. The question of how the system will work in
the field, who's writing the laws to their advantage, how it will
effect the working incentive structure of life, never even enters
these peoples minds. And there are a lot of these people, I feel
like I've lived with a dozen of them at times.
Edward|11.26.07 @ 2:18AM|#
Captain Awesome
You have one big freedom: if you don't like it here, you're free to
move somewhere else.
Edward|11.26.07 @ 2:27AM|#
When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism
is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of
campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's
clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in
American politics.
Nonsense. The Internet is a hot bed of fools who are easily
separated from their money, and most Americans don't know what the
fuck a regicide is or, for that matter, who the fuck Ron Paul is.
Deafeat is just around the corner, kiddies. Don't cry too much when
it happens.
|11.26.07 @ 2:49AM|#
Our culture has been soaking in it for years
Madge? Is that you?
mk, I liked that slightly obscure reference.
Indeed. Should we call the phenomena Palmolive Libertarianism?
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 6:38AM|#
No comment on the non deciduous tree genocide scheduled for the next few weeks either?
src|11.26.07 @ 7:00AM|#
I don't know what a "collectivist culture" would be, or why
blacks, Jews, and Hispanics should be saddled with one while the
descendents of Englishmen remain "freedom-loving." After all, we're
not colonists now. We've all been steeped pretty thoroughly in
[i]American [/i] culture.
As far as the race thing goes, I've definitely seen black writers
and commentators espouse libertarian views; or at least, in favor
of self-reliance, against social programs and a criminal justice
system that's anywhere from inefficient to malicious. But my
impression is that they don't identify as libertarians or
participate much in libertarian blogs/read Reason/cheer for the
Cato Institute, and maybe that's bad marketing on the part of these
organizations.
On a more cheerful note, in celebration of gymnospermic genocide,
I'm eating Peeps!
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 7:22AM|#
src,
I seriously doubt the person you are responding to will accept any
demographic data that does not meet his moving quota system.
Somehow, these guys don't have a problem with WTO/WB protestors
being almost all white, same with the anti-war protestors,
anti-Israel protestors, etc. This is only an issue to be pointed
out when they do not agree with someone.
|11.26.07 @ 7:38AM|#
It's the vikings man.
Up to the 19th century, the more contact a culture had with the
Vikings, the more libertarian it was. Well except for Russia, of
course, which was founded by Vikings. Also, ignore the 20th century
since it all changed as the scandinavians all jumped on the
socialist bandwagon.
In seriousness, the Vikings had a culture of fierce devotion to
individual sovereignty that manifested itself in a bunch of
traditions emphasizing equality before the law, strong property
rights (for Vikings and not for non-Vikings) etc.
Medeival Iceland (which we anarcho-capilatlists like to point to)
is a great example of the Viking approach to legal
arrangements.
This is not to say that Vikings were libertarian. They were not in
the least. It's just that their cultural traditions seemed to
provide fertile breeding ground for libertarian ideas.
There were no viking settlements in Africa, so the Africans missed
out. ;)
robc|11.26.07 @ 8:59AM|#
a day dedicated to an attempted regicide
Does anyone in the MSM (including people who should know better)
actually know what Guy Fawkes Day is? It is a day dedicated to his
CAPTURE.
robc|11.26.07 @ 9:00AM|#
No comments yet on the Rudd election in
Australia?
Australia has elections? I thought the captain of the winning
Aussie Rules Football team got to be prime minister (after cutting
off the head of the losing captain)?
x,y|11.26.07 @ 9:23AM|#
The corporate personhood issue is one I've been thinking about a lot lately (but without much success). My initial thought is that people should be permitted organize in any manner they see fit. But I don't see the need to have a corporate/non-profit/other entity through which collections of people may operate -- especially when that entity is a creation of or granted its privileges by the state. Can anyone recommend some good reading on this issue?
|11.26.07 @ 9:31AM|#
Guy,
Glad to see you attacking the content of my post rather than simply
making ad hominem attacks. Why don't you tell me why corporations
should have favorable treatment over the law and those that sell
the product shouldn't be responsible for what they sell? Seems like
those are pretty core libertarian values (you're responsible for
what you sell and all have equal treatment under the law).
Your faux intelligent snark doesn't get you much traction or
respect. You might want to fill your posts with some content.
And seriously a Chomskyite? I think you'd be hard pressed to call
me something less accurate.
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 9:42AM|#
Mo,
Quite simply, a corporation enjoys no more favorable treatment than
any other business, it is just a different investment
structure.
I used those big examples of "big guys" getting punished for 2
reasons. First, they are easy to find as opposed to the small ones
that happen every day and second, they are prime examples of huge
firms that did not get away with anthing.
Now, have fun with your fantasies because, I am sure, there will be
another CEO/CIO/CTO going to real prison in the near future for you
to use an example of special privilige getting away with stuff.
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 9:43AM|#
BTW, what happened to the Commies in South America story that was between this one and the Reasonid gathering story?
|11.26.07 @ 10:16AM|#
"Corporate personhood" means it can own property, sign contracts, etc. Any attempt to get rid of that concerning for-profit corps also put charities, churches, etc at risk (if a church can't own a building, we get some freedom of religion issues).
|11.26.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Guy,
CxOs go to jail for financial fraud, insider trading and
embezzlement. Has a single person gone to jail for corporate
negligence? Human people (as opposed to juristic) have. Actually,
the limited liability structure does have favorable treatment. Even
noted Chomsky adherent Murray Rothbard said, "A libertarian society
would be a full-liability society where everyone is fully
responsible for his actions and any harmful consequences they might
cause."
Scott,
The debate over corporate personhood isn't over property and
contract law, but rather constitutional protections (such as free
speech) granted to corporations. The counter-argument is that they
are collections of people and therefore have those rights granted
to them. One could counter that by gaining government protection in
the form of limited liability, there is some counterbalanced
restrictions.
LarryA|11.26.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Stockholm Syndrome? Whole races are too irrational to know
what's good for them? Seems like a big leap to me. (By the way, I
know a number of pro-2A Jews.)
I do too. The membership of Jews for
the Preservation of Firearms Ownership spring to mind. Which is
why I specified "liberal Democratic Jews" as opposed to other
kinds.
Contrary to the desires of some, there's no correlation between
Protestantism and political liberty.
I think there is. Protestants tend to fracture into myriad
denominations that are seperate (I.e. Methodists and Baptists
identify themselves as "Methodist" and "Baptist," not
"Protestant.") The more denominations you have the less likely any
one of them is going to be powerful enough to either take over the
government or start a war with other denominations.
Note I'm not saying you can't get a totalitarian government in a
"protestant" country, Britain seems on the way there, just that you
won't get a religious theocracy.
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Has a single person gone to jail for corporate
negligence?
I am CERTAIN that any example that i give will not meet your
criteria for negligence.
However, if you are truly interested in this topic I suggest that
you research class action lawsuits by shareholders against their
boards, fiduciary duty suits and there is yet another term that I
have forgotten.
Also, personally I am not sure that simple negligence should earn
jail time, but feel free to look up remedies to that if you
like.
Lastly, in the case of criminal negligence, people get prosecuted
for that pretty often. If you have failed to find examples of that
you just are not trying and I am not bothering.
R C Dean|11.26.07 @ 11:40AM|#
However, if you are truly interested in this topic I suggest
that you research class action lawsuits by shareholders against
their boards, fiduciary duty suits and there is yet another term
that I have forgotten.
You're probably thinking of derivative suits, where the
shareholders sue on behalf of the corporation.
dhex|11.26.07 @ 12:18PM|#
oh montblog, you so crazy.
Note I'm not saying you can't get a totalitarian government in
a "protestant" country, Britain seems on the way there, just that
you won't get a religious theocracy.
john calvin?
someone who knows guy a little|11.26.07 @ 12:22PM|#
RC,
He hasn't a clue what your talking about. He hasn't a clue what
he is talking about.
Hey Guy! How's your "heat pump" doing these days?
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 1:10PM|#
RCD,
You're probably thinking of derivative suits, where the
shareholders sue on behalf of the corporation.
I think that is right. For some reason I can never remember that
term.
|11.26.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Are you willfully ignoring what I am saying Guy? People go to
jail for financial crimes, but not other crimes. Bernie Ebbers, of
Worldcom fame, went to jail for fraud and false statements,
Kozlowski, of Tyco, was jailed for embezzlement and Ken Lay went to
jail for fraud and false statements.
People can be found for criminally negligent homicide and are
imprisoned, however, dump water into a canal and create a Superfund
all you have to do is pay a fine. I don't know why saying this is
unequal treatment is unreasonable.
|11.26.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Has a single person gone to jail for corporate
negligence?
Let's ask this instead: Has a single person gone to jail for
governmental negligence?
Hmmm...
failure to prevent 9/11? Nope.
the failure of the levees in New Orleans that led to the
destruction of the city? Nope.
the fraud at Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac? Nope.
There seems to be an underlying assumption in the original question
that when government programs fail the intentions were good so it's
OK but when corporate programs fail then evil intent was involved.
Generally speaking, corporate negligence is a civil matter (subject
to lawsuits and monetary compensation) not criminal (they don't
intend to harm their customers).
|11.26.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Curly,
I wouldn't mind that either. I'm from the school of thought that
heads should rolland people will pay attention. The reason why the
government sucks is there is no downside if you mess up, especially
for appointed positions. I'm no lover of the state and would love
for their to be accountability.
FYI, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private institutions and are
publicly traded.
|11.26.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Note I'm not saying you can't get a totalitarian government
in a "protestant" country, Britain seems on the way there, just
that you won't get a religious theocracy.
Oliver Cromwell? Puritans?
There's a few hundred thousand starved/beheaded Irish Catholics who
might disagree with you.
Guy Montag|11.26.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Are you willfully ignoring what I am saying Mo?
Plenty of examples of individuals working for corporations out
there found criminally neglegant.
Now, if you are seeking every equity holder, debt holder, executive
and agent of a firm getting jail time for that, no there is not an
example that I have ever heard of.
|11.26.07 @ 5:12PM|#
FYI, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private institutions and
are publicly traded.
That's true but only part of the picture. These companies were
created by congress to enhance credit availability to certain
targeted sectors (agriculture, home finance, etc.). While they are
publicly-traded companies, there is an incestual relationship with
the federal government.
GILMORE|11.26.07 @ 8:19PM|#
... and freewheeling fun of libertarianism
Im not sure thats exactly how this works out in practice. The
'freewheeling fun' bit that is. I consider libertarianism to be
more of a constant tedious effort to explain to people that it's
more true to the basic ideals already written into the
constitution, rather than some kind of newfangled radicalism that
smells of 'libertinism' or anarchism
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