New at Reason: Cato Institute Scholar Tom G. Palmer on Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice

October 8, 2009

Last month, Reason senior editor Michael C. Moynihan talked with Tom G. Palmer, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and vice president of international relations at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, about his latest book Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice, why we are living in the freest time in human history, and the necessity of libertarian compromise.

Approximately 10 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Dan Hayes. Edited by Dan Hayes.

For podcast and downloadable versions of this video, click here.

Comments

j murray|10.8.09 @ 3:01PM|#

so many of the embedded video's don't play! broken links and then whatever is above... Needs some attention.

Squirrel|10.10.09 @ 12:20AM|#

Can ou give me an example of an embedded video you're having trouble with?

|10.8.09 @ 3:08PM|#

I hope he knows that most Republicans aren't Libertarians.

Boy howdy! Would that be embarrassing if he didn't know that! Whoo!

Bruce Majors|10.9.09 @ 3:00AM|#

My understanding from remarks I have heard him make elsewhere is that he thinks virtually no Republicans are libertarians and that it is a mistake for libertarians to ever ally with the GOP.

Now I will have to listen to his remarks to see if the problem is just the usual "reading" comprehension deficit among Demwits and pseudo-"liberals" who like to infest Reason's blog.

Attorney|10.8.09 @ 3:14PM|#

Wait a minute -- they're not?!

John Tagliaferro|10.8.09 @ 3:19PM|#

From my experience, non-Libertarians frequently assume that Libertarians are Republicans. It can be both funny and annoying.

¢|10.8.09 @ 3:29PM|#

we are living in the freest time in human history

The vid doesn't work for me, but he sounds fat.

This is only the freest time in doughy shlub history.

The Angry Optimist|10.8.09 @ 3:31PM|#

Tom Palmer does awesome work on the more odious parts of "libertarians". The Fever Swamp is a clearing house for Rockwellian anti-semitism and general Putin-kissassery.

Bruce Majors|10.9.09 @ 3:12AM|#

Exactly so

|10.8.09 @ 7:05PM|#

I've been long irritated by this libertarian/conservative/GOP divide. Isn't there enough overlap to justify a vigorous coalition? I see far fewer differences than agreements.

mark|10.8.09 @ 8:32PM|#

The GOP has to tire itself out for a few more years. Then, with hope, some true believers in liberty will take their place and offer some actual intellectual arguments that seem to be so lacking today. For an example of what I'm talking about I would only point to this video of Lawrence O'Donnell talking with Keith Olbermann on passing health care "reform":

O‘DONNELL: The most they can get in the end is killing the bill completely.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

O‘DONNELL: They did it before. Now when I look at Boehner, I have to say, boy.

OLBERMANN: Yes.

O‘DONNELL: . I wish—I wish we had been up against him in ‘94, we were up against Newt Gingrich, we were up against Bob Dole, Bob Packwood. These were very sharp players who knew exactly what the policy was in these bills. And they came at us on the policy that was in the bill. That‘s how they won.

This time around, these people are lost.

OLBERMANN: I know.

O‘DONNELL: Between Boehner and Michele Bachmann, they have no idea what to say about this.

Bruce Majors|10.9.09 @ 7:39AM|#

DO you mean to say that you think Olberman and O'Donnell would know what an intellectual argument was if they saw one? I don't think these boys can read Hayek, not without holding a finger on the page and sounding out the letters.

|10.10.09 @ 1:23PM|#

"Far fewer differences than agreements" among libertarians/GOP/conservatives? On which planet? The GOP leadership had a chance to nominate Ron Paul for President; did they embrace his similarities, or beat up on him for opposing the Iraq War?

The GOP could have embraced the End the Fed movement decades ago; but that would have challenged the very foundations of the Corporate/Military Welfare State.

GILMORE|10.8.09 @ 8:28PM|#

Neither here nor there, but *what the fuck is up with the dude's blazer?* Did Arsenio Hall have a yard sale or something?

No collar? I'm not like mr fashion nazi or anything, but man, the only people who can rock that kind of thing without looking like a creepy Raelian or something are:

-) Kung Fu Masters

-) Professional Basketball Players/Rappers

-) Wedding attire in Staten Island

-) Priests, preferably black Pentecostal revival healers

-) Old Rock Stars

Plus... i mean, the haircut, tie and the shirt are pure back-office. Whats going on! Now you're clashing in multiple dimensions! Dont you have a wife man! A mirror??

Seriously, libertarians shouldnt dress like weirdos when possible. At least not if they want to actually sell people on the general concept.

(note: Nick Gillespie's leather jacket and sideburns are obviously exempt, and beyond any reproach; they are the holy vestment of those who have achieved libertarian Nirvana)

But in general libertarians should be the guys who know how to make conservative gear look *stylish*. Guys who put the sport in sport coat. Ungroomed yet still classy. Guys who can wear a suit casually, and make people subconsciously think, "that guy probably has a gun on him"

Please, no mixing nose rings and cufflinks though. dear god not that. Its the last thing we need.

But this guy looks like an accountant asked to be on BET, and this was his idea of 'blending in'.

|10.8.09 @ 11:33PM|#

Turns out Tom is gay, which may explain his fashion sense. Not being fashionable myself, I don't know if he's getting it right or not...

GILMORE|10.9.09 @ 1:15AM|#

I dont think gay is any excuse.

If anything, its a heightened condemnation of his insensitivity to basic gentlemanly taste. Dear god man, you need 50cc's of Brooks Brothers, STAT!

Bruce Majors|10.9.09 @ 3:10AM|#

My impression is that Dr. Palmer, who spends more time in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East than in the US, is more likely to get his hair cut in Beijing and buy his clothes in Austria, than to do either in DC where he lives.

I'm gay too and don't have a strong reaction to his wardrobe other than to say it is slightly distinctive. He is I suspect much better preserved than most of you will be at 53.

I suspect those of you who are heterosexual are immediately disqualified from commenting on his clothes, since you are just wearing what gay people stopped wearing 3 years ago, for the slower of you what they stopped wearing 4 years ago and only after it was first adopted by urban youth and sold at Tommy Hilfiger.

Bruce Majors|10.9.09 @ 3:15AM|#

Rofl. So the video and the book were over your head Mr. Blackwell, but you felt the need to have some attention anyway?

That red carpet was just too tempting. rofl

Misha|10.9.09 @ 2:50PM|#

The blazer is Austrian/Bavarian style and is called a 'Janker'. I have seen Dr. Palmer wear such clothes in his lectures in Europe. Maybe his fashion sense is not Tommy Hilfiger, but in many places it is considered elegant. In any case, I was more interested in the content of his interview.

|10.9.09 @ 3:08PM|#

Why does no one question the theory that presumes to justify the statements instead of personalizing the replies.
"we are living in the freest time in human history, and the necessity of libertarian compromise." This is false and rests on beliefs, personal convictions and not the fact that there are more people poor, starving, homeless, and without legitimacy under theocracies, military dictatorships, and oligarchies that ever in human history. There are four billion disenfranchised poor representing a huge illegitimate economy in every nation, ignored as humans with civil rights by an elite class preserving its power through property rights run by bureaucracies and coercion.
The notion that the poor are not able to enter into a free enterprise system is refuted by every nation that encourages such freedom. The first right is equality in law and the right to private property.
It is obvious that Reason represents a culture of inequality and collusion. It cannot accept the fact that free enterprise creates wealth, rather than preserving the wealthy.

Misha|10.10.09 @ 1:59AM|#

Morton, There are not "more poor people". Look at the evidence before you write such a thing. The percentage of poor people in the world has been declining for a long time.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSIT.....67,00.html

Poverty has declined most where more economic liberalism has been implemented, meaning property rights and free market.

The percentage living in democracies has been increasing. Fewer countries live under military dictatorships. (Remember the Latin America?) The world is not perfect and no one with a brain thinks it is. Some parts are getting better, some not. But overall the world is both freer and richer than at any time in the past. You should listen to the video and not just read the advertisement for it. And how can you comment on all of Reason magazine on basis of one interview of one writer?

I will read Palmer's book before I decide if I like it or do not like it. That is my philosophy of books and ideas. And his coat and haircut are not of concern, at least to me.

Bruce Majors|10.16.09 @ 8:29AM|#

Mortie what is the point of repeating bromides from Newsweek or NBC or some other Obama felching anencephalic state-propaganda outfit here? You just look ignorant. Around half of the people who read Reason actually know things about world history and economic analysis and realize that Demwits, regressives and other soi-disant "left" statists types are dolts.