Glenn Reynolds, Manny Klausner, Randy Barnett, and Brink Lindsey on the Future of Libertarianism

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds sits down via cyberspace with Reason Foundation trustee Manny Klausner, Georgetown law prof Randy Barnett, and the Cato Institute's and reason contributing editor Brink Lindsey on Reynolds' Washington Watch videocast.

It's about 30 minutes of peace, love, and prognostication. And well worth watching (especially Klausner's defense of the Libertarian Party as an institution). Free registration required.

Comments

mitch | November 6, 2008, 10:41am | #

People who post here and think Reason has been too soft on Obama (and I count myself among them) should like Klausner; he seems like a more old-fashioned kind of right-wing libertarian, unabashedly saying he likes Rush Limbaugh and that academia is dominated by leftists, for example. Barnett and Lindsey are smart and interesting, of course, too. And I like Glenn Reynolds, though he really lacks any kind of screen presence or charisma.

It is ridiculous that they bleep "shit," though, and Reynolds actually says that it is OK to say shit after Barnett says it.

Gabe | November 6, 2008, 11:03am | #

You have got to be kidding me..Rush is a hypocritical drug addict POS. He supports every war America ever started as long as a republican was involved. Academia is dominated by statist...not leftist. There are plenty of pro-empire, pro new deal academics who vote republican.

The real rarity is a academic who is for peaceful foreign policy, free trade, low taxes, and free markets in interest rates....these people are smeared as isolationists or goldbugs by Barnett and his fed worshipping,warmongering statist friends.

mitch | November 6, 2008, 11:11am | #

Gabe,

Maybe you should approach Reynolds with the idea of appearing on his show to debate Klausner. Don't call Limbaugh a piece of shit on air though; they will bleep the last part.

I, Kahn O'Clast | November 6, 2008, 11:30am | #

That group really needed someone from the Left-Libertarian side. Someone who would point out that the excesses of the police state and risk of a wider war in the middle east are much greater threats to liberty than Obama's tax plans. Someone who would have pointed out that regardless of which party was in power, the response to the financial crisis would be the same: throw money at it. No one running for office (aside from Ron Paul, of course) stood for "let the markets work" "let firms fail".

Gabe | November 6, 2008, 11:58am | #

Brink Lindsey thinks we have made a ton of progres in moving towards free markets? greenspan doubled SS taxes....how big is the book of regulations in the US now versus 30 years ago? How many banks did the governemtn own 15 years ago? how many trillions did the governemntsteal fromt eh people to give to bankers 30 years ago?

How much free trade progress have we made with Cuba?

How much bigger is the federal government now compered to 1920?

Just because a neo-con calls himself a libertarian and then claims talks about how great bushes appointments are does not make him a libertarian.

gabe | November 6, 2008, 12:01pm | #

Manny Klausner was better than the other guys....he is worried that they will blame financial crisis on free markets and then lindsey is claiming we are doing great because we have so much more free markets now?!? f'n crazy.

Barnett is just happy because he is a War street Journal propagandist and all of his goals of enriching the military industrial complex are succesful thus far.

gabe | November 6, 2008, 12:02pm | #

one guy voted for Obama and the other is supporting McCain...they are both pro-bailout and pro-war ...how are they libertarian?

Gabe | November 6, 2008, 12:05pm | #

I understand they think Ron Paul is a racist isolationist. However, I do not understand how they can talk about the future prospects of libertarianisms popular appeal without mentioning that Ron Paul out fundraised McCain for much of last year based on the back of a more libertarian platform than any republican the last 30 years.

willis | November 6, 2008, 12:10pm | #

"He supports every war America ever started as long as a republican was involved."

I don't suppose any war was ever started by America's enemies. Perhaps you're thinking of the Vietnam war, which was started by John F. Kennedy, succeeded to by Lyndon Johnson, and ended by Richard Nixon. I forget which parties they belonged to.

gabe | November 6, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Mitch,
If you can find his phone # or email I'll call him. He seems not to want to be contacted by the public as none of it is contact is available at instapudit.

Glenn Reynolds, I'd love the opportunity to come on your show and present a different libertarian point of view from the pro-bailout, pro-war, pro-obama voting libertarians you chose. I'll wear a nice suit and I have a decent haircut.

Gabe | November 6, 2008, 12:17pm | #

In the words of Mohamad Ali...."Ain't no vietmanese call me nigger"

yes I know LBJ escalated the vietnam war ...judging by JFK's actions he seemed to be against escalating it further, but we will never no because a lone wacko killed him with a magic bullet.

Rush seems to agree with the socialsit democrats that the vietnam war was neccesary to stop the domino effect...this is not a positive in my book. I was attempting to give Rush some credit for criticizing clinton during the aspirin factory bombings and Bosnia war.

Eric the .5b | November 6, 2008, 12:53pm | #

I'll ask - with Team Blue taking power, why call up some Red professor/bloggers to have a discussion about the future of libertarianism? Wouldn't it be a tad more relevant to see what any of those self-described "libertarian Democrats" has to say, if they're not still hung over? :)

Eric the .5b | November 6, 2008, 12:54pm | #

Or heck, why not have a discussion with more than one actual libertarian in it?

gabe | November 6, 2008, 1:21pm | #

it is hard to find the libertarians who fit the criteria:

1. Must support the bailout package
2. Must support the tyrannical foriegn policy of Bush
3. Agree that we have moved towards free-markets over the last 30 years

4. Applaud the presidential selection because of the color of his skin without even talking about how he has no plans to stop imprisoning blacks at unfair and record rates for selectively enforced drug crimes.

5. Cheer on the fact that now "more people will have faith in the government again."....yay it will be easier to get them to trust tyrants.

Gabe | November 6, 2008, 2:03pm | #

Just inviting Balko to join would make a nice contrast with Lindsey and Barnett.

DannyK | November 6, 2008, 3:45pm | #

Aren't they embarassed to be appearing with the Instapundit? He's been wrong about, well, almost everything. And he's about as much of a libertarian as Franco. This confuses me.

William R | November 6, 2008, 3:58pm | #

Didn't all of them favor the Iraq war?? And did any of them support Ron Paul?? Weak lineup Reason. Real weak.

joshua corning | November 7, 2008, 3:51am | #

You have got to be kidding me..Rush is a hypocritical drug addict POS. He supports every war America ever started as long as a republican was involved.

Rush is really good at describing free markets and the benefits they endow to all of us...

On the free markets part of the Free minds and Free markets he is honestly great at educating the masses.

Mike Linksvayer | November 7, 2008, 9:01pm | #

I fail to see why they're convinced the Democratic Party lately has been taken over by the hard left. What's the evidence for this?

I'd expect some data to back such a claim up, like that showing Republican Congresspeople's votes took a sharp turn toward authoritarianism after 9/11 ... compare http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/li2000_over.htm and http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/li2005_over.htm