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
The Great "Libertarian Democrat" Hope Calls it Quits
Bye Bye, Bill Richardson. (Or, as the Drudge Report cleverly put it for a few minutes, "Adios Amigo." ... Get it??) Once again, Tim Cavanaugh's election predictions turn out wrong.
Richardson was far and away my most favored Blue-team candidate when this campaign first started, back there in the 1980s. A western, tax-cutting, gun-liking, bad-bolo-tie-wearing, pro-medical marijuana bon vivant seemed to hold promise in what was shaping up to be a grim Hillaryverse of left-jerking populism. But his libertarianism, as predicted by Dave Weigel, turned out to be skin deep, and for what very very little it's worth, I found him to be deeply disappointing in person, utterly failing to convince me of the very cut-and-run Iraq strategy I myself favor, warbling on about "fair trade," and showing about 1/200th of the intellectual spark of, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A fun bit from Weigel's piece:
All this hype is a bit perplexing to Richardson's predecessor, former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson. A strong supporter of school choice and drug decriminalization, Johnson was, without much debate, America's most libertarian state executive.
"I don't think Bill Richardson has got much to offer libertarians," Johnson says. "He plays up the fact that he cuts taxes when, if you add up all the fees he's approved, there's been a net tax increase. It's an indictment of Cato and the Club for Growth that they'd consider him a tax cutter." How much of an indictment? "It makes me a little less impressed by the good grades Cato gave me."
Also, so as not to invoke Tim Cavanaugh in three separate posts on one day, his take on the Ron Paul newsletter flap is a must-read.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 8:13PM|#
You're right, Cavanaugh was in great form.
But, I don't know any Confederate apologist libertarians and I've
been around this movement my entire life. Maybe that's because I
grew up in Californicate. [shrugs] I do know a lot of libertarians
who agree that we should have just let the South go.
I also concur that Wilson was a bad president, he not only
supported Jim Crow, but after taking office he fired every black
government employee he could.
It is actually the left and the dreaded center than hold Wilson in
esteem for his League of Nations (Black Africa need not apply) and
mishandling of the Big War that Ended All Wars.
Mike M.|1.9.08 @ 8:14PM|#
It's unfortunate that Richardson couldn't get more traction. Out of the whole field of Democrats I think he's probably the best, especially in terms of real qualification and experience, with Biden being next.
Jacob|1.9.08 @ 8:24PM|#
I do think it unfortunate that racism is THE unforgivable sin of American politics, when one can cause the death of a million people and get by without a blemish.
thoreau|1.9.08 @ 8:28PM|#
I do think it unfortunate that racism is THE unforgivable
sin of American politics, when one can cause the death of a million
people and get by without a blemish.
If you want to add another unforgivable sin to the list, then I
agree.
If you want to remove one from the list (perhaps to be replaced,
perhaps not) then I have to disagree.
|1.9.08 @ 8:32PM|#
But, I don't know any Confederate apologist libertarians and
I've been around this movement my entire life. Maybe that's because
I grew up in Californicate. [shrugs] I do know a lot of
libertarians who agree that we should have just let the South
go.
Oh, they're out there, I've met 'em.
But here's your problem - you can argue either side of that issue,
Lincoln's or Davis', as the "libertarian" position, because
libertarianism offers no useful definition of liberty. Without a
standard and a metric, you can pretty well take any position in any
political argument, and state it as an appeal to liberty (and you
can find examples of some of the most cringe-worthy howlers right
here on this forum).
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|1.9.08 @ 8:36PM|#
"because libertarianism offers no useful definition of
liberty"
WRONG: Ever hear of the Non-Agression principle?
the innominate one|1.9.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Richardson's spokesperson is denying that he's withdrawing, btw.
|1.9.08 @ 8:42PM|#
That was a terrific piece by Tim. Man, I miss him.
I do think the focus on so many of the Old Right's hobbyhorses
crowds out much of what's more interesting (and certainly more
marketable) in the philosophy. Yes, precisely.
Everything I know about libertarianism I've learned on this this
web site, and the neo-confederates are much better-represented here
than at, say, the modern National Review.
|1.9.08 @ 8:43PM|#
I'd hope it was true that Richardson is staying the race, except that it wouldn't accomplish anything.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|1.9.08 @ 8:44PM|#
Pig Mannix, here is a link to a good definition of NAP
http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=nonAggression
Edward|1.9.08 @ 8:47PM|#
After rerading the racist, neo-Nazi dreck that Ron Paul published in his newsletter, I hope Tim Cavanaugh means "Go away, Ron Paul!"
Bingo|1.9.08 @ 8:48PM|#
joe: Aside from Derbyshire and possibly Goldberg (who should have titled his book American Fascism and included the evangelicals), National Review is a pain in the ass to read these days. They are so enthralled with the Bush doctrine they compile political stories from the Middle East, for fucks sake. They used to have limited government talking points, but now its the GOP cheering squad.
Tim Cavanaugh|1.9.08 @ 8:50PM|#
"But his libertarianism, as predicted by Dave Weigel, turned out
to be skin deep"
But hey, that's a lotta skin! Ba-dump bump!
|1.9.08 @ 8:51PM|#
WRONG: Ever hear of the Non-Agression principle?
I sure have! But I doubt that most people here who refer to
themselves as libertarians have heard of it, and I'd further doubt
most of them would agree with it.
Tell me - how do you apply the NAP to some of the pet issues
promoted by Reason? Abortion rights? The right to state recognized
gay marriage?
Martin|1.9.08 @ 8:55PM|#
I have to agree with Bingo. Derbyshire is a good read at NR. The rest of NR are establishment morons. Not as bad as Pravda, I mean the Weekly Standard, but bad enough.
cicero|1.9.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Tim Cavanaugh's editorial sucks. Is there anyone at reason or
who used to work at reason who didn't spend their day trying to
paint the libertarian movement as a home for racists and
homophobes?
"But I do think there's a discussion to be held among libertarians
about why this political philosophy seems to draw so many
(classically) illiberal figures; and the hubbub over Paul's
newsletters, which are revelatory whether Paul wrote them or not,
seems like an opportunity."
I guess we need to have this discussion because there's something
about libertarianism that is inherently racist. Because there
aren't racists in other political movements. Nope, none at all.
Come on, give me a break!
Maybe racists aren't "attracted" to libertarianism because they're
racist, maybe they're just libertarians with racist views. Just
like there are Democrats, Republicans, socialists and conservatives
with racist views.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 8:57PM|#
libertarianism offers no useful definition of
liberty
Pig, I believe that is also the Objectivist criticism of
libertarianism.
Maybe my problem is one of definitions.
I know, though the drinking rules say that raising the flag
proclaiming I'm a libertarian and you're not,
means we get to drink, we're still not allowed to do that. However,
there are many who post here that are not libertarian, or who are
libertarian leaning, or who are trolls, or who are apologists for
this or that. Like the Daily Kos, they may like the way the term
libertarian sounds but if it don't walk like a duck
chances are it isn't one.
Fluffy|1.9.08 @ 9:01PM|#
I don't understand Tim's confusion. Didn't he ever READ Hit N'
Run?
"Why does libertarianism attract racists?"
Isn't it obvious?
It is due to the fact that, during the 20th Century at least, the
state has grown for "progressive" reasons - some citizens have had
their liberty incrementally reduced in order to allow the state to
pursue progressive causes. This naturally throws together people
who don't like the reduction in liberty, and people who don't like
the cause purportedly being served.
It's almost trivally simple to see how this works when dealing
with, for example, laws against employment discrimination. One
person might argue that such laws are unjust because they privilege
the seller of one commodity [labor] with the ability to question,
and litigate, the purchasing decisions of his customers or
potential customers - a situation the average consumer would find
absolutely unjust and intolerable if it were extended to other
commodities. Another person might oppose such laws because they
think that African Americans are "scientifically" inferior, and
discrimination against them makes sense and should be encouraged.
The latter person can quite easily come to believe that he is as on
the same team as the former person.
You can repeat this analysis for any number of libertarian
positions. Do so enough times, and it answers all your questions.
Actually, just read the comments around here for a while and you
won't even have to actively do any analysis. It's
self-analyzing.
SIV|1.9.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Bill Richardson... Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the
way out you cockfighting-banning SOB. This almost makes up for
Hillary winning and Giuliani finishing ahead of Ron Paul last
night.
I hope he can't get a Federal appointment if the democRAT wins in
November.
Eric Dondero|1.9.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Can someone please explain to me why the Libertarian Party isn't
going down to New Mexico, and begging Gary Johnson on their hands
and knees to run as a Libertarian for President?
He's unite the entire libertarian movement.
|1.9.08 @ 9:07PM|#
I don't know any Confederate apologist libertarians [but] I
do know a lot of libertarians who agree that we should have just
let the South go.
Well, that qualifies you as a "Confederate apologist" in the eyes
of today's media- and academic-class "libertarians."
Pretty much anything short of orgasm at the thought of hundreds of
thousands of shot-through Southerners does.
They weren't "tolerant cosmopolitans," you know, so they had to
die.
Or at least it's good that they did.
|1.9.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Bingo,
So I was out with Cosmo chasing Jacobin squirrels again - isn't it
amazing how that joke is still funny?
Tangentially, can anyone help me out with the name of Dwight
Eisenhower's Vice-President? Thanks!
|1.9.08 @ 9:10PM|#
Tell me - how do you apply the NAP to some of the pet issues
promoted by Reason? Abortion rights? The right to state recognized
gay marriage?
Abortion is a tough nut isn't it? When does the zygote/fetus/baby
become a person? Answer that one to everybody's satisfaction and
the discussion is mostly over for libertarians.
Gay marriage not so tough. As they say in playground baskeball,
paraphrasing libertarian philosophy, no harm, no foul.
|1.9.08 @ 9:12PM|#
Like the Daily Kos, they may like the way the term
libertarian sounds but if it don't walk like a duck chances are it
isn't one.
Yes - and that's my problem with libertarianism - it sounds nice,
but libertarianism as blueprint for a political order does about as
much to ensure liberty as progressivism does to ensure
progress.
On one of the threads earlier, the one about military secrets being
sold to Pakistan, I made the wise-crack that libertarians ought to
be for it, because they support free trade.
Well, obviously, allowing a private party to sell nuclear secrets
to a hostile country would be idiocy - yes, preventing that might
be a constraint to an individual's liberty, and right to free
trade, and all that good stuff, but failure to do that would likely
result in your free society getting nuked off the map
eventually.
But based on the NAP PIRS spoke of, no government should have the
right to prevent that, since in and of itself nobody is aggressed
against in such a transaction.
What kind of freedom is that? The freedom to cut your own throat,
and that of all your neighbors as well?
It might be nice for the 15 minutes or so it lasted, but it doesn't
bode well for long term survival.
Bingo|1.9.08 @ 9:13PM|#
joe:
Either I've had too many drinks already or that joke went wayyyy
over my head... lets hear an explanation!
NP|1.9.08 @ 9:13PM|#
Hey Tim, I'm shocked--shocked!--that a libertarian would be so bigoted against fat people, even if they happen to be politicians. Oh wait, I almost forgot: libertarians are bigots when it comes to politicians.
thoreau|1.9.08 @ 9:16PM|#
Fluffy-
You're right, I'd say, regarding why certain repugnant types are
attracted to libertarianism.
|1.9.08 @ 9:19PM|#
The only thing libertarianism can tell us about the greatest
expansion of human freedom in the United States in the 20th century
- the end of segregation - is that eliminating Jim Crow laws was
good, and banning discrimination was good. It can only tell us
about the law.
The fact that the law was only a small segment of an overarching
social, economic, geographic, moral, and legal
system demonstrates how inadequate it is as a political, as opposed
to merely a governing, philosophy. Libertarianism can't tell us
that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. On its sunnier
days, it tells us that the Market will eliminate all of that bad
stuff all by itself, but when it doesn't, libertarianism is at a
loss to tell us what to do next, only that we'd better not try
anything that costs tax money or requires mandates.
|1.9.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Bingo,
I rewrote every Jonah Goldberg post that ever appeared in the
corner.
Hey, everybody! My two year old is cute!
|1.9.08 @ 9:27PM|#
I should add, libertarians can very easily, and often do,
denounce racial discrimination and private-sector practices of
segregation, and not just on flimsy efficiency grounds, but on
moral grounds.
But they have to go outside of libertarianism to do so, and base
their stance on principles of liberalism, or Christianity, or some
other philosophy.
I'm not saying y'all have no opinion on segregation, or support it.
Just so I'm being clear.
|1.9.08 @ 9:29PM|#
Oh wait, I almost forgot: libertarians are bigots when it
comes to politicians.
Replace bigots with cynical, skeptical, or furious. It sounds
better that way.
|1.9.08 @ 9:29PM|#
Well, the problem with labeling Lincoln as a rat bastard is that
everyone assumes that you then approve of lynchings and
slavery.
Our culture requires that you pick one side or the other.
If you live across the country from the South and have never met
the Sons of Confederate Veterans, your stereotype is probably
wrong. The guys know their history. If your knowledge of the Civil
War consists of what you learned in 10th grade history class,
they'll mop the floor with your ignorance.
That having been said, I don't think I've met an SCV libertarian.
They tend to be culture war conservatives. Because of the tariff
issue they sometimes stumble upon a little free market
economics.
But I have met libertarians who recognize Lincoln for what he was
and also recognize the value of Federalism.
So, what does this have to do with Bill Richardson?
dp|1.9.08 @ 9:29PM|#
"I don't know any Confederate apologist libertarians"
Lucky you. There's lots of 'em. They, along with the Y2K
survivalist types, always made me appreciate the merely socially
inept libertarians. You know, the ones who thought support of
peoples' right to watch dirty movies meant you really wanted to
watch porn with them. Or talk about it with them. In front of
attractive women. Loudly. And in detail.
Yup. About 2 minutes at a cocktail party with one of the Mises
Institute people or a gold bug, and I was looking for the porn guy
again. Or the rude, premise-checking Objectivist.
Yeah. Good times.
Ben|1.9.08 @ 9:31PM|#
I think we could all use more Gary Johnson in our lives. Someone
get this guy in Congress and start prepping him to be the next, but
non-racist newsletter publishing, Ron Paul.
My grandparents lived in New Mexico for many years up until a
couple of years ago, and I heard them once refer to him as the
crazy ex-governor that wanted to legalize drugs. I kept it to
myself that I liked the guy.
SIV|1.9.08 @ 9:41PM|#
So, what does this have to do with Bill
Richardson?
I was confused for a minute or so. Most comments are in relation to
Cavanaugh's piece-- the last hyperlink in the original post.
I was a bit confused about the reaction to neo-Confederate stuff in
Ron Paul's newsletter as well. Not from Yankee liberals, but from
some of the "libertarians". They seem to be equating
"Confederate-apologists"( believe me --they aren't apologizing for
anything) with "slavery apologists". Must be one of those regional
things. Liberal southern newspapers run relatively non-judgemental
pieces on The League of the South and are down right respectful of
the SCV.
NP|1.9.08 @ 9:46PM|#
J sub D,
Replace bigots with cynical, skeptical, or furious. It sounds
better that way.
Bigots are all of the above (and more) by default. It's all about
concision, baby.
gen pike|1.9.08 @ 9:48PM|#
I do know a lot of libertarians who agree that we should
have just let the South go.
That is functionally the same position as the "COnfederate
apologist" ne c'est-pas?
|1.9.08 @ 9:50PM|#
"I don't know any Confederate apologist libertarians"
What about Bumper Hornberger?
|1.9.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Gay marriage not so tough. As they say in playground
baskeball, paraphrasing libertarian philosophy, no harm, no
foul.
Yes, but what is the relationship between freedom to act
and state-sanctioned?
That is, how does a right to form relationships of your own
choosing morph into a right to demand society at large grants it's
approval and sanction? We're not talking about a private contract
here - marriage in every western nation isn't a private contract,
it's public law.
|1.9.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Anyone care to comment on the Wendy McElroy post that Cavanaugh
linked to?
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.1297.1
Gary North? Lew Rockwell?
|1.9.08 @ 9:54PM|#
marriage in every western nation isn't a private contract,
it's public law.
Yes, it is. And libertarianism can't tell us that it is wrong for
that law to discriminate against gay people.
Or black people, for that matter.
mike\'s answer|1.9.08 @ 9:56PM|#
i believe the zionist serial killer E Rittberg when he says Rockwell edited the newsletter,. but the "racial terrorism" and "race war" stuff sounds a lot more like Gary North.
|1.9.08 @ 9:56PM|#
Anyone care to comment on the Wendy McElroy post that Cavanaugh
linked to?
Already
did.
|1.9.08 @ 9:58PM|#
Must be one of those regional things. Liberal southern
newspapers run relatively non-judgemental pieces on The League of
the South and are down right respectful of the SCV.
Must be. In the heart of Motown, Campus Martius, sits the Michigan
Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument What the article doesn't
mention is that there are also four plaques containing bas-reliefs
of Grant, Lincoln, Farragut and Sherman.
I point this monument out to southern visitors. They are especially
displeased with the Sherman plaque. I politely smile. ;-)
|1.9.08 @ 10:01PM|#
If you live across the country from the South and have never met the Sons of Confederate Veterans, your stereotype is probably wrong. The guys know their history. If your knowledge of the Civil War consists of what you learned in 10th grade history class, they'll mop the floor with your ignorance.
I grew up in Virginia. Not the DC suburbs/NOVAville, either. The
"real world of Virginia" as George Allen would say. Places like
Appomattox and Petersburg. I can say that the Sons of Confederate
Veterans view of Civil War history is not just wrong. Its
demonstrably, totally, irrefutably wrong.
|1.9.08 @ 10:03PM|#
Yes, but what is the relationship between freedom to act and
state-sanctioned?
It's a contract. Between consenting adults. No? Actually, that's
the libertarian (as I understand it) way it should be treated. Gay
doesn't enter into that interpretation.
|1.9.08 @ 10:04PM|#
The Civil War monument in my city is a wing-ed Nike, holding out a laurel wreath as if to lay it on the downtown area.
|1.9.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Anybody who has delusions about the Confederacy standing for
"free association" or "free trade" instead of racism should read
Apostles of Disunion. Hell, you don't even have to read
that. Read the speeches made to the secession conventions.
Theres nothing there about self-determination or free trade in
their speeches. There are, however, tirades against "niggers",
"radical abolitionism", and "racial almagation".
The platitudes about "states' rights" didn't appear until 1866.
SIV|1.9.08 @ 10:11PM|#
J sub D,
One day we will rise from the ashes of devastation of the War of
Northern Aggression, and rise to equal the economic and industrial
powerhouse that is the State of Michigan and the City of
Detroit.
Cesar,
I hope you have a well-paying assistantship at the re-education
camp.
|1.9.08 @ 10:12PM|#
joe, the one here is impressive as can be. If you're ever in Detroit, swing by. It'd be on your way to somewhere.
|1.9.08 @ 10:13PM|#
We have a whole freaking street of Civil War monuments down here
in Richmond. Its called Loser's Row Monument Avenue.
Its pretty impressive.
|1.9.08 @ 10:13PM|#
It's a contract. Between consenting adults. No? Actually,
that's the libertarian (as I understand it) way it should be
treated. Gay doesn't enter into that interpretation.
A contract is a private agreement between 2 or more parties, the
terms of which are negotiated between them. The state enforces that
agreement as a disinterested party.
Marriage, as it exists, is not a private contract, it's a state
granted privilege, and the terms are not negotiable. The Justice of
the Peace doesn't conclude the ceremony with, "By the power
invested in me by the State of ------, I now pronounce you man and
wife" for nothing.
|1.9.08 @ 10:17PM|#
One day we will rise from the ashes of devastation of the War of Northern Aggression, and rise to equal the economic and industrial powerhouse that is the State of Michigan and the City of Detroit.
I agree that we got the last laugh. Places like Atlanta, Charlotte,
and Nashville beat Philadelphia, Detroit and Pittsburgh any day of
the week.
I hope you have a well-paying assistantship at the re-education camp.
"Our federal Union: IT MUST BE PRESERVED!"--Andrew Jackson of
Tennessee
SIV|1.9.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Context Cesar
The prominent abolitionists wanted to end slavery so they could
send them all back to Africa as they believed the mere presence of
Africans, not just the institution of slavery, corrupted whites.
That would have fucked up American music beyond recognition.
|1.9.08 @ 10:19PM|#
I'll have to check it out, J sub D.
An Indian brandishing a sword, eh? And some people say the
historical record of the Civil War elevates symbolism over
accuracy! ;-)
|1.9.08 @ 10:21PM|#
The prominent abolitionists wanted to end slavery so they could send them all back to Africa as they believed the mere presence of Africans, not just the institution of slavery, corrupted whites. That would have fucked up American music beyond recognition.
Certain abolitionists. Not all. I seriously doubt that, say,
Frederick Douglass wanted that. But the idea was so impractical
even if they had wished to do so they could have never achieved
it.
|1.9.08 @ 10:21PM|#
Some did, SIV, and others did not. To the larger point, slavery and racism were indeed American problems, and America paid the price for them.
|1.9.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Also SIV, had the Southern Confederacy won the Civil War, that would have also fucked up American music beyond all recognition. American music as we know it would certainly be "Confederate music".
TLB|1.9.08 @ 10:29PM|#
What I miss about Nick Gillespie is that he didn't used to post
that often. I'm starting to miss him.
In other news, I made a few videos about BillRichardson that show a
side to him that hacks like Welch won't ever discuss:
youtube.com/watch?v=CifLm6z32eA
youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0
youtube.com/watch?v=i0YRHXoygRM
youtube.com/watch?v=mN2o208PFhg
|1.9.08 @ 10:41PM|#
"Also SIV, had the Southern Confederacy won the Civil War,
that would have also fucked up American music beyond all
recognition. American music as we know it would certainly be
"Confederate music"."
Slavery was old and broken by the mid 1850's. Europe had abandoned
slavery as an economic advantage with the mechanization of
agriculture which was occurring at the time. The cotton belt was
moving west because cotton is very hard on soils and requiring more
and more acreage and making mechanization the rule rather than the
exception. IMHO slave farming would have died out on it's
own.
Who knows? If the CSA was successful and somehow brokered a peace
rather than a surrender, it could have been more libertarian, and
the FSA could have been like an evil authoritarian twin. Just
speculating.
|1.9.08 @ 10:43PM|#
The cotton belt was moving west because cotton is very hard on soils and requiring more and more acreage and making mechanization the rule rather than the exception. IMHO slave farming would have died out on it's own.
The "founding fathers" of the Confederacy were planning to invade
Latin America had the North let them go. There they would have
found fertile soil for the expansion of slavery to have a "Cotton
Empire".
Fluffy|1.9.08 @ 10:43PM|#
But they have to go outside of libertarianism to do so, and
base their stance on principles of liberalism, or Christianity, or
some other philosophy.
I also have to go "outside of libertarianism" to tell you why you
shouldn't cheat on your wife.
A political philosophy SHOULD be a subset of a moral philosophy,
Joe, unless you are a complete totalitarian.
Law should be about justice. And justice, my friend, is only one of
the virtues, and is hardly exhaustive in the areas it covers. For
example, the virtue of charity/mercy is not only outside of the
purview of justice, it is the opposite of justice. For
that reason, a political philosophy that concerned itself only with
justice would have very little to say about huge swaths of man's
moral life.
SIV|1.9.08 @ 10:46PM|#
I've been to Stone Mountain, beautiful area.
Do you know what road connects downtown ATL and Stone Mountain most
directly?
Cynthia McKinney Parkway !!!
Everybody still calls it Memorial Drive and that goes on the
addresses as well.
|1.9.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Do you know what road connects downtown ATL and Stone Mountain most directly?
Cynthia McKinney Parkway !!!
That wins the irony sweepstakes. Thats like re-naming the New York
Stock Exchange the Ralph Nader Stock Exchange.
thoreau|1.9.08 @ 10:55PM|#
A political philosophy SHOULD be a subset of a moral
philosophy, Joe, unless you are a complete totalitarian.
I think joe would agree. I certainly do.
|1.9.08 @ 11:02PM|#
That's all well and good, but libertarians then make claims that it is a political and moral philosophy in and of itself, but since it doesn't actually answer a great many moral questions, they end up with an amoral view of the world.
Fluffy|1.9.08 @ 11:11PM|#
I know of very few people who aren't libertarian plus
something.
Hell, the Objectivists are such obsessive moralists - with a moral
lecture for every situation - that it very nearly undoes their
libertarianism altogether.
Or you have people who are libertarian plus Christian, or
libertarian plus humanistic, or libertarian plus
"concerned liberal", in the Amnesty International sense.
Or, perhaps, all these people are libertarians as one aspect of
their broader philosophy, and therefore don't need libertarianism
to answer moral questions for them.
I think that with non-Christian libertarians you can sometimes be
deceived into thinking they're amoral because they don't subscribe
to residual Christian attitudes about fleshly indulgence. But many
times these people can be absolutely strident moralists. Try
shorting one of them when splitting a restaurant bill and find
out.
|1.9.08 @ 11:17PM|#
Now, Fluffy, you know that last bit is amoral
self-interest.
All I know is that any statement about what actions or situations
are good or evil on these threads invariably draws howls along the
lines of "And I guess you and your stormtroopers will tell us how
to wipe our bums, too."
|1.10.08 @ 12:41AM|#
joe,
Individual libertarians need not have an amoral view of the world.
However, a libertarian govt absolutely should.
|1.10.08 @ 12:47AM|#
I think the point is, joe, that a libertarian separates their
politics from their morality (beyond the non-agression principle).
Sort of like a football coach's defensive philosophy (zone?
man-on-man? blitz on 1st down?) doesn't offer him any moral advice,
but that doesn't mean it's deficient in any way.
The advantage of this is that you can have people of vastly
different (non-agressive) moral philosophies living in a society
without having to overturn the political order every time a new
moral focus comes in vogue; just like that coach doesn't need to
revamp his religious beliefs because his cornerbacks are getting
burned in man-to-man coverage.
|1.10.08 @ 1:04AM|#
On one of the threads earlier, the one about military secrets being sold to Pakistan, I made the wise-crack that libertarians ought to be for it, because they support free trade.
Well, obviously, allowing a private party to sell nuclear secrets to a hostile country would be idiocy - yes, preventing that might be a constraint to an individual's liberty, and right to free trade, and all that good stuff, but failure to do that would likely result in your free society getting nuked off the map eventually.
But based on the NAP PIRS spoke of, no government should have the right to prevent that, since in and of itself nobody is aggressed against in such a transaction.
Libertarianism ends at the waters' edge, so to speak. As a
minarchist, I would contend that libertarianism can only "work" in
an environment where there is an authority (the state) which
enforces the non-aggression principle.
Thus, if there were some international authority acting effectively
to prevent Pakistan from initiating force against us by launching
nuclear weapons, libertarianism would require the sharing of
nuclear secrets to be allowed (unless there was a contract
forbidding this, of course). However, there is no such effective
international govt, so libertarianism is not directly applicable in
the international arena.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 1:09AM|#
All I know is that any statement about what actions or
situations are good or evil on these threads invariably draws howls
along the lines of "And I guess you and your stormtroopers will
tell us how to wipe our bums, too."
Stormtroopers, or Brownshits?
|1.10.08 @ 2:03AM|#
Libertarianism ends at the waters' edge, so to
speak.
I'm just dying to see you assert that on the next
immigration thread!
Therein lies the rub - realistically, a libertarian political order
can only exist in a society that honors libertarian values.
Unfortunately, according to some libertarians, acting to preserve a
society that honors libertarian values is in itself
unlibertarian.
So there's my beef - virtually every libertarian premise, followed
to it's logical conclusion, would have the practical consequence of
destroying any environment where libertarianism would be possible.
You have to wonder what kind of a masochist would want to put
themselves out to establish a political order like that. Probably
the same kind of people who like to set up dominoes just to knock
'em over.
|1.10.08 @ 2:37AM|#
Hell, the Objectivists are such obsessive moralists - with a
moral lecture for every situation - that it very nearly undoes
their libertarianism altogether.
I like to think I don't lecture all that much, but Objectivists do
think that a moral agent should consider the ethical ramifications
of a lot of actions before acting.
Is there something wrong with that? I know that a lot of my fellow
Objectivists act like bully-pulpit cardinal of the Atheist Faith,
but just because some people can't parse out what's right about
Rand doesn't mean the whole system necessarily leads to moralizing,
fire and brimstone.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 2:39AM|#
Pig Mannix-
I would agree that a libertarian society requires a fairly wide
acceptance of live and let live values. At some level we just have
to get over the fact that the guy next door drives an SUV, serves
fatty food in his restaurant (which even features a smoking section
at the bar!), speaks Spanish to his family, gets high with his gay
lover, and owns a gun.
However, I think in the context of international relations it's not
so much about values as it is about the enforcement of agreements,
and whether it's the same on the foreign and domestic levels.
I can get over the fact that my neighbor is weird because there's
an authority whom I can call upon to deal with him if he starts
infringing on my rights. Even in anarcho-capitalism there's still a
security company to call, and I can always move to a gated
community where the private contract blah blah stipulates that all
residents will accept the rules of the private security and
arbitration company in accordance with contracts blah blah.
With a foreign country, OTOH, they have their rules and we have
ours, and if that country engages in aggression against us, we
can't just appeal to an outside enforcer. We have to have our own
enforcer ready. Those are the issues for libertarian foreign
policy.
FWIW, I don't think that these are insurmountable obstacles that
necessitate an uber-hawkish foreign policy. Still, I think the
nature of the domestic-international divide has to do with the fact
that on the international level you don't get to call the cops.
Cultural differences are there, but I don't think they're as big as
we make them out to be. Dumb social experiments that fail in the
West tend to fail in the East too, and vice-versa.
|1.10.08 @ 2:39AM|#
I'm just dying to see you assert that on the next
immigration thread!
Why? That would be a stupid point to make; if you make to the
water's edge, welcome to the land of liberty.
sounds like you're all kinds of confused.
|1.10.08 @ 3:26AM|#
"I also have to go "outside of libertarianism" to tell you why
you shouldn't cheat on your wife."
Not really. When you get married, you make a promise. I don't know
any libertarian who says you should skate if you break a
contract.
My own basis for Libertarianism is the premise that force must be
justified; when one proposes to use the power of the state to
infringe on a person's liberty, the burden of proving the necessity
of that force falls on the state.
In the case of chasing down and locking up a murderer, the
justification is obvious. In the case of locking up a kid for
smoking a joint, the justification is obviously missing.
-jcr
BakedPenguin|1.10.08 @ 7:27AM|#
"Why does libertarianism attract racists?"
There's an easy way to rid libertarianism of this crap: focus more
on police brutality and prosecutorial misbehavior. They are both
very libertarian issues, and they hit the minority (especially
African American) communities hardest.
Using these issues as an "outreach" to the AA community would also
send the message to the Stormfront assholes who think they are
libertarian fellow travelers - we don't want you here.
|1.10.08 @ 8:32AM|#
Can someone please explain to me why the Libertarian Party isn't going down to New Mexico, and begging Gary Johnson on their hands and knees to run as a Libertarian for President?
He's unite the entire libertarian movement.
I find myself compelled to agree with Eric Dondero here. From what
little I know of Gary Johnson, it sounds like he'd make a pretty
good candidate for the LP. Though he's expressed no plans to return
to politics, maybe he'd reconsider if there was enough
interest.
Also, he doesn't appear to be a total nutbag.
Sulla|1.10.08 @ 8:41AM|#
Not really. When you get married, you make a promise. I
don't know any libertarian who says you should skate if you break a
contract.
Really? libertarians want to amend our laws so that contracts may
never be breached?
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 9:06AM|#
Now, Fluffy, you know that last bit is amoral
self-interest.
Actually, I don't.
Think about that for a moment: in petty disputes of that kind,
you're usually talking about $0.10 to $10.00 differences. Nobody
gets all agitated with a friend, acquaintance, family member or
colleague because of the self-interest loss of a dollar.
Their agitation is moral indignation: they want the other party to
pay their share "because that's what's fair".
I like to think I don't lecture all that much, but Objectivists
do think that a moral agent should consider the ethical
ramifications of a lot of actions before acting.
Is there something wrong with that?
Actually, no.
The approaches are different on an epistemological basis.
Non-Randian libertarians say, "I don't really conclusively know how
you should live your life, so I'm not willing to see the police
power used to force you to live a certain way, as long as you
aren't hurting anyone." Objectivists say, "We have absolute
knowledge of the moral way to live, and one part of that knowledge
tells us that people should be free - and we have to honor the
freedom even of people who don't agree with us."
Which of these is a more stable basis for freedom? I think the
Objectivist case is a more stable intellectual basis for freedom,
if the proofs can be improved. But I think the non-Randian
case is a better political basis for freedom, just because it's
easier to convince people to be morally skeptical than it is to
convince them that one particular moral philosophy is correct.
BakedPenguin|1.10.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Jake - wow, Dondero said that? It must be my bi-annual agree (mostly) with Dondero time. Is Gary Johnson pro-Iraq war?
|1.10.08 @ 9:23AM|#
Fluffy -
those distinctions are pretty much where I trip up in explaining my
libertarianism to people. I usually use the phrasing "I think it
will usually lead to long-run greater income equalization, more
efficient resource usage, a happier population, etc. However, I do
not think that it *must* lead to these things in order for it to be
the right choice. Whether it will or not depends on the nature of
our neighbors and fellow citizens."
Or something like that.
|1.10.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Dondero is right, and it isn't the first time. Johnson comes off as credible despite the radicalness of his positions. Plus he's fairly young and a health freak, so there's plenty of time to groom him.
ed|1.10.08 @ 9:31AM|#
there's plenty of time to groom him...
For his inevitable failure.
History pop quiz: Who was the last successful 3rd party
candidate?
robc|1.10.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Eric,
Can someone please explain to me why the Libertarian Party
isn't going down to New Mexico, and begging Gary Johnson on their
hands and knees to run as a Libertarian for President?
Best post Ive seen from you in a long time. Since you are better
connected, answer this similar one for me:
Can you please explain to me why the GOP isnt going down to NM and
begging Gary Johnson on their hands and knees to run as a
Republican for President?
|1.10.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Good piece by Cavanaugh.
My personal experiences with libertarian thought had, until a few
years ago, lacked broad exposure to fringe elements. I was moved
from conservatism to libertarianism by way of Reason magazine in
college, and my philosophy of freedom was mostly a private affair
that evolved as I continued to read The Big Names. My exposure and
conversations with other libertarians was accomplished mostly by
way of Hit and Run, which is a pretty moderate crowd.
Then, a few years ago, I went to a Freedom Fest FEE event in Vegas,
where my exposure was considerably broadened. I met Ron Paul, I had
a discussion with David Friedman about anarchy, I watched and I
listened. I found myself more similar in character to a Tyler Cowen
or Virginia Postrel sort of libertarian than a Ron Paul type. I
became less radical and more interested in improvements on the
margins.
Mostly, I became unnerved by the more radical elements I met.
Conspiracy theorists, racists, sexists, and the other groups
Cavanaugh mentions, when their numbers are combined, are not a
fringe anymore - they are a substantial percentage of all
libertarians I met at these conferences.
The war radicalized the movement yet further, to the point that
q&a was impossible by the second FEE event I attended. Two out
of every three "questions" for David Kelley or Ron Paul would be
grandstanding expositions about government coverups of free energy
devices or something equally embarrassing to hear. You'd hear not
about bad policies, but about government committing murder.
It occurred to me that what I'd come to respect did not represent
the bulk of the movement. The public choice types from GMU at my
table had very little in common with Ron Paul and his firebreathing
support of those elements I was least comfortable with.
I haven't been back to any of those events and I doubt I will. I
left very uncomfortable with where the reasonable core was in the
overall movement - pushed to the sidelines. I'm a libertarian but
I'm skeptical of revolution. There has to be a place where policy
can be nudged in the right direction without taking on all that
baggage.
|1.10.08 @ 10:02AM|#
I get all that crimethink. It isn't a shortcoming of
libertarianism that it has limits, just a definition.
It's only when libertarians fail to make that distinction, and
attempt to use this theory of governance as a theory of morality,
or ever of the non-governmental aspects of politics, that there's a
problem.
|1.10.08 @ 10:24AM|#
"I found myself more similar in character to a Tyler Cowen or
Virginia Postrel sort of libertarian"
I became turned off by Virginia Postrel over her support for Desert
Shield and Desert Storm.
|1.10.08 @ 10:32AM|#
I think morals are more essentially aesthetic than people like
to admit. What I mean is: they're derived from a substrate of
values that are connected up with peoples' immediate perceptions of
the world, and subjective to peoples' individual experiences of it.
I would even go so far as to contend that the reasons we supply for
our moral beliefs are most often constructed after the fact; follow
any given belief back to its roots and eventually, you'll arrive at
a subjective, individual judgment that a given thing is "good" or
"bad" (see Hume's is-ought problem).
That isn't to say that there aren't standards of morality that are
objective for all practical purposes, but they're
objective because they're subjects on which a particular agreement
predominates culturally. Usually, they're not the sorts of things
that it's hard to convince someone of (e.g. "killing your family is
bad"), and that's the absolute crux of this argument: that morality
is an area where suasion is of more use than science.
Now, the basis for libertarianism (as I see it) isn't remotely
contingent on amorality (most libertarians would agree that the
state must exist to preserve some semblance of order, and
order is a moral value like any other), only on the idea that
social agreement over moral issues works optimally only within a
certain level of fidelity. In other words, in a world where
legitimate disagreements do exist (i.e. in the real world),
attempts on the part of the state to be complete or comprehensive
about morality inevitably create oppression.
|1.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Cactus,
Maybe that is a part of the problem. The war makes and breaks
alliances. For some, it trumps every other concern and serves as a
barometer of ideological purity. There are a lot of people with
little else in common that don't like the war.
I personally am more in line with TC and Postrel on the war issue
than I am with Paul. At said FEE convention, I was sitting next to
Gordon Tullock from GMU while Paul was talking about the war. We
both were mumbling that Paul seemed to be oversimplifying the whole
mess and he kept arguing by way of counter factual history (i.e. if
we'd never been in WWI, we wouldn't have this problem, was an
answer to every geopolitical question). The war leads to a lot of
fire and brimstone and marginalizes moderate voices. At least it
did in Vegas.
Russ 2000|1.10.08 @ 10:40AM|#
[shrugs] I do know a lot of libertarians who agree that we
should have just let the South go.
Why shrug? This was essentially Thoreau's position in the
Mexican-American War.
|1.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#
"shrugs] I do know a lot of libertarians who agree that we
should have just let the South go."
"Why shrug? This was essentially Thoreau's position in the
Mexican-American War."
Ironically, it was also Lincoln's position. He was opposed to the
Mexican-American War and believed secession was a good weapon of
protest.
Russ 2000|1.10.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Ironically, it was also Lincoln's position.
Abolitionists had their own internal strife which worked against
their common cause. Some felt the result of their cause would be a
"negro problem" and thus a need for Jim Crow laws.
21st century tolerant cosmopolitans like to paint abolitionists as
tolerant cosmopolitans when the facts were otherwise.
|1.10.08 @ 11:21AM|#
History pop quiz: Who was the last successful 3rd party
candidate?
Perot got 19% even though he was batshit insane. It's not hard to
imagine a charismatic billionaire with moderately Cato/Reason ideas
getting 34% as a third-party candidate.
VM|1.10.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Jake Boone | January 10, 2008, 8:32am | #
Can someone please explain to me why the Libertarian Party isn't going down to New Mexico, and begging Gary Johnson on their hands and knees to run as a Libertarian for President?
He's unite the entire libertarian movement.
I find myself compelled to agree with Eric Dondero here. From what little I know of Gary Johnson, it sounds like he'd make a pretty good candidate for the LP. Though he's expressed no plans to return to politics, maybe he'd reconsider if there was enough interest.
Also, he doesn't appear to be a total nutbag.
I find that Jake's words show a level of class and guts that we all
should respect and admire.
|1.10.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Daze,
It's not hard to imagine a charismatic billionaire with
moderately Cato/Reason ideas getting 34% as a third-party
candidate.
Possibly, though I wonder if being a billionaire might hurt his
odds. Imagine what The New Republic would print about such
a candidate, all year. Not that libertarian voters give a crap
about TNR, but they have a lot of power to circulate negative ideas
about candidates, and given that they're a pretty anti-libertarian
outlet, I can't imagine that they wouldn't reply with some
Onion-esque bit of snark: "Billionaire fat-cat runs on
platform of not taxing billionaire fat-cats, wants your support."
Like it or not, that sort of thing swings the independents that a
third-party candidacy would need to win.
One of the things that made Ron Paul's candidacy so strong from a
narrative point of view was the idea that he was this Texas doctor
who was driven by white-hot commitment to principle - probably not
true, but that sort of clarity is one of the most naturally
appealing things about libertarianism to the independent voter, and
it'd be wise to capitalize on it.
|1.10.08 @ 1:34PM|#
"Pig Mannix | January 9, 2008, 8:32pm | #
But, I don't know any Confederate apologist libertarians and I've
been around this movement my entire life. Maybe that's because I
grew up in Californicate. [shrugs] I do know a lot of libertarians
who agree that we should have just let the South go."
How about Murray Rothbard. He spoke favorably about the South and
Confederacy.
Then there's
Charles Adams who was a fellow at both Cato and Mises
Institute
And of course, the great Lord
Acton
Even Frank
Meyer was very critical of Lincoln and his war.
|1.10.08 @ 1:49PM|#
@Wiliam R
Actually, I'm aware of that.
Now, why did you put my name on TWC's comment?
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