Hatin' on Libertarians

Thomas Frank chastises "Beltway libertarians" in today's Wall Street Journal for "rationalizing" and "giving a pious shine" to corporate lobbying, corporate welfare, public-to-private wealth transfers in Washington, the influence of K Street, and how policymakers who push through federal handouts to favored industries are often later rewarded with high-paying jobs in said industries.

Frank's criticism of libertarians would be spot-on . . . if libertarians were actually defending this stuff. Maybe Frank can give us some specific examples of libertarians who have argued that any of the items listed above are part of the "free market." I don't know of many. In fact, I'm pretty sure most of us Beltway libertarians have been pretty critical of all that.

From the other side of the political spectrum (well, sort of—I have a hard time distinguishing neocons from liberals these days), neocon star wordsmith David Brooks tells the New Yorker's George Packer that "anti-government" philosophy similar to the one embraced by the Republicans during the 1994 Gingrich revolution is . . . fundamentally un-American.

No, really.

Comments

joe | May 21, 2008, 10:59am | #

Frank doesn't claim that libertarians argue for those things, Radley. He argues that their political arguments make them more common.

You know, like when you accuse of liberals of perpetuating poverty through bad urban and tax policy.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 11:01am | #

Who is Thomas Frank, and what possible reason is there for me to pay attention to him? The WSJ editorial page sucks, and it cannot all be blamed on Rupert Murdoch.

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 11:04am | #

How does melioristic translate into government? Improving the world can be done without government, Brooks, you stupid cunt. In fact, it mostly is.

R C Dean | May 21, 2008, 11:12am | #

Like democracy, the WSJ page sucks except when you compare it to the alternatives.

Warren | May 21, 2008, 11:12am | #

That's pretty much my take on Larry Kudlow. Talks like a libertarian, but lobbies for Wall Street at the expense of the free market principals he claims to espouse.

Radley Balko | May 21, 2008, 11:12am | #

joe,

How exactly does arguing for a smaller, more restricted, less influential federal government, arguing against corporate welfare, and arguing against earmarks, R&D boondoggles, and rent seeking make any of the problems Frank lists more likely to happen?

If we drastically reduced the size of the federal government, there would be less influence to peddle. When you deregulate, the federal government has less power to set regs that benefit well-funded, well-connected corporations at the expense of smaller players.

Ali | May 21, 2008, 11:14am | #

Radley,

But who's going to protect us from the big evil corporations and private interests?

Ali | May 21, 2008, 11:17am | #

The answer, of course, is big government. So in between big government and bog corporation, your average citizen is squeeze in between the two. Sort of like having a middle seat on an airplane between two fat dudes, who sleep throughout the trip and would never let you even to breath or leave your seat to use the lavatory.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 11:18am | #

Frank's criticism of libertarians would be spot-on . . . if libertarians were actually defending this stuff.

Like, if the American Enterprise Institute actually gave two shits about "enterprise" in "America?"

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 11:23am | #

Ali, yeah, but there's a skinnier corporation across the aisle you can sit next to (if the big guy on your left hasn't thrown him off the plane).

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:25am | #

Radley,

Why don't you read the column you linked to? Frank's case really isn't that difficult to understand.

If you wish to address that argument, good for you.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 21, 2008, 11:27am | #

There was a time when nobody acknowledged that libertarians existed, much less categorized them into groups like Beltway Libertarians which may be the same species as Cosmotarians, not sure.

That said, I always appreciate it more when someone actually has concrete examples of how Beltway Libertarians are clamoring for corporate welfare.

....libertarian nonprofits that line the city's streets....

Shouldn't that be singular? Oh wait, there are two of them. Or did Cato buy up an entire block of Pa Avenue?

The Wine Commonsewer | May 21, 2008, 11:29am | #

Frank's case really isn't that difficult to understand.

Neither was Radley's, but you didn't get it. No surprise there I suppose.

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:29am | #

It's not about "libertarians clamoring for corporate welfare."

There is an actual argument made in that column, and that's not it.

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:30am | #

Please, guy who didn't read the column but has an opinion about it anyway, tell me more about what I'm not understanding.

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 11:32am | #

Go joe! Antagonize everyone!

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:35am | #

Go Episiarch!

Make sure there aren't any threads about subjects other than me!

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 11:36am | #

Radley,

TWC beat me to the punch. Are "Beltway libertarians" the same as Cosmotarians?

Also, do you have a theory as to why your most frequent responder keeps accusing you, and everybody else, of not reading when he disagrees with them or they of him?

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:37am | #

I wonder, how many posts will it take before somebody responds to the argument actually made in Frank's column.

I'll say 40.

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 11:38am | #

Hey, if you want to be a dick to both Radley and the mild-mannered TWC, go for it, joe--it amuses me and gives you something to do.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 11:38am | #

By skewing society's rewards so lopsidedly to the top in the country's richest cities, Mr. Brook writes, the tax-reducing, market-minded economic policies of the last few decades have priced all sorts of high-minded occupations to the bottom of the middle class: teaching, the arts, and, of course, nonprofit work.

Define "Society's Rewards" for me, Pastor Frank.
Fekkin Commie.

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 11:38am | #

A feller who can't even get along with TWC is just downright anti-social.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 11:39am | #

TWC,

I am with you on the puzzlement of the phrase ....libertarian nonprofits that line the city's streets...., for an additional reason, since no jurisdiction is required to grant any special tax status to not-for-profit entities. Seems his complaint should be lodged elsewhere.

John | May 21, 2008, 11:42am | #

"How exactly does arguing for a smaller, more restricted, less influential federal government, arguing against corporate welfare, and arguing against earmarks, R&D boondoggles, and rent seeking make any of the problems Frank lists more likely to happen?"

Radly,

You have to understand that from Franks' twisted point of view everything happens because of some government action. Where a rational person sees hard working productive people being able to keep more of what they earn Frank sees the government, through its inaction, designating winners. In Franks' world there is no difference between a company that succeeds because of regulations that harm its competitors or subsidies that it gets from the government and a company that succeeds in the market after the government stops regulating and handing out subsidies. In both cases they succeed only because the government chose to let them succeed; one through direct action the other through declining to take action. In Franks view, therefore, libertarians are not lobbying for freedom and free markets, they are just shilling for the companies that would benefit from such a state.

It is a bizarre and narcissistic way to look at the world but it is a view endemic among left wing intellectuals like Franks. It is the same view that looks at tax cuts as the same as welfare. The government has a right to and owns all of your income and any decrease in the amount of that income they take is no different than giving you welfare.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 11:42am | #

The gist of Frank's argument is here:

Selling out is not a threat to the market order; selling out is how the market gets its way. Just look at the city in which all these remarks were made. Private-sector Washington is one of the wealthiest places in America. Public-service Washington lags considerably behind. The chance of ditching the one for the other is what accounts for everything from the power of K Street to the infamous "revolving door," by which a public servant takes a cushy corporate job after engineering some extravagant government favor for the corporation in question – or its clients.

Rich says "selling out" is intrinsic to libertarian philosophy (which is nonsense) and then goes from there to implying that the next logical step is corporate welfare fueled by the lure of corporate favors.

Well y'know, to give this ridiculous argument the benefit of the doubt, one may argue (though for reasons I'll get to, Frank doesn't quite say this) that the more wealth is generated by a society, the greater the temptation for corruption in the body that governs that society. Maybe true. Maybe. But to get there, you have to have generate more wealth in the first place, which is generally considered a good thing (and which is why Frank can't make that argument!). Given a choice, I'll take more wealth and the (possible) incumbent temptation to corrupt that system than the opposite. This argument is almost like saying stay poor so people won't want to steal your money! And if a free market is what succeeded in getting us that wealth, then that will act as a curb on the society in question allowing that free market to be corrupted by rent-seekers.

John | May 21, 2008, 11:44am | #

"Having spent years urging lawmakers to wreck the social order that once made occupations like theirs tenable, they will cling stubbornly to their free-market idol all the way down.:"

That is the part that really got me. What, we should tax all of the productive people to death so journalists and teachers can afford to live in Georgetown? WTF? And just when exactly was there a social order where journalists and intellectuals were paid as much as capitalists? Isn't the reason eggheads like Frank hate capitalism is because it rewards the under-educated bourgeois who make things and do things at the expense of people like him?

Ravac | May 21, 2008, 11:46am | #

Many of the people Mr. Brook talks to in such cities haven't given up on these pursuits because they're "sellouts"; they've given up because they want proper health care or decent housing or good schools for their kids.

In other words, these high-minded new bohemians want other people to help pay for the stuff they want.

Just like everybody else.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 11:46am | #

Maybe Frank is pissed because he can't outbid a currency trader for a really spiffy apartment on Park Avenue, and he feels the government should allocate him one.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 11:47am | #

Did I beat 40, joe?

I actually started that post before you made your second post. Unfortunately, the popularity of Hit & Run makes quick snarks more timely that reasoned (drink?) arguments.

And there's more I could say, but I was trying to keep it short!!

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:48am | #

I was wrong. P Brooks, Comment #21.

fyodor,

You don't think the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good, can lead to people "selling out" - that is, pursuing more profitable jobs in the business world, rather than working in the non-profit center?

I once saw self-proclaimed-libertarian Jonah Goldbert proclaim "The best think I could do to help the poor is buy a Lexus," and I don't think that sentiments is at all uncommon among libertarians.

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:49am | #

er, "sector," not "center."

and "Goldberg," not "Goldbert."

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 11:49am | #

What a turd twat.
Yes, you fucking retard, libertarians are all hell-bent on "wrecking the social order" and we all bow down nightly to our cast-iron "free market idol."
How does shit like this get into a reputable newspaper?

Stretch | May 21, 2008, 11:50am | #

The problem is that those who push through such measures always cloak their actions with small government rhetoric. And hell, these days it's almost, almost fashionable to call yourself a libertarian. The Republican brand is so broken at this point that all those corporate lobbyists had to go somewhere.

Frank is clearly aware of the hypocrisy, as he briefly mentions in the first paragraphs (while simultaneously using other absurd characitures of libertarians) but then cleverly shifts the tone to encompass all. And all this based on a panel discussion from "one of the lesser libertarian nonprofits in the city"? The America's Future Foundation? Seriously? You would think with all the libertarian non-profits lining the streets in Washington that he could have picked on one that the average libertarian would have actually heard of.

As for Brooks, he would be hilarious if he wasn't so terrifying.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 11:50am | #

P Brooks,

Interesting set of occupations that he uses in your quote.

Teaching is pretty heavily in the public sector. However, there are plenty of teachers in specialties, like professional development, technical fields, etc. who do very well but somehow never get counted, or they get lost in the flood of public-sector activity.

"The Arts"? Huh? Is he complaining about the guy playing the fiddle in the Crystal City METRO, or is he talking about his NEA recipient buddies? Perhaps he can raise hell with the coctail crowd about not buying enough "art" from the artists of his choice?

"Non-profit work"? Something change there since Dr. Thomas Sowell published his extensive research, with the conclusion that non-profits were the most racialially discriminating business entities in the country? Is he griping about public funding of non-profits? Is he complaining that so many volunteers don't get paid?

Perhaps he should look at the change in 1099 numbers and see if he wants to complain about people who used to be poor not being poor any more. People who used to be corporate becoming independant, etc.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 11:53am | #

How does shit like this get into a reputable newspaper?

It's just the Wall Street Journal.

libertarianman | May 21, 2008, 11:53am | #

The best thing I could do to help the poor would be to start a business that either gave them jobs or gave them the knowledge to become financially independent. But then again, I'd never argue that these types of proposals are mutually exclusive to forms of charity. Or that charity is also not a good thing in some cases.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 11:54am | #

Private-sector Washington is one of the wealthiest places in America. Public-service Washington lags considerably behind.

He calls this a problem, I call it progress.

joe | May 21, 2008, 11:56am | #

How many times have I seen libertarians describe the lobbying activities of industry as "defensive?" They just want to protect themselves from the mean ol' government.

Were I someone considering corporate lobbying but questioning the ethics of it, that would be a very appealing argument.

Stretch | May 21, 2008, 11:56am | #

You don't think the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good, can lead to people "selling out" - that is, pursuing more profitable jobs in the business world, rather than working in the non-profit center?

I would phrase it as voluntary exchange for profit > the pursuit of a public good through government coercion.

And I don't think libertarian thought, real or otherwise, leads to anyone selling out. People like money...even liberals.

And Jonah Goldberg? Yeah, he's right at the top of the libertarian credibility list along with Neil Boortz and Glenn Beck.

Like I said, it's almost, almost fashionable.

Reinmoose | May 21, 2008, 11:57am | #

I'd like to very much agree with John's comment at 11:42am. I've encountered people like this as well.

Franks, like some others, really harp on the words "self-interest" as a way to really stick it to libertarians when discussing being any kind of moralists. Some commenter(s) present on this thread have said so much. They can go suck it.

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 11:57am | #

joe, the ethics depends on what the industry is "lobbying" for. But surely you know that.

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 11:59am | #

How many times have I seen libertarians describe the lobbying activities of industry as "defensive?"

joe, I think most libertarians describe the lobbying activities of industry as the inevitable outcome of a mixed economy, where the government doles out favors and punishments based on political whims. And no libertarian will support that.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 11:59am | #

Guy-

I'm surprised Frank left "editorial page whiners" off his little list of preferred social benefactors. He most likely prefers to think of himself as an "Educator."

thoreau | May 21, 2008, 12:00pm | #

Frank writes:

By skewing society's rewards so lopsidedly to the top in the country's richest cities, Mr. Brook writes, the tax-reducing, market-minded economic policies of the last few decades have priced all sorts of high-minded occupations to the bottom of the middle class: teaching, the arts, and, of course, nonprofit work.

Many of the people Mr. Brook talks to in such cities haven't given up on these pursuits because they're "sellouts"; they've given up because they want proper health care or decent housing or good schools for their kids.

One can argue that libertarian economic ideas aren't actually responsible for making it difficult to pursue such occupations. One can argue that such occupations aren't as difficult as Frank makes them out to be. However wrong Frank may or may not be, he does not seem to be explicitly blaming libertarians for corporate welfare and other things of that sort.

In other words, it seems that Balko mischaracterized Frank's argument.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 12:01pm | #

the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good,

I don't think that's a libertarian argument, joe. There's nothing unlibertarian about pursuing the public good, so long as you don't coerce others into doing so.

Obviously most people are going to flock to activities that make them more wealthy -- that's true whether you're living in Libertopia, the Soviet Union, or in this country.

Old Bull Lee | May 21, 2008, 12:02pm | #

He seems to have libertarians confused with the old left-wing view of Republicans as just being pro-big business at the expense of everyone else, especially precious benevolent big government.

Then again, one man's corporate welfare is another politican's way to take credit for creating jobs.

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 12:02pm | #

"The Arts"? Huh? Is he complaining about the guy playing the fiddle in the Crystal City METRO, or is he talking about his NEA recipient buddies?

Nah. He must be talking about Steven Spielberg or Rockstar Games. Or is that not "art" enough for him?

Steven Horwitz | May 21, 2008, 12:02pm | #

Joe writes:

You don't think the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good, can lead to people "selling out" - that is, pursuing more profitable jobs in the business world, rather than working in the non-profit center?

Joe deftly slides over several important distinctions here which makes his argument seem more plausible than it is.

1. Libertarians do not think that the pursuit of private wealth is more important than pursuing the public good. We think the former is a necessary but not sufficient path to the latter, and that direct pursuit of the latter usually ends up making people WORSE off rather than better. I'm all in favor of pursuing the public good if that means "making the world a better place for all, esp. the worst off," but to claim that's contradictory with the pursuit of private wealth is to beg the question.

2. Libertarians do not also object (other than some fringe Randians perhaps) to "pursuing the public good" by working for a non-profit. There is NOTHING intrinsic in libertarianism that says working for a think-tank or another organ of civil society is ethically wrong or counter-productive to liberty. Nor is there any ethical imperative (nor consequentialist preference) for working "for profit." Joe needs to read Hayek on the distinction between "orders" and "organizations."

3. "The public good" is not the same as "the public sector." Libertarians can rightly object to working for the latter, but not the former.

Bottom line, Frank's argument is a series of strawmen and ambiguous wording. As is Joe's.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:03pm | #

You don't think the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good, can lead to people "selling out"

joe,

I think the "pursuit of the public good" is a nebulous thing and I understand why someone says buying a Lexus is the best thing they can do for the poor. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.

But please note, Goldbert did NOT say that convincing Congress to subsidize his Lexus was the best thing he could do for the poor!!!

Okay, what is "selling out" anyway? I take it to mean sacrificing principle for personal gain. joe, ANY person who holds ANY principle based philosophy is EQUALLY subject to that. If you think libertarianism is ESPECIALLY subject to that, well, make that argument! Frank didn't!

FWIW, personally, libertarianism is about freedom, period. Self-interest and wealth maximization are secondary benefits and secondary factors. People have the RIGHT to pursue their own self-interest and thus they SHOULD HAVE the FREEDOM to do so! As for more general philosophical questions regarding whether one "should" do that, I consider those questions to be outside of what libertarianism even addresses and thus different libertarians will have different things to say about them.

Now, if you're saying that by saying "A" I'm encouraging "B" because "B" is supposedly enabled by "A", well first of all I don't think people need my support of a limited government and a free market to justify pursuing their own self-interest. Secondly, the logical extension would be to blame liberals for Communists. No, let's address each individual's arguments on their own merit, okay? And let's not take statments from some libertarians that address matters tangentially at best related to libertarianism per se to be intrinsic to liberterianism when they're not.

Reinmoose | May 21, 2008, 12:04pm | #

The difference, in brief:

The moral libertarian's argument of "self interest" boils down to how you classify the motives behind the actions that people already take, including charitable donations, volunteer work, and risking your life to save someone from a fire.

Opponents like Frank (and *ahem* others) make it sound like we're advocating that everyone be conventionally selfish and have an attitude of "fuck everyone else!," and that will somehow yeild the best result.

Anyway, I'm leaving on vacation! Oh, and I'll drop a coin in the bum's cup on my way down the street, out of my own self interest.

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 12:04pm | #

the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good

Why those are mutually exclusive in your mind says loads about your political philosophy.

J sub D | May 21, 2008, 12:05pm | #

I once saw self-proclaimed-libertarian Jonah Goldbert proclaim "The best think I could do to help the poor is buy a Lexus," and I don't think that sentiments is at all uncommon among libertarians.

Who got hurt the most when the feds instituted a luxury tax in the early '90s?

For the answer, go here.
Or here.

Buying luxuries does help the poor. Admitting that all too obvious fact makes you selfish.

Sheesh.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 12:06pm | #

P Brooks,

Perhaps Mr. Frank can 'educate' in another field? Those CCNA teachers seem to make a pretty good living, as do the ASE instructors. Loads of things between.

I really don't think he needs to be teaching anything with "journalism" in the title.

In other news, thoreau agrees with joe.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:08pm | #

In other words, it seems that Balko mischaracterized Frank's argument.

thoreau, I think it's in the passage I quoted that Frank makes a direct connection between the "sell-out" he claims to be intrinsic to libertarianism and the lures that lead to corporate welfare. He may not say ALL corporate welfare is thus derived, but he does seem to say that the one leads to the other.

And joe backs him up.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:08pm | #

Stretch,

I would phrase it as voluntary exchange for profit > the pursuit of a public good through government coercion.

I agree, this is a better description of the principled libertarian argument. The problem is, the consequences of ideas are often at odds with the intent and vision of those who promote those ideas.

People grab onto degenerated versions of noble principles for their own purposes all the time.

Citizen Nothing, of course I know that. Which is why I chose my language carefully.

T | May 21, 2008, 12:09pm | #

How many times have I seen libertarians describe the lobbying activities of industry as "defensive?" They just want to protect themselves from the mean ol' government.

I dunno about libertarians, but I see that from public-choice economists. Lobbying is one of the few games where if you don't play, you can lose big.

the libertarian argument that the pursuit of wealth in a market economy > the pursuit of the public good

Thus proving yet again that you have missed the point completely. The pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the public good. For reference, see Adam Smith on the subject of bakers and butchers.

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 12:12pm | #

I admit it, joe. You're far too subtle for the likes of me.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Chris Potter,

There's nothing unlibertarian about pursuing the public good, so long as you don't coerce others into doing so.

Come now, Chris. I've been here for a while, you know. Are you actually claiming that libertarians DON'T idealize "productive, wealth-creating enterprise" over "working for the public good," or "the pursuit of self-interest" over "the pusuit of the common good?"

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Example of good defensive lobbying that failed: CAFE standards opposed by the auto industry.

Example of bad defensive lobbying that succeedes: CAFE standards proposed by the anti-freedom envirowacko corner of Leftietopia.

Radley Balko | May 21, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Thoreau,

There's much about Frank's column that's objectionable. I should have been clearer, but I was referring specifically to this passage:

Personally, I would take this hard line one step further: Selling out is not a threat to the market order; selling out is how the market gets its way. Just look at the city in which all these remarks were made. Private-sector Washington is one of the wealthiest places in America. Public-service Washington lags considerably behind. The chance of ditching the one for the other is what accounts for everything from the power of K Street to the infamous "revolving door," by which a public servant takes a cushy corporate job after engineering some extravagant government favor for the corporation in question – or its clients.

The libertarian nonprofits that line the city's streets often serve merely to rationalize this operation after the fact, giving a pious shine to the policies that are made in this unholy manner.

The two libertarian non-profits I've worked for most certainly haven't tried to rationalize or "give a pious" shine to K Street power, revolving doors, or giving cushy jobs to policymakers after they procure government favors for corporations.

Warren | May 21, 2008, 12:13pm | #

RTFA,
Balko is once again spot on. Frank is wringing his hands over the non-existent angst felt by non-existing libertarians over a non-existing dilemma. And the punchline, that they are "selling out" and therefore promoting what they claim to oppose, is completely unsupported.

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 12:14pm | #

the idea that "there's something special about nonprofits," scoffed one forthright fellow – "well, that's crap. Nonprofits are an artifice of the law, and what's special about them is not that they do different things or that they are organized in a special way, it's that they don't pay taxes."

On the individual level, there is no meaningful distinction between "profit" and "non-profit." Unless you are working for free, you still get a paycheck. And if you want a bigger paycheck, you can go work for somebody else.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Steven Horowitz,

I'M not sliding over those distinctions - I admit them, readily. I'm acknowledging that, in the real world, people don't always follow arguments to the conclusions those putting them forward would wish.

Yes, I readilty admit that a principled and rigorous reading of libertarian ideas is as you describe, just as a princiopled and rigorous reading of liberal ideas would preclude, for example, race-baiting by black demogogues. My point is that people take intellectual shortcuts when it's in their interest to do so, and that certain libertarian ideas, short-cutted, can easily be used to defend unprincipled corporatism, apathy to the common good, and the pursuit of self-interest unmoored from any obligations.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:18pm | #

Radley, how dare you and your non-profits not live up to the stereotypes in Frank's and joe's heads!!!

| May 21, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Hank Reardon would spit in Tom Frank's face and punch David Brooks in the nose.

Jesse Walker | May 21, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Radley: To be fair, Frank isn't necessarily accusing libertarians of directly favoring this state of affairs. He might think we're just useful idiots for the corporate powers that be. Even though we oppose the revolving door and the rest, he might argue, we still support policies that allow private-sector work to be more lucrative than public-sector work, and on Planet Frank that disparity "accounts for" the power of K Street. (If only we paid our politicians and bureaucrats enough, then everyone would want to work for the government all the time, and no one would have a reason to be corrupt!)

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Virtue is its own reward.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:22pm | #

And if you want a bigger paycheck, you can go work for somebody else.

OR if you want more job satisfaction!!

A lot of Frank's and joe's confusion may be due to a myth I've heard occasionally that libertarianism (or "capitalism") believes in no motive other than the profit motive.

Which of course is as ridiculous as you can get. What would you even DO with all your money if you valued nothing else????

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Jamie Kelly, not getting it, writes,

Why those are mutually exclusive in your mind says loads about your political philosophy.

Jamie, why do you think that I chose the terms "THE PURSUIT OF self interests" and "THE PURSUIT OF the common good," rather than just writing "self interest" and "the common good?"

If you can answer that question, you cease to misunderstand what I wrote.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Apparently, Jesse Walker doesn't understand the principles of libertarianism very well, either, because he just made exactly the same argument.

Old Bull Lee | May 21, 2008, 12:27pm | #

We wouldn't be seen as "useful idiots for the corporate powers that be" if they'd realize there is plenty of libertarian opposition to the same corporate welfare that someone like Ralph Nader rails against.

The thing is, it's not so much about being against the corporate receivers as against the public givers who are giving them our money.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 12:27pm | #

JW,

He might think we're just useful idiots for the corporate powers that be.

That is exactly what 'Emmanuel Goldstein' says about Libertarians whenever they are metioned on his show Off the Hook (Pacifica Radio Network, WBAI, in Manhattan). At least, that is how he reacted every time I heard it mentioned on that show from around 1988 until I stopped listening much around 2006.

If he adds anything it is something like 'the Libertarians just want the government to get weak enough for the corporations to take over.'

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 12:27pm | #

fyodor-

The part about job satisfaction was right there. In my head.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:28pm | #

Jesse and Radley: I would say Frank's language seems to conflate the distinction between the different things you are accusing him of. So one could easily see one or the other. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and choose Jesse's interpretation, but it's not like he makes that clear! And he may be saying that "selling-out" is so intrinsic to libertarianism that there's no need to make a distinction!

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 12:28pm | #

What would you even DO with all your money if you valued nothing else????

I know the Big L answer to this one!

If it is fiat money, you buy gold!!!!

Perhaps tin, in the future.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 12:30pm | #

fydor,

"Selling out" is defined asnot doing what the loudest Leftist near you wants you to do.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:32pm | #

P Brooks,

I hate it when I leave things in my head!! :-)

Yeah I didn't think we were disagreeing, but I thought that point needed to be overtly made!!

Stretch | May 21, 2008, 12:32pm | #

The problem is, the consequences of ideas are often at odds with the intent and vision of those who promote those ideas.

People grab onto degenerated versions of noble principles for their own purposes all the time.


Sure they do, Joe, but that doesn't mean that the noble principles themselves are at fault.

Frank's argument basically breaks down to libertarian ideas are used by some "libertarians" to promote unlibertarian agendas, therefore libertarian ideas are bad.

Of course, he doesn't make any of those distinctions, but that is an accurate description of the process he's commenting on.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 12:33pm | #

joe,

So if a poor person robs a rich person because he thinks everyone should have the same amount of money, should we blame liberals for promoting the idea of equality?

Any religion, any ideology, however noble, can be warped so as to justify evil deeds.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:33pm | #

T,

The pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the public good.

Really?

Even when "the pursuit of wealth" involves taking a $200k job at a K Street lobbyist? What if the lobby shot that offers you the highest salary works to, I don't know, fill in your own list of horribles here.

It is exactly this degenerated, simplistic contraction of libertarians' ideas that I have been talking about.

And not a single other commenter noticed. I think there's a reason for that.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:37pm | #

Stretch,

Sure they do, Joe, but that doesn't mean that the noble principles themselves are at fault.

True enough. I don't think liberal ideas about the political empowerment of oppressed racial minorities are "at fault" for black demogoguery, either, and yet they've been used that way, and to some extent, it doesn't even require that the ideas be twisted to get you at least half-way there.

Which doesn't show that those ideas are themselves invalid, but it is a warning of sorts.

Warren | May 21, 2008, 12:37pm | #

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:26pm | #
Apparently, Jesse Walker doesn't understand the principles of libertarianism very well, either, because he just made exactly the same argument.

joe,
The reason your hat doesn't fit anymore, is that Jesse Walker's anvil of irony is embedded in your head. Guess you didn't notice when that happened.

ChrisO | May 21, 2008, 12:38pm | #

Personally, I would take this hard line one step further: Selling out is not a threat to the market order; selling out is how the market gets its way. Just look at the city in which all these remarks were made. Private-sector Washington is one of the wealthiest places in America. Public-service Washington lags considerably behind. The chance of ditching the one for the other is what accounts for everything from the power of K Street to the infamous "revolving door," by which a public servant takes a cushy corporate job after engineering some extravagant government favor for the corporation in question – or its clients.

Lobbying firms are a very small employer in metro DC. Most of the big money around here is made working for government contractors, especially all those hi-tech firms out near Dulles Airport. But those jobs exist only because of leviathan, not because of market forces. Dry up the swamp, and there would be a lot of bright minds available for productive work.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:38pm | #

Guy Montag,

LOL, but then, the whole source of Frank's smug mirth and scorn is that he discovered libertarians (supposedly) discussing the issue every bit as passionately as your typical do-gooder.

One would think the libbers should probably know better, but oh well. Maybe these panel discussions served as group therapy for those needing reassurance that their lesser paid work in non-profits was worth it. Takes all kinds.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 12:39pm | #

joe,

All right. So, are you willing to say that Frank's article really says nothing bad about libertarianism? Because if we interpret it the way you say we should, it's a pretty toothless attack.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:41pm | #

Chris Potter,

So if a poor person robs a rich person because he thinks everyone should have the same amount of money, should we blame liberals for promoting the idea of equality?

Not liberal ideas, but if liberals are robbing rich people, or if robbers are becoming more common as they selectively quote liberal ideas to justify their robbery, then it might be worth questioning whether some liberals should dial back or be a little more responsible with their rhetoric.

I'd say the equivalent of "The pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the public good," would be "The redistribution of wealth is the pursuit of justice."

Any religion, any ideology, however noble, can be warped so as to justify evil deeds.

Yes, even yours.

Steven Horwitz | May 21, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Sorry but if people choose to abuse libertarian ideas for corporatist ends, that is not in and of itself an argument against libertarian ideas, which is exactly what Frank wants to make it. No sale.

And you know that he'd be the first to complain when some libertarian says that "Stalinism is Marxism," which more or less amounts to the same mistake.

robc | May 21, 2008, 12:42pm | #

joe,

Apparently, Jesse Walker doesn't understand the principles of libertarianism very well, either, because he just made exactly the same argument.

I refer you to Radley's first post, which answer this very well.

Or as I would put it: If we support incremental change towards libertarianism, we may be useful idiots. If we pass hard-core changes, there is no power available for us to be useful idiots towards.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:43pm | #

Chris Potter,

So, are you willing to say that Frank's article really says nothing bad about libertarianism?

Libertarianism as a coherent and principled set of ideas, or libertarianism as a political movement and intellectual ouvre?

Elemenope | May 21, 2008, 12:43pm | #

What would you even DO with all your money if you valued nothing else?

Dude, *invest it to make MORE money*, of course! How long have you been at this Capitalism thing, anyway? :)

John | May 21, 2008, 12:44pm | #

"Even when "the pursuit of wealth" involves taking a $200k job at a K Street lobbyist? What if the lobby shot that offers you the highest salary works to, I don't know, fill in your own list of horribles here."


What if that 200K a year job is lobbying for the Sierra Club? Something tells me you won't look at that as one of the "list of horribles". I would argue that someone who lobbies for industry and does the daily work of keeping the crazies from the Sierra club from shutting down the economy as contributing to the public good. You I would imgaine disagree with that assessment, which really means that all your are saying is "it is horrible for people to take 200K a year jobs on K street defending positions with which I disagree."

Jesse Walker | May 21, 2008, 12:45pm | #

I would say Frank's language seems to conflate the distinction between the different things you are accusing him of. So one could easily see one or the other.

I agree. The text supports Radley's reading; it also supports the alternative reading I suggested. Maybe Frank thinks libertarians are Useful Idiots for the corporate state; maybe he thinks we're Conscious Agents; maybe he just hasn't put a lot of thought into it, because his understanding of libertarianism is derived not from seriously engaging libertarian ideas but from his memories of what he believed as a sort-of-pro-market Reaganite in his teens. If I had to guess, I'd vote for option number three.

(Remember when Frank spent his time complaining that academics pay more attention to Madonna than to his favorite punk bands? Those were the days...)

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 12:45pm | #

"The redistribution of wealth is the pursuit of justice."

Thank you, Mr. Rawls! No go back to your grave.

Elemenope | May 21, 2008, 12:47pm | #

If we support incremental change towards libertarianism, we may be useful idiots. If we pass hard-core changes, there is no power available for us to be useful idiots towards.

But seeing as how the Non-Agression Principle sort of precludes most forms of violent revolution, we are stuck, in this society, with incremental change being the only legitimate option.

Which makes us useful idiots, at least part of the time. On this I believe that Frank and Joe are actually right.

Unless you've been noticing some super secret place where people are making radical changes towards Libertopia, or have plans to peacefully achieve the same in our very own political system...in which case I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:47pm | #

John,

That's a fince argument. It's also completely missing from the statement "the pursuit of self-interest is the pursuit of the common good." As a matter of fact, it's not, not even from a principled libertarian point of view.

Frank's point is that one can grab onto the pro-corporate, pro-wealth, pro-self-interest language of libertariansim to justify getting rich in an anti-social manner, and to blow off the pursuit of even libertarian princioples.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 12:48pm | #

I'd say the equivalent of "The pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the public good," would be "The redistribution of wealth is the pursuit of justice."

Yes, in that the former is not really part of libertarian thought, and the latter is not really part of liberal thought.

The pursuit of wealth is clearly not identical to the pursuit of the public good (however nebulous the latter is). Robert Mugabe and the Myanmar junta have been pursuing wealth for quite some time now, and I don't think they've done much for the public good. Even in the relatively free market here in the US, there are perverse incentives as well, for instance Michael Moore getting rich making propaganda films that have only harmed the public good.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:51pm | #

Yes, in that the former is not really part of libertarian thought, and the latter is not really part of liberal thought.

If "the pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the common good" is so contrary to libertarian thought, Chris, why did none of the libertarians raise an objection until I goaded you into it? There is, at least, a sympathy there.

And you are wrong, both of those are completely at home within their appropriate schools of thought. They are just truncated, and fail to account for nuance.

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 12:52pm | #

The public good = what is good for all 300,000,000 Americans = political and economic liberty.
That is the only definition of "public good."

robc | May 21, 2008, 12:52pm | #

lmnop,

My plan is to always treat the good as the enemy of the perfect.

It makes for a short newsletter.

Its why when joe asks me what my Plan B is, I always answer that my Plan B is to vote for Plan A.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:53pm | #

Frank's point is that one can grab onto the pro-corporate, pro-wealth, pro-self-interest language of libertariansim to justify getting rich in an anti-social manner, and to blow off the pursuit of even libertarian princioples.

But it's a silly point because one can be disengenuous about ANY principles one "grabs onto."

robc | May 21, 2008, 12:53pm | #

I admit my plan isnt very useful for "getting things done", but politicians who "get things done" are the most dangerous type.

John | May 21, 2008, 12:54pm | #

The MO of everything Frank has ever written is "you don't agree with me, you must be insane". What's The Matter With Kansas is without a doubt the worst book on public policy to come out in the last ten years and one of the worst ever.

Frank is incapable of understanding anyone else's point of view. It is beyond Frank's mental ability to understand that someone could support and respect the free market but chose not to pursue it. Frank seems to be saying that think tank libertarians are somehow living some duplicitous life by working for a non-profit while lauding the benefits of capitalism. It is the equivalent of saying that anyone who supports gay rights is a hypocrite because they are not out going all Larry Craig in airport bathrooms.

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 12:54pm | #

I think the real question here is how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin. Because that's what this discussion seems to have devolved into.

robc | May 21, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Epi,

42. duh.

thoreau | May 21, 2008, 12:55pm | #

Radley-

Fair point. I guess that this sentence:

The libertarian nonprofits that line the city's streets often serve merely to rationalize this operation after the fact, giving a pious shine to the policies that are made in this unholy manner.

Is an accusation that libertarians are shills, spinners, or useful idiots for the revolving door.

I should have read the column more carefully.

As to the substance of the allegation, well, I think there are instances where some libertarians could be characterized as "useful idiots" but the accusation needs refining and substantiation to be useful.

joe | May 21, 2008, 12:57pm | #

fyodor,

High-minded, complicated ideas virtually always get truncated and mis-shapen in the process of permeating mass culture.

Heck, Jamie Kelly doesn't think there would be anyone made worse off under a strict libertarian regime, and T thinks that there is no need for any modifiers on the statement "the pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the common good."

You are right that this is not unique to libertarian ideas, but libertarians ought to be particularly interested in how their ideas in particular can be twisted and misused.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 12:58pm | #

I think the real question here is how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin.

Zero, because libertarians' only purpose in life is to increase their wealth. Now if someone was paying them to dance on the pin, it might be different.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 12:58pm | #

There is, at least, a sympathy there.

Oh jeez, joe, you're telling us what we think?

I didn't need your goading to say that libertarianism is first and foremost about freedom.

What people do with that freedom is their own business.

As far as what most contributes to this fuzzy notion of "the common good," I don't claim to know and different libertarians will say different things, as I said from the start. I certainly understand the logic that self-interested purchases in the market place are the most effective means to help the poor, but I don't claim to know if it's true or not. It's a bit of a fuzzy notion itself because it begs questions such as which poor, compared to what, etc.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 1:00pm | #

but libertarians ought to be particularly interested in how their ideas in particular can be twisted and misused.

And that's why I argue with people like you and Frank who are making a point of twisting them and making them out to be misused!

On other boards I discuss matters such as this within libertarian circles.

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Oh jeez, joe, you're telling us what we think?

I'm telling you, plural, what you write. Yes, I'm repeating back statements libertarians have made as evidence of their thoughs. Shoot me.

What people do with that freedom is their own business. Yes, or no: does libertarianism express any ideas, particularly in the area of one's professional life, about what is better and what is worse, for people to do? Is libertarianism completely silent to the question of whether it is better to be an entrepreneur or a freegan? Please note, there is nothing in these questions related to the question of government.

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Jamie Kelly doesn't think there would be anyone made worse off under a strict libertarian regime

Spare me the "regime" crap, joe.
And I didn't say nobody would be made worse off. If they're accustomed to getting something for nothing, then yeah -- the tit-suckers would be left crying for mama's milk. I don't care if you're an artist or a corporate CEO. Your "need" to be "better off" is not a claim to my wallet.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 1:03pm | #

If "the pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the common good" is so contrary to libertarian thought, Chris, why did none of the libertarians raise an objection until I goaded you into it? There is, at least, a sympathy there.

Some ideas are so ridiculous and obviously false that they don't need to be refuted (especially when there are more coherent arguments going on at the same time).

Tell me, joe, if you were having a lively discussion on a liberal blog, and someone posted something like, "Government should nationalize the entire private sector and ban money", would you feel it necessary to point out the flaws in that argument?

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:03pm | #

And that's why I argue with people like you and Frank who are making a point of twisting them and making them out to be misused!

I am doing no such thing, and have repeatedly stated that we are talking about truncated, distorted versions of libertarian ideas.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 1:04pm | #

Heck, Jamie Kelly doesn't think there would be anyone made worse off under a strict libertarian regime, and T thinks that there is no need for any modifiers on the statement "the pursuit of wealth is the pursuit of the common good."

I don't entirely agree with those notions (assuming you've represented them correctly, which I lack the time to corroborate), but neither notion strikes me as nefarious or problematic as neither supports infringements on liberty. I.e., where's the big problem you're warning me about?

robc | May 21, 2008, 1:04pm | #

joe,

No and Yes. BTW, what the hell is a freegan?

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Does libertarianism express any ideas, particularly in the area of one's professional life, about what is better and what is worse, for people to do?

No, as long as it's not by force or fraud.

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:06pm | #

And I didn't say nobody would be made worse off. If they're accustomed to getting something for nothing, then yeah -- the tit-suckers would be left crying for mama's milk.

Nice consistency there, Aristotle. Here, this is what you wrote: The public good = what is good for all 300,000,000 Americans = political and economic liberty.


fyodor, people with minds that operate on this level are interpretting libertarian ideas. There is a waiter at a resort in the Catskills who thinks the message of "Atlast Shrugged" is "Some people matter, Baby, and some people don't."

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Well joe, the argument, for it to have any validity, would seem to be that such truncation is inherent and/or particular to libertarianism. I addressed such notions earlier. What sense does it make to back off from stating what I see as the truth because someone might misunderstand me? Anything I say (or don't say!) might be misunderstood and used for purposes I don't agree with!!!

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Chris,

Tell me, joe, if you were having a lively discussion on a liberal blog, and someone posted something like, "Government should nationalize the entire private sector and ban money", would you feel it necessary to point out the flaws in that argument?'

Hell, yeah. More relevantly, would you?

I guess none of my ideas are not "so ridiculous and obviously false that they don't need to be refuted."

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Nice consistency there, Aristotle.

Sure there, Platonicus Dumbshittius. Your problem is that you think "economic liberty" = a right to a certain standard of living.

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 1:09pm | #

again, joe's subtlety has left me befuddled. He's narrowed down his point so far that there's nothing left but a black hole of duh.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 1:09pm | #

neither notion strikes me as nefarious or problematic as neither supports infringements on liberty.

Uh, the easiest routes to wealth all support infringements on liberty. cf Mugabe and the Myanmar regime, for instance.

Jamie Kelly | May 21, 2008, 1:10pm | #

There is a waiter at a resort in the Catskills who thinks the message of "Atlast Shrugged" is "Some people matter, Baby, and some people don't."

I see you get your grand opinions about Objectivism from 10-cent chick flicks.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 1:10pm | #

Why does "lobbyist" seem to be used as some sort of new profanity these days? Presenting the government with grievances is the right of all citizens. That is all that the lobbyist is, a voice from a group of citizens to the legislature.

I think it is in one of those Constitutional amendments that even the Leftists concede to as written.

Of course, if they represent well, they get paid well. Which is all well and fine when they are doing things preferred by the Mr. Franks of the world. Otherwise they are horrid, vile souls beings.

Heaven Mother Nature forbid that they have had some sort background that makes them an expert in the issue that they are now being paid to promote!

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 1:10pm | #

There is a waiter at a resort in the Catskills who thinks the message of "Atlast Shrugged" is "Some people matter, Baby, and some people don't."

And somewhere there's another waiter who thinks the point of social programs is that the rich are all fucked-up and we should get rid of the lot of them.

SO FUCKING WHAT????

I don't see the logic of tarnishing what one person says with how someone else stupidly misinterprets them.

robc | May 21, 2008, 1:12pm | #

Chris Potter,

Throwing a coup and then ruling a country with an iron fist seems like hard work to me. Much easier to get wealthy some other way.

If all you care about is wealth, the Mugabe route isnt the way to go. Now, if you are interested in power....

P Brooks | May 21, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Speaking of cynical, manipulative, duplicitous non-profiteers, how much money does the head of the American Red Cross make annually?

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Really?

Libertarian thought states that there it is not better to be an entrepreneur than to take vows of poverty? That society is not made better by people choosing the former? That adopting and anti-consumerist lifestyle is not worse for society overall?

Bull.

Shit.

I have a news flash for some of you; libertarianism is pro-capitalism. No, really, libertarian political theory actually DOES argue that the pursuit of profit through economic activity in the market is GOOD, not merely that people should be free from coercion.

No, seriously.

Fluffy | May 21, 2008, 1:13pm | #

Yes, or no: does libertarianism express any ideas, particularly in the area of one's professional life, about what is better and what is worse, for people to do? Is libertarianism completely silent to the question of whether it is better to be an entrepreneur or a freegan? Please note, there is nothing in these questions related to the question of government.

Which libertarianism?

Objectivists would say it is better to be an entrepreneur, because Objectivism contains a hierarchy of human virtues that allow one to assess moral praise or blame outside of purely political contexts.

So, if Objectivists are a type of libertarian [and they might say they aren't, and joe might say they aren't], then there is a type of libertarian which would say that one activity is better than another.

Politics is a subset of ethics, and an application of it, and not the whole shebang.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 1:14pm | #

Anyway, joe, if that waiter beats someone up because he thinks Ayn Rand convinced him that some people don't matter, throw the fucker in jail!

On strictly libertarian boards, I never hear such neanderthal talk as that.

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 1:15pm | #

I think the real question here is how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin.

Same answer as to the car question how fast do you want to go?

A. How much money you got?

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:16pm | #

fyodor,

SO FUCKING WHAT????

So, if your interest in your ideas extends any distance beyond considering them to be an interesting parlour game - if you'd actually like to see your ideas influence the world outside your head in a manner consistent with your beliefs - than you should be aware of the pitfalls, and the misuses to which they are being put.

Chris Potter | May 21, 2008, 1:16pm | #

Hell, yeah. More relevantly, would you?

I don't think I'd bother with it even here. Life is too short to acknowledge that kind of foolishness.

I guess none of my ideas are not "so ridiculous and obviously false that they don't need to be refuted."

Was that double negative intentional? Because, yes, I don't think your ideas are ridiculous or obviously false.

I think you're just a well-intentioned person who was deprived of the truth of libertarianism at a critical point in your develop, and now you lash out in anger at that which you secretly wish you'd embraced.

Or, maybe not.

Dave T | May 21, 2008, 1:16pm | #

I've seen many people choose a lower paying job in the public sector over pursuing a higher paying job in the private sector. Unfortunately, their motives weren't because they believed in the "public good", their motives were that they get to work a lot less hours and do a hell of lot less hard work. Excuse me if I don't feel too badly for the public sector in Washington DC. That said, there are also a hell of a lot of overpaid admins who happen to hold the shining golden ticket that is a security clearance.

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:19pm | #

Yes, Chris, I so misunderstand libertarianism that I made the same argument as Jesse Walker.

*sniff, I don't have a response, so I'll just note that you're not in the club*

Loud and clear. That's usually what happens.

robc | May 21, 2008, 1:19pm | #

joe,

You dont have to answer the freegan question. dictionary.com wasnt familiar with the word, but google was. I clicked thru....***shudder***...my libertarianism still supports people being freegans if they so desire.

Fluffy | May 21, 2008, 1:19pm | #

Libertarian thought states that there it is not better to be an entrepreneur than to take vows of poverty? That society is not made better by people choosing the former? That adopting and anti-consumerist lifestyle is not worse for society overall?

Again, which libertarianism?

Objectivists would not deign to discuss the good of society at all.

No, really, libertarian political theory actually DOES argue that the pursuit of profit through economic activity in the market is GOOD, not merely that people should be free from coercion.

Strictly speaking, Objectivists would say that the pursuit of profit through economic activity in the market is good because it represents the expression of certain individual human virtues. It would not say that it's good because it's good for society. So choosing an anti-consumerist lifestyle could also be good, if it allowed for the expression of similar or alternate virtues. A man who pursues an anti-consumerist lifestyle because he is creating great sculptures that for one reason or another don't sell may very well be quite virtuous under the "rules" of Objectivism. And the guy who is making seven figures as a lobbyist may be a douchebag. I think Wesley Mouch is the archetype of a lobbyist, after all.

Franz Liebschkind | May 21, 2008, 1:20pm | #

There is a waiter at a resort in the Catskills who thinks the message of "Atlast Shrugged" is "Some people matter, Baby, and some people don't."

Baby? Baby? What is this Baby? Galt never say Baby, Rand not write Baby, so why he say Baby?

Kyle | May 21, 2008, 1:21pm | #

I have a news flash for some of you; libertarianism is pro-capitalism. No, really, libertarian political theory actually DOES argue that the pursuit of profit through economic activity in the market is GOOD, not merely that people should be free from coercion.

wait... what?

joe | May 21, 2008, 1:21pm | #

robc,

my libertarianism still supports people being freegans if they so desire. I'm sure it does. One of the fundamental precepts of libertarianism is that people should be free to do things that others don't approve of.

That's just not the only one.

Citizen Nothing | May 21, 2008, 1:21pm | #

I think someone sold joe a defective decoder ring.

First Little Pig | May 21, 2008, 1:21pm | #

I am quite late to the thread but I do have one small thing to add.

I have long thought that those who profess libertarianism and who do not contribute to charity or perform charitable works are hypocrites since there are community needs and if they are not met, then society will command government meet them. The best way to limit government is to resolve community concerns without it.

I live in a town without a government. We residents perform the tasks a government would through volunteers and cooperation and for those things that we cannot do for ourselves, they go undone.

fyodor | May 21, 2008, 1:22pm | #

But joe, like I say, ANYTHING I say (or don't say) may be used against my wishes and preferences. THAT'S why it makes no sense to...oh fuck it, I've explained myself already.

mk | May 21, 2008, 1:22pm | #

Dave T,

I'm one of those public sector people. I have no doubt that there are gov. employees who feel slighted because they don't get paid as much as a private sector employee, but I haven't run into any.

I could get a private sector job any time I want, even in this economy. Recruiters are constantly bugging me. Working an actual 40 hour week has a dollar value for me and it is pretty high.

Fluffy | May 21, 2008, 1:23pm | #

So, if your interest in your ideas extends any distance beyond considering them to be an interesting parlour game - if you'd actually like to see your ideas influence the world outside your head in a manner consistent with your beliefs - than you should be aware of the pitfalls, and the misuses to which they are being put.

Nope, sorry, wrong, uh-uh.

The only person responsible for misunderstanding a reasonably clearly expressed idea is the person who misunderstands.

It is clearly not incumbent upon me to ask, at any moment in time, "Gee, how will John McCain misunderstand and misuse my idea?"

Guy Montag | May 21, 2008, 1:23pm | #

Isn't it a good thing that the government provides us with this forum so that the anti-freedom, anti-liberty voices can be heard without the fear of Big Capitalist cracking down on us?

Something like this could never be created by the privateer-robber-baron-Capitalists.

First PBS and NPR, now H&R. Such progress in less than a century!

Oh, wait . . .

Episiarch | May 21, 2008, 1:24pm |