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 Slavery of Excessive Freedom
After a rigorous content analysis (PDF) spanning more than half a century of articles in National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Enterprise, and The American Spectator, George Mason University economist Daniel Klein and graduate student Jason Briggeman conclude, basically, that conservatives are not libertarians. On issues related to drugs, gambling, and sex, Klein and Briggeman find, these magazines have been more likely to support the status quo or increased restrictions on freedom than to advocate liberalization. The one partial exception has been National Review, especially in the area of drug policy, where pro-liberalization articles outnumbered those favoring current policy or calling for greater government intervention by a ratio of more than 2 to 1 from 1955 through 2007. But by and large, say Klein and Briggeman, the leading conservative magazines are not "real champions of liberty" because they "more often than not fail to oppose government intrusion into America's bedrooms, gambling places, and drug activities."
The choice of magazines is somewhat questionable. But if the study had included, say, Commentary instead of The American Enterprise, which has not addressed these issues much one way or another and was in any case never very influential, the evidence of an anti-libertarian tilt would have been even stronger. "This investigation," Klein and Briggeman conclude, "underscores that nowadays the menu of major public philosophies offers three options: conservatism, social democracy, and classical liberalism/libertarianism. Only the third upholds the presumption of liberty."
Over at The American Spectator, Joseph Lawler takes offense, calling Klein and Briggeman's conclusion "a sweeping, sweeping generalization" that "reduces all kinds of arguments about the nature of liberty and the role of government in upholding liberty to grossly oversimplified terms." Lawler, who personally opposes the war on drugs, says many conservatives support restrictions on drugs, pornography, and gambling because they think these policies protect liberty, properly understood. He's right about that. To those who believe, for example, that attachments to drugs, pornography, and gambling are equivalent to slavery or demonic possession, it's plain as day that forcibly preventing people from enjoying those things is a way of preserving their liberty (and this argument is not limited to conservatives). They honestly do not see themselves as inconsistent when they talk about, say, forcibly imposed "freedom" from drugs.
Or consider Robert Bork, who argued in the 50th anniversary issue of National Review that "liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality." The former appeals court judge, now a distinguished scholar at the Hudson Institute, conceded that "censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical" but explained that "people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free." In Bork's view, the debasing effect of movies, music, and books he does not like deprives people of their liberty.
But Klein and Briggeman's point, I think, is that advocates of government intervention in these areas should not be so quick to accept premises that are so lacking in empirical and logical support. Smoking pot, watching dirty movies, and playing poker are not, in fact, tantamount to being enslaved or possessed, and the idea that more cultural options reduces freedom is counterintuitive, to say the least. If conservatives consistently applied a pro-liberty presumption, they would be more skeptical of such assertions.
[Thanks to Tom Angell for the tip.]
Paul|2.26.09 @ 7:40PM|#
major public philosophies offers three options: conservatism, social democracy, and classical liberalism/libertarianism. Only the third upholds the presumption of liberty."
Never truer words spoken.
Paul|2.26.09 @ 7:42PM|#
"people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free."
So sez Robert "Naomi Wolf" Bork.
How are these arguments any different from the myriad arguments
from so many progressives on the debilitating effects of choice
and... you know, having to work for a living and stuff?
Andrew Dobbs|2.26.09 @ 7:59PM|#
In other news....
The Sun Rises in the East and Sets in the West, Study
Concludes
Study: Two and Two May In Fact Make Four
Barack Obama is Skinny, Black and Has Large Ears
As to the National Review having a more progressive view on drug
policy, William F. Buckley made drug legalization a major plank of
his mayoral campaign in New York in the late 60s. And look what
happened to him: he died. Let this be a lesson to all you dope
smoking, porn watching, dice throwing libertarian hippies.
|2.26.09 @ 8:00PM|#
major public philosophies offers three options:
conservatism, social democracy, and classical
liberalism/libertarianism. Only the third upholds the presumption
of liberty."
QFMFT!
"censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical"
but explained that "people forced to live in an increasingly
brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly
free."
Spouting this gibberish is a graet legal mind according to team
red.
economist|2.26.09 @ 8:09PM|#
"conservatism, social democracy, and classical
liberalism/libertarianism."
You forgot neoconservatism, which is more akin to soft
authoritarianism than to the other three.
economist|2.26.09 @ 8:11PM|#
So a lot of conservatives are full of shit? Who knew?
Headline Tomorrow:
Leftists also full of shit.
Gilbert Martin|2.26.09 @ 8:16PM|#
"After a rigorous content analysis (PDF) spanning more than half
a century of articles in National Review, The Weekly Standard, The
American Enterprise, and The American Spectator, George Mason
University economist Daniel Klein and graduate student Jason
Briggeman conclude, basically, that conservatives are not
libertarians"
Wow.
Good job taking the long way around the barn to figure out what
everbody (except these guys, apparantly) already knows.
|2.26.09 @ 8:23PM|#
George Mason University economist Daniel Klein and graduate
student Jason Briggeman conclude, basically, that conservatives are
not libertarians.
I am truly astounded by this revelation.
ยข|2.26.09 @ 8:26PM|#
In Bork's view, the debasing effect of movies, music, and
books he does not like deprives people of their liberty.
Stick a "patriarchy" or a "white power structure" or the dread mind
of "capitalism" in that Bork quote, and it speaks for an at least
equal percentage of the left as his does for the right.
And they condemn almost all of the same movies, music, and books,
coincidentally. Coincidentally, because their reasons are so very
different. So very, very.
Because if they weren't, very, it'd be like their philosophies are
entirely alike and their rhetoric only differs according
to which already party-identified audience they're talking
to.
And that would be kind of insidious.
|2.26.09 @ 8:37PM|#
Wow, so Bork really is batshit insane? Is he senile, or were all
the liberals who fought to torpedo his nomination actually right
for once?
-jcr
|2.26.09 @ 8:39PM|#
I recently finished Crispin Sartwell's little book, "Against the
State."
The best thing in it was the observation that, as long as folks
believed slavery was hunky-dory, then it followed naturally that
the state was also entitled to own your body.
As the new Attorney General is aware (or isn't?), we aren't over
racism because we still aren't over slavery... after all these
years.
Where is Lincoln's party when we need it?
|2.26.09 @ 8:42PM|#
I can boast as I did because I once gave it to Bork pretty good
when he was a guest of the late David Brudnoy (WBZ 1030 Boston) who
used to call me "Michael, the truclulent libertarian."
I told Bork that he was a proponent of judicial activism. At first,
he kind of chortled. Then I unloaded on him. I asked him, "Sir,
what in the experiences of the framers, their writings and in the
text of the 4th amendment itself, supports the proposition that
there is an implied automobile exception to the warrant
requirement?" His lame response was a variant of "well, as a
practical reality, the police often do not have time to obtain a
warrant..." and the framers "did not intend the constitution to be
a repellant to common sense...."
Bork, you got jacked up!
ed|2.26.09 @ 8:47PM|#
conservatives are not libertarians
No shit? Ayn Rand made this point well before Goldwater got
trounced by Johnson in '64. And she made mincemeat of libertarian
"philosophy" thereafter. What, pray tell, has "libertarianism"
accomplished since then? I'm not trolling, really...I just want to
know. Please list some libertarian accomplishments since 1964. If
they're valid, they'll make it to the Wiki.
Go ahead. I'll wait here.
economist|2.26.09 @ 8:47PM|#
libertymike,
Any way I could listen to your exchanges with the show's host and
guests? Sounds interesting, but I live rather a long way from
Boston.
|2.26.09 @ 8:49PM|#
Smoking pot, watching dirty movies, and playing
poker
For the old timers it's
Playing solitaire till dawn with a deck of 51
Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain Kangaroo...
economist|2.26.09 @ 8:52PM|#
"Please list some libertarian accomplishments since 1964."
1. Abolition of the Draft (though, unfortunately, not the end of
selective service registration).
2. Lowering the overall income tax rate.
3. Deregulation (some of it soon to be reversed, no doubt, but even
I don't see a complete reversal happening, and I'm a
pessimist).
4. Sound monetary policies (though those went out the window the
last decade or so)
I'm going by things that libertarians support, not necessarily
implying that libertarians were the main force behind these policy
changes.
MJ|2.26.09 @ 8:52PM|#
"more often than not fail to oppose government intrusion into
America's bedrooms, gambling places, and drug activities."
Bearing in mind what dubious distinctions might constitute an
intrusion into the bedroom, these three rather limited areas are
what defines liberty to the libertarian? What weak beer! Liberty
sshould be a much more expansive concept than one's pleasurable
vices.
|2.26.09 @ 8:53PM|#
Wow, so Bork really is batshit insane? Is he senile, or were
all the liberals who fought to torpedo his nomination actually
right for once?
Insane or not, if he had been confirmed he would still be on the
court. Give the liberals credit for that one.
economist|2.26.09 @ 8:57PM|#
I came up with a few things, a few of which went out the window
during the Bush administration, and most of the rest of which will
probably be reversed by the end of the Obama administration.
Excuse me while I drink and weep in my beer.
|2.26.09 @ 8:57PM|#
"Please list some libertarian accomplishments since 1964."
In addition to economist's short list -
Griswald vs Connecticut
Gay rights
Repeal of Sodomy laws
Women's right
I was merely a nine year old then, but I remember enough to know
that for lots of Americans, freedom and equal treatment under the
law were only dreams.
ed|2.26.09 @ 9:01PM|#
1. Abolition of the Draft
Noted. Which "libertarian" initiated that? Nixon? Oh my.
economist|2.26.09 @ 9:05PM|#
ed,
I was cognizant enough during the 70s to know that our monetary
from early 1980s onward to about the late 90s was comparatively
sound.
You didn't specify perfection in these areas, just relative
improve.
"Noted. Which 'libertarian' initiated that? Nixon? Oh my."
As I pointed out above, these policies did not necessarily have to
be initiated by people identifying themselves as libertarians.
However, people with libertarian leanings contributed to the
promotion of such policies, and they were improvements from a
libertarian POV.
Hence, I list them as libertarian accomplishments.
KipEsquire|2.26.09 @ 9:11PM|#
These are the same category of morons who insist on trying to "liberate" gays from their "disorder."
|2.26.09 @ 9:15PM|#
Dhammapada 62:
The spiritually immature person vexes himself thinking "Sons are
mine! Riches are mine!"
He himself is not his own, even. How then sons? How then
riches?
A very good point when it comes to spirituality and self-control,
but not a governing philosophy.
MNG|2.26.09 @ 9:16PM|#
What gets me about this is that this is supposed to be news.
Conservative thinkers are quite honest and upfront that they are
all for "ordered liberty" which is made possible by "authority."
They despise both libertarians and liberals for thinking that
individuals, free from traditional authority, can decide matters
for themselves.
That funders of consersvative think tanks and libertarian ones in
the US happen to the be the same folks and hence there has been an
"alliance" is a thing of historical accident, not philosophical
agreement...
ed|2.26.09 @ 9:18PM|#
5. Ending the "Fairness Doctrine"
Temporarily, at least. Free speech is a concept that is never
"ended." It's the greatest, most important and the most endangered
of all rights.
"people with libertarian leanings contributed to the promotion
of such policies"
Noted, economist. It has happened almost by osmosis, not
philosophy. But we'll take it, eh?
|2.26.09 @ 9:18PM|#
"If conservatives consistently applied a pro-liberty
presumption, they would be more skeptical of such
assertions."
Of course, they wouldn't be conservatives anymore.
|2.26.09 @ 9:19PM|#
"Repeal of Sodomy laws"? And no-one fuckn told me...typical, just bloody typical...!
Alan Vanneman|2.26.09 @ 9:21PM|#
If Robert Bork holds the title of "Distinguished Scholar" at the Hudson Institute, well, then, he does. But he isn't a distinguished scholar.
ed|2.26.09 @ 9:29PM|#
Distinguished...extinguished...it's all semantics to 99% of the cannibalistic populace, right Alan?
|2.26.09 @ 9:36PM|#
This reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale, when one of the Aunts
says that before, the women's rights movement fought for "freedom
to" do things they pleased. But now, in the world of the novel, the
fascistic government is providing women with "freedom from" all
responsibilities and difficult choices. And she really believes
that this is a good thing, a step forward in liberty.
I don't know about the rest of you, but social conservative strikes
me as far more of a threat to my personal freedoms than fiscal
liberalism.
|2.26.09 @ 10:03PM|#
"Please list some libertarian accomplishments since 1964."
Libertarians, as with all extremes, help define the middle. Without
them, the middle would shift. That is the biggest libertarian
accomplishment, and why I consider myself one.
MJ|2.26.09 @ 10:06PM|#
"They despise both libertarians and liberals for thinking that
individuals, free from traditional authority, can decide matters
for themselves."-MNG
Liberals think that individuals should decide things for
themselves? Since when? On what issues? You certainly do not argue
for the soveregnty of individuals as you are consistantly calling
for individuals to submit to the will of the "community".
ed|2.26.09 @ 10:09PM|#
Libertarians, as with all extremes, help define the
middle
What? I thought we were on the right? I mean, the left? I
mean...*
*"Extreme"? What's "extreme" about defining humanity?
|2.26.09 @ 10:17PM|#
George Mason University economist Daniel Klein and graduate student Jason Briggeman conclude, basically, that conservatives are not libertarians.
I am truly astounded by this revelation.
It won't stop the idiot pinkos from saying, No, really, Team
Red loves us - and where else can we go? or the Reds
from trying to easy votes off of people like them.
Pot meet kettle|2.26.09 @ 10:18PM|#
They despise both libertarians and liberals for thinking that individuals, free from traditional authority, can decide matters for themselves.
|2.26.09 @ 10:50PM|#
the police often do not have time to obtain a
warrant
Common sense says that people had wagons, boats, etc. at the time
the constitution was written. Did the framers say it was OK for
government officials to rummage through a wagon as an exception to
the fourth amendmement?
-jcr
|2.26.09 @ 10:52PM|#
"freedom from" all responsibilities and difficult
choices
I seem to recall some Soviet mouthpiece bragging about how their
system provided freedom from unemployment, etc.
-jcr
|2.26.09 @ 10:52PM|#
If they were to go through a half a century of articles in
The Nation, American Prospect or Mother
Jones they would find as many lamentations about the Excessive
Freedom to own guns, drive the kind of car of one's choice, to
spend or invest one's own money as one saw fit, eat foods of one's
own choosing or any number of other personal choices.
Together with recommendations for sanctions and punishments every
bit a severe as conservative want for their pet peeves.
Self-righteous busybodies, everywhere you look.
|2.26.09 @ 11:09PM|#
Conservatives believe these things actually limit the
participant's freedom, therefore we discourage it. People still can
do what they want. They have the liberty to go and kill someone,
but they must face the consequences.
People can go buy some marijuana, and get high. But they must face
the consequences, which are physical AND legal. We make it illegal
so that we discourage it. In the long run, conservatives are
actually MORE PRO-LIBERTY than libertarians.
Think of the liberty of the child when it comes to abortion. Think
of the liberty of the family unit when prostitution is accessible
as possible, in every city and town.
Keep these things in mind.
|2.26.09 @ 11:26PM|#
A friend of mine seriously argues that advocating the elimination of government in many of the areas it now controls constitutes imposing my will upon others.
|2.26.09 @ 11:29PM|#
But now, in the world of the novel, the fascistic government
is providing women with "freedom from" all responsibilities and
difficult choices.
I've heard feminists argue that unless government subsidizes both
abortion and childcare a woman doesn't really have a "right to
choose". Her life circumstances may compel a decision she doesn't
want, therefore a lack of subsidy constitutes unjust coercion.
|2.26.09 @ 11:34PM|#
Bob Smith | February 26, 2009, 11:26pm | #
A friend of mine seriously argues that advocating the elimination
of government in many of the areas it now controls constitutes
imposing my will upon others.
Yeah, that is my brothers position also.
|2.26.09 @ 11:47PM|#
"liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating,
legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and
morality."
Bork must believe that Saudi Arabia is the freest place on
earth.
|2.26.09 @ 11:54PM|#
Wow, iamse7en, you almost had me there. Sounds exactly the kind
of thing a conservative would say. Including all the lame circular
arguments.
Well done. You caught that sense of earnestness but added the
little over-the-top touch that revealed it as sarcasm.
Hugh Akston|2.27.09 @ 12:29AM|#
Noted. Which "libertarian" initiated that? Nixon? Oh
my.
Milton Friedman served on the Gates Commission.
Don't forget the death of RealID and DC v. Heller.
And every time a helmet law fails to pass in this country, a
libertarian gets his wings.
voxpo|2.27.09 @ 12:32AM|#
1. Abolition of the Draft
Noted. Which "libertarian" initiated that? Nixon? Oh my.
"In the realm of policy, I regard eliminating the draft as my most
important accomplishment."
- Milton
Friedman
"While Friedman will go down in history for his economic theory,
his proudest moment came when President Richard Nixon took his
advice and abolished the draft."
-
Marketplace, 11/16/06
alan|2.27.09 @ 12:49AM|#
People can go buy some marijuana, and get high. But they must face
the consequences, which are physical AND legal. We make it illegal
so that we discourage it. In the long run, conservatives are
actually MORE PRO-LIBERTY than libertarians.
Would you describe a breast as feeling like a bag of sand? Just
curious.
Think of the liberty of the family unit when prostitution is
accessible as possible, in every city and town.
And obviously you have no idea what lead the man astray in the
first place, or the fact that it is illegal in every state but
Nevada, yet the man is still lead astray. Hint, Human Nature, which
Burke claimed to know, but didn't really (as the existence of Tom
Paine made no sense in the Burke dichotomy).
Despite this fact, the social conservative believes that the best
way to deal with this fact of life is to destroy the life of the
man lead astray and the life of the prostitute while rewarding the
vice cop with full salary for an unproductive waste of everyone's
time. What a superior moral order you believe in to which I feel
great shame that I do not share in your wisdom.
iamei8ht|2.27.09 @ 1:06AM|#
Cuban Dictators believe these things actually limit the
participant's freedom, therefore they discourage it. People still
can do what they want. They have the liberty to go and kill
someone, but they must face the consequences.
People can go buy some prohibited music, and listen to it. But they
must face the consequences, which are physical AND legal. They make
it illegal so that they can discourage it. In the long run, Cuban
Dictators are actually MORE PRO-LIBERTY than libertarians.
Think of the liberty of the workers when they must scrabble to bid
down their wages, without the government to do it for them. Think
of the liberty of the community when food and goods are accessible
as possible, in every city and town, without even a committee to
decide who produces what and who buys what.
Keep these things in mind.
mike farmer|2.27.09 @ 1:32AM|#
Freedom must be curtailed to save freedom. If we had total freedom, rich people would be able to keep all their wealth. Without redistribution there would be no freedom -- we'd all be slaves to filthy rich people who make all that dirty money over $250,000. Before long they'd be expanding and making more money. It makes me shiver to think what could happen. Thank God-State we curtail some freedoms.
|2.27.09 @ 3:22AM|#
Yeah, that is my brothers position also.
My friend isn't unique? Weird! Where do people get the idea?
|2.27.09 @ 6:12AM|#
Excuse me while I go fuck for my virginity. Then I am going to destroy a village in order to save it.
|2.27.09 @ 6:18AM|#
I had to kill the man in order to increase his life
expectancy.
Bork is a great legal mind? This is why the law sucks my friends.
It is so fucking incompetent that it cannot comprehend the simple
idea of a contradiction.
kilroy|2.27.09 @ 7:22AM|#
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man Bork, and for an
encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed
on the next zebra crossing."
|2.27.09 @ 7:55AM|#
Voxpo-
I read through the whole thread looking to see if Milton Friedman
got his props on the draft issue. Thank you.
|2.27.09 @ 7:59AM|#
Ed/economist-
How about the success of getting the feds to back off the "Know Thy
Cusotmer" proposed banking regulations in 1998/1999?
Here, in Massachusetts, libertarians spearheaded the successful
effort on Question 2-decriminalization of the possession of a
month's supply of MJ.
|2.27.09 @ 8:12AM|#
"On issues related to drugs, gambling, and sex, Klein and
Briggeman find, these magazines have been more likely to support
the status quo or increased restrictions on freedom than to
advocate liberalization."
It shouldn't be surprising to see magazines that cater to the
masses reflecting the mores of their customers.
This is why when we're around the Thanksgiving table or the water
cooler, we should focus our efforts on the mores of our family and
friends. The policies politicos advocate are function of what the
people want... If you want to change what politicos say and do,
work on their customers.
If they did a similar survey specific to attitudes regarding gay
rights, for instance, I suspect they'd find that articles became
increasingly sympathetic as their readers did. I'd bet the same
money on environmental concerns.
Elemenope|2.27.09 @ 8:21AM|#
If they were to go through a half a century of articles in
The Nation, American Prospect or Mother Jones they would find as
many lamentations about the Excessive Freedom to own guns, drive
the kind of car of one's choice, to spend or invest one's own money
as one saw fit, eat foods of one's own choosing or any number of
other personal choices.
Together with recommendations for sanctions and punishments
every bit a severe as conservative want for their pet
peeves.
As a person who has consistently read those magazines for the last
fifteen years, I can say with some certainty that the above
statement is full of shit.
The part in bold is highlighted to bring attention to the truly
stupidest part.
VikingMoose|2.27.09 @ 8:24AM|#
congrats, Jason!
(I knew him from his other phd econ program ere he transferred -
super nice guy!)
robc|2.27.09 @ 8:48AM|#
lmnop,
Are you saying Mother Jones is pro-gun?
Or are you saying their anti-gun pieces arent in the form of
preventing too much freedom?
I think the latter is implied, even if not stated.
What is the penalty for carrying a gun in New York or Illinois -
are you saying it isnt severe for engaging in a fundamental right?
Or do these mags oppose those laws too?
|2.27.09 @ 8:49AM|#
Neither the left nor the right believes in liberty and they never have and both are inclined to despise libertarians - specifically because libertarians believe in liberty. I have heard it argued from both ends that libertarians want to "impose their beliefs on others" by maintaining the position that no one has the right to impose their beliefs on others. I can not think of a lamer argument - we are interfering with the rights of other by not allowing them to interfere with the rights of others. And yeah, it's not exactly news that conservatives are not libertarians or have any particular investment in personal liberty in a broad sense.
MNG|2.27.09 @ 8:55AM|#
LMNOP is right, I read those magazines and the last thing they would want, even for the things they may want to prohibit and regulate (and I often disagree with, but I digress), are long jail sentences. They write long and often about how we have too many people in prison, how we are too quick to put people in and how we keep them in for too long, etc.
Ska|2.27.09 @ 8:56AM|#
My friend isn't unique? Weird! Where do people get the
idea?
I'd guess from voting. People love being able to vote, therefore
they must love more government.
MNG|2.27.09 @ 8:57AM|#
Though you will see this idea of making sentences for things like domestic violence and "white collar crime" more severe, but ironically often beside pieces arguing that we use incaceration far too much...
|2.27.09 @ 8:58AM|#
Re: "In other news, water wet" etc etc
To many (most?) people, this is news. Sure, most of us
here already recognized it, but one of the best uses for H&R is
as ammo in my water-cooler debates with Rs and Ds.
Hell, Joseph Lawler obviously found it surprising. I think Lloyd in
accounting probably will too.
robc|2.27.09 @ 8:59AM|#
MNG,
Considering the number of calls I have seen from leftists to have
CEOs (who havent violated a law, that we know of) executed, I dont
buy this shorter sentence thing.
Ravac|2.27.09 @ 9:27AM|#
Being against long prison sentences, wanting to ban handguns, and in favor of minimum wage laws does not a libertarian make.
|2.27.09 @ 9:28AM|#
Until the Bush administration, I'd say that the largest number
of libertarian-leaning voters favored the GOP over the Democrats.
So a study of this sort isn't totally useless. Even if you choose
to work within the GOP to make it more libertarian, it's better to
do that with your eyes wide open.
I'm subscribed to the Florida RLC discussion group, and one leading
GOP guy in Jacksonville actually declared war on libertarians and
the RLC. 'Cause the tent has no room for those libertine
libertarians. Idiot.
|2.27.09 @ 9:36AM|#
They write long and often about how we have too many people
in prison, how we are too quick to put people in and how we keep
them in for too long, etc.
...and when Republicans are in the minority in Congress they
complain about too much spending -- because it's being spent on
what the Democrats want. Let me know when Mother Jones complains
about penalties for illegal gun possession being too harsh.
|2.27.09 @ 9:40AM|#
I think part of the reason for the libertarian-conservative
alliance is because for the social issues where libertarians tend
to agree with liberals, the liberal positions are either locked in
place forever by SCOTUS decisions or never championed by liberal
politicians (eg, drug legalization, ending the Cuba embargo).
Whereas the issues where conservatives and libertarians agree
(deregulation, fiscal responsibility, gun rights) are under
constant threat because the courts don't care about them, and
conservative politicians at least pay lip service to them and
indeed frequently act on them.
robc|2.27.09 @ 9:48AM|#
the tent has no room for those libertine libertarians.
Idiot.
It cost them congress too. The shift in votes from the
libertarians, whether they describe themselves that way or not, has
killed the GOP over the last decade.
|2.27.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Though you will see this idea of making sentences for things like domestic violence and "white collar crime" more severe, but ironically often beside pieces arguing that we use incaceration far too much...
So both sides are capable of contradictions.
Look, I think that both sides underestimate just how many people
they will have to arrest and incarcerate (or for liberals
"hospitalize" - it's still incarceration in my book) to enforce
their bans and proscriptions. Or, for that matter, how many
ancilliary effects or unintended consequences they might
have.
I don't think that either side is out to feather anyone's nest,
though most of the players from the Prison/Industrial Complex do
seem to be on Team Red.
But then, most of the players from the Therapy/Industrial Complex
seem to be on Team Blue.
|2.27.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Considering the number of calls I have seen from leftists to have CEOs (who havent violated a law, that we know of) executed, I dont buy this shorter sentence thing.
I don't take obviously hyperbolic statements seriously, robc. That
kind of statement does reveal a certain mindset, though. And a
dangerous one, to my mind.
|2.27.09 @ 9:55AM|#
But one gets similarly stupid hyperbole from the right,
too
(contd from last post.)
bubba|2.27.09 @ 9:58AM|#
I think National Review, for example, gives a very fair hearing
to Libertarianism, and does a good job of explaining when and why
they disagree. On any given topic, there is at least one person
espousing a fairly libertarian view. There are obviously plenty of
hard core "conservatives", too.
I also think that the concept of addiction complicates the
libertarian views on drugs. To the extent that drugs are a personal
choice, then legalization is liberal. To the extent that our
concept of consumer protection laws precludes the sale of
dangerous, addictive substances, then a ban is in fact liberal.
Ineffective, but not completely illogical.
robc|2.27.09 @ 10:22AM|#
But one gets similarly stupid hyperbole from the right,
too
Agreed. Which is the point of this whole thing. Neither the left
nor the right are our allies. We are fighting a two front war and
are severely undermanned on both fronts.
|2.27.09 @ 10:28AM|#
people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture
are, in a very real sense, not wholly free.
True, but only a trivial sense, in that no one is "wholly free"
regardless of the society in which they live.
The real question is whether laws attempting to prohibit the
"brutalized culture" result in more freedom than the absence of
such laws. Which, in turn, leads to the question of how you define
"freedom."
To a libertarian, a law against X almost axiomatically restricts
freedom more than the absence of such a law, even if you would
rather live in a society a without X. The only clear exceptions are
the laws that would exist in a night watchman state.
People still can do what they want. They have the liberty to go
and kill someone, but they must face the consequences.
A trivial definition of freedom, in which citizens of North Korea
are just as free as any anarchist.
robc|2.27.09 @ 10:33AM|#
A trivial definition of freedom
Not just trivial, actually wrong.
Killing someone is not a liberty. It is taking a liberty. It cant
be both. One right, freedom, liberty, etc ends where another
begins.
|2.27.09 @ 10:58AM|#
robc,
Of course it can be both. It is liberty for the killer and a loss
of liberty for the killee. It is the society's respect for
liberty that ends when one is infringing on another's liberty.
KT|2.27.09 @ 11:21AM|#
I have found this to be the case, which is why I find it confusing that so many people who call themselves libertarians seem more like crypto-Republicans. I guess it must be that fabled Republican fiscal restraint.
|2.27.09 @ 11:55AM|#
I have found this to be the case, which is why I find it
confusing that so many people who call themselves libertarians seem
more like crypto-Republicans. I guess it must be that fabled
Republican fiscal restraint.
Sometimes I think libertarians are Republicans who just aren't that
into Jesus.
I have never understood this alliance, perceived or real. It's as
if lower taxes on the wealthy, really the only economic card
Republicans care to play, trumps all other considerations.
VM|2.27.09 @ 12:31PM|#
"Sometimes I think libertarians are Republicans who just aren't
that into Jesus."
and quite a few hier either are, or default to positions that
defend them/ support/ promote their views...
|2.27.09 @ 12:36PM|#
I think the libertarian and republican alliance does come down
to economic freedom.
As mentioned, neither side is really interested in expanding
freedom in any way, but if we continue to move towards a stronger
and more omnipresent government - freedom will have to go away in
order to keep the government functioning.
So I'll take the right screaming about stopping this and stopping
that, when they really aren't passing laws to do any of it - than I
will take someone of the left passing laws that will inevitably
lead to fewer freedoms.
Think about universal health care - what additional laws and fewer
freedoms will have to result to ensure the outcome the government
wants?
& No - I didn't like Bush at all for several reasons.
robc|2.27.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Of course it can be both. It is liberty for the killer and a
loss of liberty for the killee. It is the society's respect for
liberty that ends when one is infringing on another's
liberty.
I disagree, but it may be semantical. A killer has no freedom,
right, liberty, whatever to kill someone else.
Its sort of like free speech. The standard fire in a theatre isnt
protected free speech because it isnt free speech at all. It is
speech, but not free speech.
And, no, I dont know why I spell theatre that way. I also spell
armour with a u. Not sure why on just those words.
robc|2.27.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Sometimes I think libertarians are Republicans who just
aren't that into Jesus.
Then explain those of us who are libertarians and born-again
Christians.
Huh? Yeah, I thought so.
|2.27.09 @ 12:58PM|#
Then explain those of us who are libertarians and born-again
Christians.
Well I was trying to be generous. Wait, are you bragging about
being a born-again Christian?
I have a proposal to end the culture war, a compromise, let's just
make abortion illegal for second births.
robc|2.27.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Christian. Although I may have always been a libertarian and
just didnt know it. :)
I was a small-government conservative type and something in Lewis's
writings made me think about applying my views on financial type
issues to social issues. I havent changed my views on right/wrong
(other than just typical more advanced thinking) but have changed
my views on laws. Sort of a toleration for allowing others to sin
kind of thing.
To put it in modern terms, I shifted all the way from a GOP-type
supporter of Ron Paul to a LP-type supporter of Ron Paul.
Maitri|2.28.09 @ 11:17AM|#
"Smoking pot, watching dirty movies, and playing poker are not,
in fact, tantamount to being enslaved or possessed, and the idea
that more cultural options reduces freedom is counterintuitive, to
say the least. If conservatives consistently applied a pro-liberty
presumption, they would be more skeptical of such
assertions."
The difference between liberals and conservatives is the former
think the government should run things while the latter think they,
an anointed, pre-ordained group who are the upholders of morality
and culture, should run things.
True liberalism/libertarianism is about the individual doing
whatever the hell he/she wants without hurting others and with
minimal government intrusion. Let's never forget that in our daily
ritual of criticizing the government, whatever the flavor.
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