The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Sometimes Contrarian. Often Libertarian. Always Independent."
Some of us are libertarian, some conservative, some moderate, many a mix -- but all are independent of Reason's editorial line (such as it is) or of any dictates from me or from each other. Expect many departures from libertarian orthodoxies.
People sometimes berate us for departures from self-professed libertarianism -- not just that we're not being libertarian, but more, "How can you call yourselves libertarian if you say [X]?" That happened when we were at the Washington Post, and I'm seeing it in the comments here as well.
I thought it might be helpful to repeat in a separate post what our blog subtitle (and the title of this post) says: Don't expect solid or even near-solid libertarianism from us. Some of us are pretty hardcore libertarians. Some are more conservatives. Some are moderates. Most of us are a mix. Our blog subtitle says "Often libertarian," and that's true. But "often" was deliberately chosen to also flag "not always" (and not even almost always).
If you call me anything, you might call me a libertarianish conservative, but even that isn't really that helpful. I think human affairs are complicated things -- as my father likes to quote, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." We all come at this with some general principles, but, to offer another quote, "General propositions do not decide concrete cases," in part because there are so many things we want at once and so many opportunities for good general principles to conflict.
For instance, I want liberty (often including privacy) and security; indeed, security is often another term from liberty from private misconduct (or liberty from foreign governments). These aren't always consistent, but I can't tell you that one should always trump the others. (That's why the Fourth Amendment, for instance, bans unreasonable searches and seizures rather than banning all searches and seizures; that's why the Constitution tries to create a limited government, but does create a government.) My guess is that many of my cobloggers take the same view.
Now maybe I'm not libertarian enough, or maybe I'm too libertarian, or maybe I'm one of these in some situations and another in others. Perfectly possible, indeed very likely. But measure me, and the blog, against what you think is right, not against our supposed (but never actually offered) assurances of libertarianism.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"even that isn't really that helpful."
Yet the "often libertarian" claim remains.
This would be helpful:
Which part of a Ted Cruz endorsement is libertarian, or "libertarianish," or "often libertarian," or anything other than movement conservatism in all of its prudish, backward authoritarianism?
TROLLLLLLLLL
"But "often" was deliberately chosen to also flag "not always" (and not even almost always)."
Seem so like there's certainly room for a Ted Cruise endorsement in "not always", certainly room in "not even almost always"
Moreover, you'll see that most of the conspirators tend to limit their policy opinions to areas where they have some expertise or qualification to speak, something that the rest of the political comentariate would do well to learn from. So you'll find Eugene to typically be outstandingly libertarian-ish and vocal principally when it comes to issues of 1st or 2nd amendment, etc.
And once again you demonstrate that nothing you have ever said in any VC comment thread has demonstrated your self-proclaimed love of reason/rationality.
Well my litmus test in the primaries was any candidate from either party that stood up against ethanol subsidies for corn farmers in Iowa. Ted Cruz passed that test.
And he ended up winning Iowa. That was a big win for libertarians because it showed that the candidate that promises the biggest payout, either via government spending, mandates on the private sector or private individuals, or even tax cuts, isn't necessarily going to get the most votes.
That settles it! Ted Cruz is a libertarian. Just like Prof. Volokh and his Conspiracy.
Stick around, and the Conspiracy will treat you to explanations of how government gay-bashing, government micromanagement of abortion facilities, pre-emptive invasions (of the wrong country), expanded government surveillance and secrecy, government-conducted torture, incessant whittling of the Fourth Amendment, endless detention without trial, the drug war, school prayer, and massive military spending are -- if only we were to view them properly, with the benefit of originalism and free of the warping influences of our strong mainstream universities and public schools -- actually libertarian positions, or are at least congruent with libertarianism.
"Don't expect solid or even near-solid libertarianism'
Can anyone even define what "solid libertarianism" is? Does it mean I need to adopt kooky and debunked ideas like Ron Paul? Maybe I need to adopt heterodox economics like Austrian school internet trolls? Or maybe "solid libertarianism" just means classical liberalism.
I am not sure. I am pretty sure some people think "libertarian" boils down to one issue: pro-pot legalization, like Gary Johnson. Or maybe it is defined by what it isn't: not-Clinton-not-Trump, like Bill Weld
Over time I have decided "libertarianism" is like pornography, it means something peculiar to each person. Everyone likes it, but each person sees something different.
Well, there really is a huge range. It goes from Sasha Volokh, who thinks it would be wrong to impose a tax to prevent the world from being imminently destroyed by a meteor to David Post who is a standard issue Democrat to Stewart Baker who is a government power worshiping conservative.
Is it tribal to deny libertarianism tribalism?
When our tiny 7-8% of the population has more "strains" than the major tribes?
What's the difference between a movement and a cult?
And can they be mutually exclusive?
Why is libertarianISM (the ideology) rejected by 91% of libertarians (the values), per Cato?
Is it possible to be authoritarian WITHOUT advocating force? Say, intolerant?
Ideologues generally do not get elected. Sometimes they do, but usually they do not.
Libertarians who want to get elected generally have to follow the Buckley rule: the most Libertarian candidate who can actually get elected.
My view is most of the country is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Reasonable people can disagree on the edges, for example whether we need regulations over pollution, or regulations to maintain sustainability of Fisheries.
Two of my favorite "Libertarians" are Ted Cruz and Alan Dershowitz. The point being, libertarianism is really a spectrum, unless you're an ideologue. But ideology is religion by another name.
People need to remember that in the USA we take our rights seriously and we can do things and post things on the internet do you can't do in Europe or the UK.
'Can anyone even define what "solid libertarianism" is? '
Solid isn't so clear, but ideologically pure is more what I think is intended here.
There is a calculator which will report the ideologically pure Libertarian answer.
Some enter the question, report the answer, done. No need to think, no need to see if the answer makes any sense. For some, no need to even check if the premises are accurate. Calculator say no government involvement, then no government involvement is the answer.
The calculator occasionally emits utter nonsense, and those who don't recognize that are doomed to look as tied to ideology as any Marxist out there.
Thanks for the reminder, though I'm guessing that those who previously questioned your unoffered libertarian bona fides will continue to question them.
A different question: Why do so many doctrinaire progressives/statists insist on identifying as libertarian and then go around questioning the libertarian bona fides of others though always from a progressive/statist perspective? And usually do so in such an acerbic, ad hominem fashion as to poison forums such as this?
I want liberty (often including privacy) and security; indeed, security is often another term from liberty from private misconduct (or liberty from foreign governments).
I don't think you need to be at all abashed about this security angle. Liberty and anarchy are not the same thing.
Liberty entails enforceable rights. Or strictly it entails enforceable duties on everyone else not to interfere with you (unless you consent.) The enforcement of your liberty against transgressors is fundamental to the whole idea of liberty.
Obviously that creates all sorts of practical and definitional questions - where your nose begins, where my fist ends, when enforcement should be left to the individual (and friends) and when not. And so on. And on. But liberty without its enforcement is anarchy. So some security is not merely compatible with liberty but necessary to it. Though security taken beyond what is necessary to protect liberty ceases to be liberty and becomes tyranny. The devil is in the details.
Volokh increases the viewpoint diversity among Reason authors by about 300%.
Of course if you include commenters in the ranks of authors the increase is a bit less.
I fully support viewpoint diversity.
Some things I'm more libertarian about (e.g. free trade, opener borders), other things I'm conservative on (e.g. every citizen should be fingerprinted into a fully integrated database, just like India), and other things I'm liberal (e.g. progressive taxes... how about a wealth tax on the stock market casino?)
The underlying objective of these viewpoints is to minimize suffering.
Good job. Nothing is less valuable then arguing from a point of purity rather than arguing from a point of right or wrong.
One's agreement with some group should be treated as some mere statistical coincidence. It says nothing about any given argument.
Welcome to Reason!
How can you be libertarian and believe X is a valid question/argument.
It does not preclude answers such as "I am not libertarian with respect to X because ..."
Or "I beleive X is consistent with Libertarianism because ....."
A common attribute of libertarians is the relentless demand for intellectual and logical consistency.
It is difficult for us to understand how others can tolerate inconsistency.
Regardless, no matter how you answer the question we are more enlightened.
Then we agree that Ron Paul is the polar opposite of a libertarian -- and a phonty conservative regarding the Constitution and/or individual liberty.
Thanks for the post @EugeneVolokh. As public intellectuals (as opposed to partisans) the point is to bring our best game with intellectual honesty and integrity. If we're honest, and have integrity, political labels are not important. I value that about your writing.
So, is this Hihn dude a regular here at Reason? I notice that he's single handedly responsible for at least half the comments on this thread, and 90% of the capital letters.
You have to give Hihn credit for his boldness.
Yeah. That's the kind of libertarian I can relate to.
Sounds like something libertarians would be happy with. Each person gets to free chose who they wish to associate with.
are you ever sane? Is there a day where you take your meds once in a blue moon?
No, Ted Cruz has not destroyed the GOP as Goldwater predicted, you loon
Typical right-wing bully.
Enhanced with self-righteous denial.
PROVES the destruction!
Unwittingly.
Libertarians, on the other hand, reject aggression and bullying.
(This comment in self-defense from aggression)
P.S. it was Cruz who tried to shut down the entire federal government .. as a threat to defund Obamacare .. with NO ALTERNATIVE. This is the useless and destructive anti-government mentality. And shamelessly authoritarian. Liberty lovers have long promoted why (and how) we should (and can) restore free markets. It requires a tad more effort than screeching anti-gubmint slogans and soundbites.
Like our founders did, REAL libertarian/conservatives that they were. Goldwater was indeed correct to despise and ridicule the "Moral Majority" -- in the 70s and early 80s -- as did Reagan -- both defending homosexuals three decades before Clinton shamefully signed DOMA and DADT from the Christian Taliban (a minority of even the Christian Right) .... and four decades before Obama "evolved."
Evidence.
How can something be anti-government and authoritarian at the same time?
" as a threat to defund Obamacare .. with NO ALTERNATIVE. "
I don't understand the complaint here. If you want rid of Obamacare, why would you have to provide an ALTERNATIVE? There wasn't any Obamacare just a few years earlier, why is it so damning to try to return to the status quo ante?
Granted there are clear improvements available over that prior state, from a libertarian perspective. But that state is still an improvement over Obamacare.
"Thus, no rights can possibly be absolute."
This fails to understand the positive/negative right distinction.
"Positive" rights, rights that somebody affirmatively do something for someone, indeed conflict with each other, and so cannot be absolute.
But negative rights, rights that other people simply not get in your way of doing something, simply leave you alone, are not similarly limited. You can leave any number of people alone at the same time, without so much as lifting a finger.
That's why Libertarians dismiss positive 'rights', and will only acknowledge the existence of negative rights. Positive rights are the moral calculus equivalent of division by zero, rendering any moral theory which acknowledges them internally self-contradictory.
Oh, and the 9th amendment merely prohibits denying or disparaging unenumerated rights on the basis that they are not enumerated, leaving everyone, in or out of government free to deny or disparage them on any other basis.
I'm not so sure; If Johnson is a libertarian, then I don't know what it means anymore.
All we've proven here is that you don't know what a "status quo ANTE" is. The prior status quo.
And lots of bullshit.
Helping to found a college chapter of the LP back in the 70's, and at least 20 years pounding the pavement for Libertarian candidates, suggests I might have an idea.
What kind Libertarian supports forcing bakers to bake SSM cakes? Be in favor of most drug laws?
Merriam Webster: "the state of affairs that existed previously"
The Cambridge Dictionary: "the situation that existed before"
The Law Dictionary: "A previous or last contested state before the current state."
The Collins Dictionary: "the state of affairs existing prior to a given event"
But, you knew all that already.
"I'm ashamed to see so-called libertarians support special legal treatment for ONLY certain Christians, a violation of equal rights, especially in a nation founded on Separation."
I'd enforce the 13th amendment in all cases whatsoever. Unlike Gary Johnson.
"In a nationally-televised debate among three of the Libertarian candidates for President (A debate that should, by the way, have been more inclusive of all the candidates.), a highly unlikely hypothetical question was raised about whether a Jewish baker has the right to refuse to serve a Nazi sympathizer asking for a "Nazi cake". I responded to that question in the legal context of whether a public business has the right to refuse to serve a member of the public, as distasteful as it might be.
The simple answer to that question is, whether all like it or not, U.S. law has recognized the principle of public accommodation for more than 100 years: The principle that, when a business opens its doors to the public, that business enters into an implied contract to serve ALL of the public. Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations -- whether they like those laws or not.
To be clear, anti-discrimination laws do not, and cannot, abridge fundamental First Amendment rights. I know of no one who reasonably disagrees. In the highly unlikely event that a Nazi would demand that a Jewish baker decorate a cake with a Nazi symbol, the courts, common sense, and common decency -- not to mention the First Amendment -- all combine to protect that baker from having to do so. It's not an issue, except when distorted for purposes of gotcha politics.
Does a public bakery have to sell a cake to a Nazi? Probably so. Does that bakery have to draw a swastika on it? Absolutely not. And that's the way it should be."
"And that's the way it should be." IOW, that's not just the law, that's what the law should be.
Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a bitch again. #HihnsanoSoFragile
Wonderful! I've frequently been called a "troll" by lefties who simply don't like anybody who disagrees with them and actually dares to present arguments. But this might be the first time I've actually encountered the real deal, in it's natural habitat.
Yes, the stock market allows anyone to enjoy the benefit of ownership. As you point out, pensions (now rare) and 401k's enable the upper-middle class to benefit financially. However, the lower and middleclass, are largely left out. According to this WaPo article, 80% of the market value is owned by the top 10% And most jobs do not have pensions, many do not even have 401k's. In actuality, the market results in "winner takes all" outcomes. A 1% tax on a market that has gained 15%, while a tremendous absolute sum, is small on a relative basis. And really, why does it make sense to tax active income more than passive income? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
In terms of the stock markets social function, we are told it allows companies to raise capitol. While this is quite true for small and medium size business, it is fiction for large enterprises (the S&P 500). These large corporations are doing the reverse of raising capitol. They are returning large sums through massive stock repurchase programs. Management is essentially using the stock repurchases to pay themselves, since they are compensated by stock options. Management should instead be doing there job of finding profitable ways to reinvest the capitol.
Some call it "evasion", some call it "having a life". But I'm feeling good now, the scrapple I was making last night while you raged at your keyboard having turned out good, so I'll venture an answer.
I would not compel anyone, anyone whosoever, in the private sector, to labor involuntarily for anyone else, utterly regardless of their motive for refusing.
In the private sector, of course, because the 14th amendment expressly applies to the state, not the individual.
I wouldn't compel Christians to labor for 'gays', I wouldn't compel Muslims to labor for Jews, I wouldn't compel atheists to labor for religionists, I wouldn't compel misanthropes to labor for human beings. I wouldn't compel labor. Period.
How is not compelling labor a "use of government force", legitimate or otherwise? It was the customer in the Masterpiece case, not the baker, who was invoking government violence.
LOL! You're funny, but I'm guessing the entertainment factor runs out quickly.
Status quo ante, Latin for "the way things were before"
I am sure I could find dictionary definitions for the separate words of the phrase that are not the meaning of the phrase itself, but that would be silly.
I refuse to do what I've actually repeatedly done? Including a direct quote from him?
"Further, when that business voluntarily opens its doors, the owners voluntarily agree to adhere to applicable laws and regulations -- whether they like those laws or not."
What libertarian would describe being bound by laws and regulations as voluntary? As though running a business were some sort of privilege the government was entitled to subject to any condition it pleases? And that, by doing what you have a RIGHT to do, you 'voluntarily' subject yourself to any conditions it pleases the government to place on the exercise of that right?
You might as well suggest that by walking through an alleyway, I volunteered to hand my wallet over to a mugger.
Further, on drugs, Johnson favored legalization of marijuana, and that's great, but, "we are not espousing the legalization of any drugs outside of marijuana."
That seems pretty clear: He opposed legalization beyond pot.
My advice, Hihn, it that you kick the meth habit, breath into a paper bag, or whatever is necessary to calmly evaluate what people say, instead of exploding like this.
Why would I "ignore" what I've already explicitly rejected? I said that I wouldn't compel labor by anybody, regardless of the reason they wanted to refuse it. How is that according special rights to Christians?
IMO, religion should have no special rights, because we should all have such liberty that absolutely anything it would make sense to permit somebody to do for a religious reason, you'd already be entitled to do for any reason whatsoever.
You don't need to exempt sacramental wine from Prohibition if you don't have Prohibition, or peyote from the war on drugs, (Just Prohibition MK2, stupider because we already knew it was a mistake.) if you're not waging a war on drugs.
You don't need to exempt Hobby Lobby or the Sisters of Peace from a contraceptive mandate, if you don't have a contraceptive mandate.
A FREE society doesn't need religious exemptions. Our society deploys them because it's not free, and has to make exceptions from the general lack of liberty for people who are sufficiently motivated to cause trouble if you oppress them. That's the only reason religion gets exemptions, granted by people whose only religion is the State: Because religion is one of the few things that motivates enough people strongly enough that they're willing to cause the State trouble if not given a pass on regulations nobody should have been subject to in the first place.
Dumbfuck Hihnsano babbling while his Depends fill up.
Give us some screechings, Hihnny-poo.
(Boldface because he's a prissy little bitch)
"HOW MANY COMMENTS TO "DEFEND" A SINGLE FUCKUP?"
I don't know, do you ever stop?