MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Does Tucker Carlson Get Anything Right About Libertarians?: Podcast

What conservatives against “market fundamentalism” can tell you about libertarians without power

||| Fox News ChannelFox News ChannelIt's rare that a 15-minute cable news spiel gets talked about even one day later, let alone five, but here we are with Fox News host Tucker Carlson's headline-making monologue asserting that "market capitalism is not a religion, it's a tool," warning that "any economic system that weakens or destroy families is not worth having," and serially calling out libertarians by name.

So Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch and Peter Suderman begin today's Reason Podcast, editors' roundtable edition, with an extended conversation about what Carlson gets right and (mostly) wrong, and how his critique overlaps both with modern reformoconism and some elements of Elizabeth Warren-style populism. The discussion also ranges across Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the "military version of eminent domain," and best practices for purging children's toys.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Valse in D-flat major "Minute Waltz" by Chopin, played by Muriel Nguyen Xuan is licensed under CC BY SA 4.0

Relevant links from the show:

"Tucker Carlson Thinks the Problem With America Is Market Capitalism," by Timothy Sandefur

"Conservatives Are Wrong to Call for Government 'Trust Busting,'" by Steven Greenhut

"Ivanka and Conservatives Want to Raid Social Security to Pay for Parental Leave," by Shikha Dalmia

"Increasing Top Tax Brackets Is Easier Than Increasing Revenue Over Time," by Nick Gillespie

"How Payday Lenders and Check Cashers Help the Poor," by Todd Krainin

"What the Hell Is the 'Military Version of Eminent Domain'?" by Joe Setyon

"Trump's Terrible Record on Property Rights," by Ilya Somin

"Legal or Not, Trump Shouldn't Declare a 'National Emergency' To Build His Wall," by Joe Setyon

Don't miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at Apple Podcasts..

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Photo Credit: YouTube

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Individuals are the root of everything. We don't indict, try, and punish families for crimes committed by the father or mother or any other individual (although the repercussions will reverberate). Collective punishment is a war crime.

    Anyone who puts "family" or any other group as the core of society is a collective idiot.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Amen. "Family first" thinking is super dangerous. The individual is more important than the family.

  • John||

    Carson wasn't talking about Libertarians. He was talking about a group of conservatives who have used libertarian principles to make Conservatism into a dog's breakfast of various interest groups preferences.

    I don't agree with his statements about drugs but he got a lot right. Namely, his contention that people have turned economics into a religion. There is no such thing as a "free market". What there are is a set of rules that describe mass economic behaviors that can when applioed properly to the correct data predict the aggregate effects of different policies on the economy.

    Economics is a technical dicipline that gives technical answers but not moral or value judgements. Economics can tell you what the effects of say raising taxes on gasoline to fight the evil global warming monster will be but it doesn't tell you whether we should enact such a tax. That is a value judgement.

    Just because the tools of economics suggest that free trade policies taken to their extreme will make the country wealthier overall, does not answer the question of whether those policies are good. There are more values to be considered than overall wealth. And you can't just point to economics and say "but the market" like it is the judgement of God.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Bingo.

    Carlson does a great job of describing the disconnect between macroeconomic and microsocial success (to make up a word.

    He doesn't, however, provide any suggestions as to what we should do about it. That is an obvious weakness in his monologue, but it leaves his critics shooting at strawmen.

    In fact, didn't ENB just link to a long diatribe about the hardship of being a millennial who fails to find happiness in a life devoted to work? A life without social meaning. Isn't that essentially the same complaint that Carlson makes?

  • Cathy L||

    In fact, didn't ENB just link to a long diatribe about the hardship of being a millennial who fails to find happiness in a life devoted to work? A life without social meaning.

    Pretty sure that was a story about how the drive to participate in "social meaning" is crushing to the individual soul. Who do you think is driving all those kids to go to extracurriculars and college?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Perhaps we read different articles?

    http://www.buzzfeednews.com/ar.....-debt-work

  • John||

    That article is so poorly writen and its author such a nitwit, I think anyone can be forgiven for having a different view of its meaning. Its like a Rohrshack test done with bad prose.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I took it as a complete rehash of everything Gen X complained about. Gen Y isn't the first one to experience a recession or two.

    It's the painful realization that money and work are not in fact everything. And you cannot insulate yourself from the world.

    There's a religious message in there.

  • ||

    If my neighbour's kid is any indication of the stereotypical millennial, I'd have to laugh at the assertion of them going through a burn out.

  • John||

    The funny thing is that the author is a rich skinny white girl who lives with her boyfriend in Montana. She has spent her entire life being taken care of either by her parents or boyfriends. But she is just so burned out working her free lance writing job from her home in Montana that she can't even walk the dog. First world problems are the worst.

  • ||

    Again, if my neighbour's 30 year-old is any indication....

  • John||

    Economic policy is like engineering. The laws of economics tell you what the results of a policy will be and it is up to you to decide whether you want to do that policy. We have free trade with the entire world on virtually any terms the world likes. This was a specifically designed policy. It was done because the people who created that policy thought it would be better to have an economy that shipped all but a few high return fields of its manufacturing overseas and shift the economy towards the service sector. Those policies produced very speific results that were intended. They were every bit the result of central economic planning as any communist country's economic policies. The difference is they were much more effective because they were designed using a proper understanding of the laws of economics. But they were not less an example of central planning.

    Economic policy is like building a dam. If you know the laws of physics and engineering you can trun a river into a lake. In the same way, if you know the laws of economics, you can turn your economy from a manufacturing based one into a service based one. Appealing to the laws of economics as a justification for doing that is as nonsensible as appealing to the laws of physics as a justification for building a dam. The natural laws are the how but not the why.

  • Bubba Jones||

    shipped all but a few high return fields of its manufacturing overseas

    I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Last I googled (a few years ago) we still had the same percentage of global manufacturing that we "always" have. The difference is that, much like farming, we don't need as many people to do it.

  • John||

    That was the general plan. The idea was to have an economy that focused on high return industries and ship lower return manufacturing overseas. And that was accomplished to some degree and regardless of how much it was certainly the goal.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I'd be very interested to read any evidence you might have that this was the goal. I suspect it doesn't exist. I think the goal was to let the market determine who was good at what, nothing more sinister.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It was done because the people who created that policy thought it would be better to have an economy that shipped all but a few high return fields of its manufacturing overseas and shift the economy towards the service sector.

    Those policies produced very speific results that were intended.

    Okay then, so you can point to the specific individuals and policies involved which specifically intended the precise economic balances that we see today.

    I think you are declaring false equivalence between central planning and free markets. You WANT to believe that free markets is just another type of central planning, but they aren't.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "The laws of economics tell you what the results of a policy will be and it is up to you to decide whether you want to do that policy."

    I can't disagree more with this. The benefits of a "substantially" free market economy are the ways various people will choose to interact or do business with each other. It is an organic system that will move in unpredictable ways, for better or worse. The only way economic policy becomes as predictable as the law of gravity is when specific policy's are enacted to pick winners and losers...and even then the results are largely unpredictable. Engineering systems are rarely as simple as many people think they are. The devil is always in the details. Anybody who thinks any thing is simple doesn't sully understand the problem.

  • John||

    Economic policy is predictable. If it wasn't then it would be useless and none of the claims you are making about its benefits could be made. You utterly miss the point of what I am saying

  • Mcgoo95||

    If it was predictable, there would never be depressions, recessions, market volatility and the like. Maybe I don't understand what economic policies you are referring to.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "We have free trade with the entire world on virtually any terms the world likes. This was a specifically designed policy. It was done because the people who created that policy thought it would be better to have an economy that shipped all but a few high return fields of its manufacturing overseas and shift the economy towards the service sector. Those policies produced very speific results that were intended. They were every bit the result of central economic planning as any communist country's economic policies. "

    So you're saying that we passed the GATT and other free trade agreements because it was known that someday we could have China or some other Asian country manufacture things cheaper for us? This is ridiculous. That's one hell of a crystal ball they had.

  • Mcgoo95||

    "Economic policy is like building a dam. If you know the laws of physics and engineering you can trun a river into a lake. "

    You can also fuck up everything upstream and downstream pretty easily, force water where it shouldn't go and create a million unforeseen catastrophes.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Economic policy is like engineering.

    Um, no. Bridges don't act.

    Economic policy is like building a dam.

    Yikes. Spoken like a true central planner.

  • John||

    That woosh sound you hear is my point going right over your head. My god you are stupid

  • Mcgoo95||

    Yea....well that's typical of you. Apparently the only one that understands what you are saying is you.

  • Agammamon||

    There is no such thing as a "free market". What there are is a set of rules that describe mass economic behaviors that can when applioed properly to the correct data predict the aggregate effects of different policies on the economy.

    You're confusing two separate things.

    1. There is such thing as a free market. Its what you get when there's no interference in trade between people.

    2. The rules of economics predict that the free market state exists when there's no interference in trade between people. It predicts what sorts of crap you get when you interfere in trade between people and destroy that free market.

  • Agammamon||

    As for your 'there are more important things that wealth' comment - to you.

    The only way to know for sure that that those things are important is to let the market work unfettered - freely - so that you can see through people's choices what their real preferences are.

    If you think you know better where to interfere to maximize other people's ability to achieve their values then you are part of the problem and, functionally, no different than, say, Ocasio-Cortez.

  • John||

    Okay let's let Lockheed sell nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. That is free trade isn't it? Like Jeff you completely miss the point

  • Ray McKigney||

    Ima go with "no."

  • John||

    I think the worst thing that the current generation of conservatives like the half wits at NR have done is lie about the founding of the Country. The Founders were not Libertarians. They valued freedom but did not consider personal freedom to be the only legitimate value or end of government. Classical liberalism was not libertarian. Classical liberalism and the founders also recognized collective values like sovereighnty and consent of the governed. The two greatest classical liberal political documents ever written were the American Declaration of Indepenence and Constitution. Neither of those documents were Libertarian and both recognize national sovereignty and collective values that were equal to individual liberty.

    The Declaration says when a "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another,". That is people as in the collective. As in one group declaring a new soverieghnty separate from another. It says further that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " Note it says "among those" meaning the following list is not inclusive of the entire set, and that it names the pursuit of happiness as something different from Liberty, meaning that there are other collective values equal to personal liberty.

  • John||

    The Preamble of the Constitution gives probably the best description of what a classical liberal government should look like. It says

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Justice, the common defense, the general welfare are all equal and valid goals of government to personal liberty. Whenever I see some half educated nitwit like Jonah Goldberg waxing philosophical about the founders and how individual liberty is the entire purpose of government (unless you are talking about drugs because that is different), I want to vomit. Radical indivual liberty is creation of the 20th Century. It is certainly a part of the classical liberal tradition and a development from it, but it is not all of the classical liberal tradition and sure as hell isn't anything close to how the Founders saw the wold.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I don't think Jonah is a radical individualist.

  • John||

    I don't think he is either. But he pretends to be one when it is convient and allows him to declare an opposing position morally invalid. That was the point of my snark about "but drugs are different". Jonah is all about radical individual liberty when it comes to freedoms he likes, namely buying cheap consumer goods and having access to cheap immigrant labor to mow his lawn and raise his kids, but then becomes all about the collective good when it is something he doesn't like.

  • Ray McKigney||

    Jonah has a head full of mush and writes like he's paid by the word.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    I think that's misleading. What would the Founders and Framers would have thought of occupational licensing, land zoning, and the enormous expansion of government into so much police power of the worst sort?

    I doubt they'd have allowed 99% of the current federal government, or 99% of current state and local governments. Take away just occupational licensing and land zoning, leaving intact all the idiotic regulations which serve no purpose but to expand government bureaucracies, and nowadays that alone would count as extreme radical individualism. Then try to talk about all those mindless regulations (a drainage ditch 50 miles from any river counting as navigable waters; land unsuitable for a frog counting as vital to that frog's existence; picking up an eagle feather and going to prison for 5 years) -- mention those and you're a neo-nazi.

  • John||

    What would the Founders and Framers would have thought of occupational licensing, land zoning, and the enormous expansion of government into so much police power of the worst sort?

    At the state and local level they would have either been agnostic or in some cases supportive. The Constitution is only one small part of the government system the Founders created. It reads like a Libertarian document because they didn't want a strong central government. That fact doesn't mean that they wanted the same constraints put on local governments.

    Beyond that, you miss the point. Objecting to licensing laws doens't make you a Libertarian.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    I don't know what point you think I missed, but I'll tell you what point you missed: You said "Radical indivual liberty is creation of the 20th Century." But that creation was only possible because government had expanded so much beyond what was considered acceptable at the founding. The founders would have had no truck for occupational licensing, land zoning, or the myriad of bureaucracies. For proof, 99% of government today (federal, state, and local) is in direct conflict with the indictment clauses of the Declaration of Independence.

    Anyone who thinks the founders could write and sign that document, while accepting all the government we have today, is illiterate.

  • John||

    Radical individualism was not a result of the expansion of government. Libertarianism has philosophical roots going back to the 19th Century.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    How hard are you trying to duck the fact that you got my point wrong? You said the founders were not radical individualists. I said they were when taken in modern context, that they complained about matters which pale in comparison to modern government, and you switch off on to some sidetrack.

    Go back and read the Declaration of Independence.

    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury
  • John||

    How many times are you going to make the same point before you understand it has nothing to do with my point. The founders were not libertarians and did not see individual freedom as the only legitimate end of government the way Libertarians do.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    You said they were not radical extremists. I say they were by today's standards, because government has grown far beyond anything they imagined. You say radical individualism is a creature of the 20th century and pretend the growth of government in unrelated.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I'm not so sure. The Puritans were busybodies to the nth degree. That's a big part of what drove the pioneers West. They couldn't stand their neighbors.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Tucker never gets anything right out libertarians.
    But then again, he's not paid to say anything that's right, just controversial.

  • Dadlobby||

    Kudos to Tucker, he is the only outlet speaking of the problems from government policies and laws towards families (Reason, Cato, and others never bother to answer my letters) which Libertarians (and classical liberals) should be speaking out about.

    I have been a men's/fathers/family rights advocate for over 25 years now. Tucker, while off on a few points, is hitting the nail on the head when it comes to family. Young men, faced with a hostile environment, are eschewing having children and marriage. It is so hostile the MGTOW movement has many avoiding women all together or sticking to casual relationships. Young women, told they can "have it all" are now complaining that there are "no marriageable men", especially as their biological clock ticks towards an end in their 30's. The 50% divorce rate (80% field by women) and the 85% to the mother child custody rate is combined with those "single mothers" choosing the nanny/daddy state over a spouse has 40% of children living absent their biological father. The assault on men, fathers, and families is mostly in the middle and lower income ranges.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Um, most women can still make babies until their 40's, although the risks to mother and child, especially for first timers, goes up quite a bit the older you get.

  • Tony||

    Who is assaulting men and why are men such pussies that they can't deal with it?

  • Dadlobby||

    The assault on families is through federal legislation, Title IVd of the SSA ), Denial of men's reproductive rights , and an overall denial of parental rights by the Federal and State Governments. Outlined at http://nymensactionnetwork.org

    When you deny a parent their rights you undermine all other rights, It is a despotic Federal Government which hopefully young men and women start to realize will destroy their most basic right.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Reproductive rights? The fuck is that?

  • ||

    "Does Tucker Carlson Get Anything Right About Libertarians?"

    Do libertarians?

  • Ecoli||

    What is with the Carlson bashing lately. It is everywhere in the commie media in the last month or so. I guess Reason doesn't want to get left behind.

  • Jerryskids||

    It's rare that a 15-minute cable news spiel gets talked about even one day later, let alone five, but here we are with Fox News host Tucker Carlson's headline-making monologue.....

    And that's what Tucker Carlson got right. He's not a deep thinker, he's an entertainer. It's his job to pull in the eyeballs and that's all he cares about. No different than Rush or Hannity or O'Reilly or even Trump - who knows if he even believes what he's saying?

  • John||

    he is not a deep thinker but he is more of a deep thinker than anyone working at reason. And as an entertainer, he gets a lot bigger audience.

  • librich||

    This is a swamp, but I'm not sure Reason is up to wading through it. Tucker is in over his waist, but his instincts may be a bit better. We have a massive cultural problem. Public policy contributes to it, but is not primarily responsible. Asking how public policy can or can't solve these problems is bass ackwards. Example: we live in an extremely violent culture. Violence, and power through violence, is "celebrated" by the media--film, TV, news, sports. Our militarism as a nation is clearly a reflection of this obsession, as is our sky-high incarceration rate. Imagining you can treat America's obsession with violence by passing a few gun laws is ridiculous. If it were only that simple.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Example: we live in an extremely violent culture.

    This was definitely true many years ago, but in reality, what we have today a couple of extremely violent subcultures within America, though we're not supposed to say what they are due to political correctness.

    I agree that there are massive amounts of violence depicted in our entertainment, but mainstream American culture today really isn't that violent at all. Almost all of the actual real-life violence is taking place in a handful of urban centers.

  • Eddy||

    I am sure there are plenty of people who worship money, just like the Good Book warned us about - and they're happy to worship money whether it was gained by libertarian methods or not.

    Strictly speaking, libertarianism - whether you agree with it or not - generally is not about moral goals of what to do with one's own money, but about what's the most moral and efficient thing to do with other people's money (eg, not steal it and let people enter into free agreements). Again, aside from some stunted Objectivists, you wouldn't find libertarians actually saying (qua libertarians) that the point of money is to get lots of it and roll around it like Scrooge McDuck or buy a pile of bejewelled monocles or whatever.

    A thief and/or socialist and/or corprate statist can worship money as much as any libertarian.

  • John||

    What is the point of economic policy, to create as much aggregate wealth as possible to the exclusion of all other goals such as stability, equality, opportunity, and security? A lot of conservatives and libertarians would say yes that it is. Carlson would say no it is not. The debate is not about the purpose in your life.

  • Eddy||

    Carlson had this to say:

    "But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it."

    So he's actually making a couple fairly flawed assumptions - first that the leaders of the Republican Party actually believe in a hard-core version of "market capitalism," and next, that believing in prioritizing economic growth over various market-curbing regulations is to worship the market.

    In fact, both assumptions are so far off that it's hard to know which one to focus on.

    But, yes, this is a debate over economic policy, and in such debates naturally the various groups like to accuse the other groups of being religious.

  • John||

    The assumptions are perfectly correct. Carlson and others point to the effects of free trade agreements on large areas of the country and on family formation and other aspects of society and the free traders' response is to point to economics and say "free market principles dictate this and if we don't do it we will be poorer". You only have to have one argument about the subject on this board to understand that is what happens. What Carlson is saying is that who says making us richer in the aggregate justifies any harm?

    The free trade advocates treat the "market" as a religion in the sense that they use its results to make opposing positions morally illegitimate and thus alievating the need to debate them. They act like because some misfortune or result was "the result of the market", people have no right to object to that result or demand a change in policy as if the judgement of the market carries some moral weight.

    You don't seem to fully understand what he is saying.

  • Eddy||

    That's certainly a lot more articulate than Carlson. If it's what he meant, then it's a more valid point than I thought.

  • Eddy||

    Yet the clear implication of his remark, literally interpreted, is that the Republican leaders "worship" the market across the board, which would mean they want to cut spending to the bone, stop giving favors to corporations they like, etc., etc., none of which is the case.

    So perhaps Carlson's words need a living interpretation.

  • John||

    That is what I think he is saying, but maybe I am giving him too much credit.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    A truly free market represents individuals' uncoerced expressions of will via their free transactions. To put constraints on the free market means, in part, constraining individual liberty. That is precisely why libertarianism and capitalism go so well together. Yes, putting restraints on individual liberty, that doesn't violate anyone's rights, is morally illegitimate.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    They act like because some misfortune or result was "the result of the market", people have no right to object to that result or demand a change in policy as if the judgement of the market carries some moral weight.

    You do realize that this argument can just as easily justify left-wing socialist regulations as it can right-wing nationalist regulations?

  • John||

    Sure it can. That doesn't make those arguments compelling but they cannot just be dismissed. Please stop talking about this subject. It is at a level beyond your capabilities and you have nothing to add.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "This points to a nagging and important question about free-market ideologues: Are they 'true believers', driven by ideology and faith that free markets will cure underdevelopment, as is often asserted, or do the ideas and theories frequently serve as an elaborate rationale to allow people to act on unfettered greed while still invoking an altruistic motive?"

    Who said it? Tucker Carlson? No, it was Naomi Klein. But it's not hard to see John defending that now.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    More like... Cucker Carlson... amirite?

  • John||

    Every one has a kink Paul. Don't judge.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    And some kinks are bigger than others, amirite?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Does Tucker Carlson Get Anything Right About Libertarians?


    You mean the guy who is making come-hither-looks to Fascism?

    Yeah, pretty much gets nothing right.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well Tucker's little rant, and John's stalwart defense of him, surely are illuminating to a certain extent: when they praise "Trump's deregulation agenda", they are praising less deregulation per se, and instead more stating their support of getting rid of Obama's regulations. But they are happy to regulate themselves, if it means "benefitting the family" or whatever that would entail.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    There's a reason we call John "Red Tony."

  • John||

    The reason is because you are a moron

  • John||

    Your total Inability to understand what is going on here and the arguments being made would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Please tell us some more about these regulations that you want to be placed on the free market.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Is religion a tool? Is the family unit a tool?

    Anyway, it's all pretty much traditional conservatism, just more along the communitarian side than individualist side.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The individualist flavor of modern conservatism is near dead. They are all communitarians now, of the nationalist variety.

  • Echospinner||

    Neither family nor religion are tools. They can be used as such and often have, but are a bulwark against collectivist politics.

    Both push against the nation state as the ultimate power.

    The state wants to control both. For some reason humans tend to see things differently, eventually.

    To see religion or family as a problem for individual rights is a mistake.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Actually, religion has historically been a way to enable authoritarianism, not guard against it.

  • Iation||

    If we can't rebut a 15-minute video in less than an hour, can we at least include a 15-minute summary somewhere?

  • esteve7||

    No

  • Nardz||

    Libertarians are apparently nothing if not devoutly dogmatic

  • Hank Phillips||

    Do these smart journalists actually expect honesty from the looter press?

  • Banake||

    The foundation of society is the individual, not the family, Tucker is an idiot.

  • vek||

    Maybe substitute "family" for "good results" of whatever kind... And he kind of has a point.

    The truth is NOBODY reaaaaally cares about the principles in and of themselves. They care about getting awesome results.

    Example: If communism had been proven to create societies that were several times wealthier, more prosperous, more equal, less poverty, and personally freer (assuming a "good" version of pure communism)... How many people would be in favor of capitalism?

    The REASON people like capitalism and freedom is because IT WORKS. It is THE best system in the real world. Period.

    So Tucker is fundamentally correct in a way. His logic is in fact why I DO NOT support certain things that are demanded by purist libertarian thinking... They just don't work well in the real world. Open borders can fuck right off.

    Now, in this instance Tucker is slightly wrong in his rant... But I think if you asked for details, he would in fact say what he has said before: Crony capitalism, and people benefiting from pull rather than ability, is where most of these problems come from. That IS libertarian.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online