Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
One of the reasons that American libertarians as a political movement never amount to anything is that they can be incredibly intolerant people. This may seem counterintuitive, but while a great many fiscal and social conservatives are willing to seek compromise in common purpose, libertarians are forever in search of hills to die on for their noble and incorruptible principles, particularly when it comes to locally grown produce or which is the best Von Mises book (Human Action you say? Poseur!). Libertarians form factions within factions, cliques within cliques, and the more libertine they are, the more oppressively dull.
Consider the response of some of the more urban libertarians to the Tea Party, which obviously contains many libertarian minded individuals. But survey data also indicates that much of the Tea Party is opposed to abortion and generally traditionalist in perspective on marriage – they are and were disaffected small-government conservatives, not just fiscal ones. Upon discovering this, some big city libertarians became strongly anti-Tea Party, including certain ones, like David Boaz of the Cato Institute, who took to lambasting Sarah Palin and other Tea Party figures as dull-witted country mice. Where’s the evangelism, folks? If churches took such attitudes toward theological questions, no religious body would exist beyond one or two people.
See this rant from Boaz for a measure of the fault lines between the vast majority of the right and the tiny minority of true libertarians. Boaz argues that conservatives are awful because they have a bad record on personal freedom. Allow me a bit of devil’s advocate: “Conservatives, like National Review, supported state-imposed racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s.” Does Boaz support the Civil Rights Act, which included government mandates over the behavior of private businesses regarding segregation? Forget whether that’s right or wrong: how exactly is that libertarian? “Conservatives opposed legal and social equality for women.” Does Boaz support the Equal Rights Amendment? Why not? Was Barry Goldwater wrong to oppose it? “Conservatives supported laws banning homosexual acts among consenting adults… Conservatives still oppose equal marriage rights for gay couples.” Is Boaz not a federalist? Does he disagree with Justice Thomas’s opinion on the matter that this is not an item for the federal purview? Does he believe in a living constitution? “Conservatives (and plenty of liberals) support the policy of drug prohibition, which results in nearly a million arrests a year for marijuana use.” Sure, but what about crack and heroin? And any libertarian who supports drug legalization prior to the end of the welfare state is not really thinking this through. Prior to that happening, isn’t legalization (as opposed to lighter sentencing) just an act of redistribution and subsidization? “Conservatives support state-imposed prayers and other endorsements of religion in public schools.” I’m not sure about that; I can’t recall the last “state-imposed” prayer law. They do support, however, I must admit, that short ecumenical (but Christian) prayer that is offered in the halls of the U.S. Capitol prior to every day of Congressional action. For Boaz, this is evidently a bridge too far toward the impurities of socialism. Get out of the tent, you blasted liberty haters! There is only room enough here for the truly pure of heart. The ideal libertarian political party, you see, is a party of one.
- Comment (60)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
So... libertarians want to shrink the tent and non-libertarian conservatives want to kick libertarians out of the tent?
This is what the good Lord invented alcohol for. Have a beer. Now you're in a beer tent. Isn't that better?
May '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
What I love about libertarians is how they like to pretend social conservatives are welcome in the Republican Party while libertarians are not.
It's not Libertarians versus All Other Conservatives. Libertarians are just one of several variations of conservatism.
None of us thinks the Republican Party as it is represents us very well. Don't leave it. Change it.
Nov '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Todd
The idea of extreme individualism is one small strain of libertarianism - the one advocated by Ayn rand.
"Power not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement." -- Murray Rothbard
Nonsense. Whatever the differences between the two, Rothbard's extreme individualism was why, as Charles Kesler pointed out, William F. Buckley
And as WFB elsewhere wrote, Rothbarians surely in mind: "If we cannot hold up the Bill of Rights over against the Communist Manifesto and declare the one a benchmark of civilization, the other of modern atavism, then learning is really of little use...."
May '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Guruforhire
Aaron Miller
We have always had a two-party system. If Libertarians want a President, they'll have to usurp Republicans' position astheparty of the Right.
But Congressional seats are always up for grabs.
Not entirely true. We have recent history in canada, and the demise of the whig party in america as examples. The republican party WAS a third party.
Which is my point. A third party must wrest control of one side or the other to become one of the dominant parties. More than two parties can participate in Congress. But the two dominant parties at any given time control the electoral college and, therefore, the Presidential election. The President only ever comes from one of the two dominant parties.
Am I wrong? I'm no historian. But there is definitely a difference between the American system and the systems of Canada or European governments.
Feb '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
First, we need to distinguish between Libertarians (members of the Libertarian Party) and small-'l' libertarians who work within the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is purely based on principle; however, it is a very small party that has no chance to win elections. Small-'l' libertarians can work within the Republican Party to influence and sometimes win elections. Rand Paul is very libertarian, but he would not have won his Senate seat if he ran on the Libertarian party ticket. His position in the Republican Party helps move it towards libertarianism.
William F Buckley, no libertine, declared the drug war a failure. The welfare state causes many problems on many fronts besides drugs, but it does not mean that no movement towards liberty can happen unless we end the welfare state and the post's author claims. There is a problem with the police state infrastructure we've built to fight drugs. We had a drug checkpoint in my city where they pulled over 23 cars for 'violations' yet only issued three tickets (not drug-related).
We should fight to dismantle governmental excess on all fronts. Incrementalism worked for the left, and it works for the right as well.
Jul '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
I have to admit that no one has ever asked me to leave any tents. However, I do get accused of "not accepting" something or the other - since I am a registered independent. I attend tea party rallies and often vote republican. But occasionally I will get accused of not committing because I don't have the party selected (by Republicans).
As for "libertarians" not being inclusive - I've got news - there is nowhere to sign up. Even Democrat shills like Bill Maher claim to be one...
Nov '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Is insisting that the individual is inviolably sovereign exalting him?
No.
Rather, insisting that the individual is not inviolably sovereign is debasing him.
However, neither the left-wing nor the right-wing wishes to relinquish the power to ensure that some individuals--the elect--can systematically violate the sovereignty of other individuals--the corrupt--for greater collective ends, whether they involve welfare or warfare.
Alas, no elite is moral or wise enough to be permitted to violate the sovereignty of individuals. The potential of power to corrupt and mislead exceeds the potential of freedom to do so.
This message is very unpopular. It is the death-knell of mainstream politics and popular democracy.
Libertarians never command mass appeal because they never offer, if elected, to implement grand visions at anyone else's expense or against anyone else's wishes. Such a platform of mere principle is thin gruel to voters used to being bribed with the opportunity to implement their preferred policies by picking others' pockets or tying others' hands.
And these daft libertarians won't compromise their principles! How politically naive is that? Don't they know that pragmatic give-and-take is the only way to get ahead?
Feb '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Also, Mr. Boaz's opinions prove that, contrary to popular opinion, Libertarians split their votes nearly equally between the Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, their candidates do not hurt the Republicans nearly as badly as the Green Party can be to the Democrats
Dec '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Aaron Miller
Guruforhire
Aaron Miller
We have always had a two-party system. If Libertarians want a President, they'll have to usurp Republicans' position astheparty of the Right.
But Congressional seats are always up for grabs.
Not entirely true. We have recent history in canada, and the demise of the whig party in america as examples. The republican party WAS a third party.
Which is my point. A third party must wrest control of one side or the other to become one of the dominant parties. More than two parties can participate in Congress. But the two dominant parties at any given time control the electoral college and, therefore, the Presidential election. The President only ever comes from one of the two dominant parties.
Am I wrong? I'm no historian. But there is definitely a difference between the American system and the systems of Canada or European governments. · 7 minutes ago
Our early elections had around 6 candidates, and we had some pretty decent diversity around the turn of the century.
The 2 party system is not so much governing as it is detente with one side winning.
Edited on June 16, 2012 at 12:06amMay '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
So... libertarians want to shrink the tent and non-libertarian conservatives want to kick libertarians out of the tent?
This is what the good Lord invented alcohol for. Have a beer. Now you're in a beer tent. Isn't that better?
That's kind of what I was asking.
So I'll see you in the beer tent, I guess.
Nov '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Mr. Bildo
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
So... libertarians want to shrink the tent and non-libertarian conservatives want to kick libertarians out of the tent?
This is what the good Lord invented alcohol for. Have a beer. Now you're in a beer tent. Isn't that better?
That's kind of what I was asking.
So I'll see you in the beer tent, I guess. · 3 minutes ago
I'll bring the keg.
Aug '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Golly, now I feel all lazy for not searching far and wide for hills to die on. And like a reprobate for not particularly wanting to die on any one hill. Must not be a libertarian, then. Except most libertarian thinkers I read are economists, and accept trade-offs as a fact of life.
What I'd like to know is: how can libertarians be "stoned all the time" and perpetually irritable?
May '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
I tossed Boaz and Cato out of my intellectual support box when I heard Boaz on the Dennis Miller Show accusing Bush of blowi9ng up the World Trade Center as an excuse to launch the Afghan and Iraq wars for the benefit of Halliburton. Pat Michaels is about the only same one left there. Here is hoping for success of David Koch's lawsuit.
Dec '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Being a Libertarian means never having to say, "You're right."
Oct '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Robert Lux
Nonsense. Whatever the differences between the two, Rothbard's extreme individualism was why, as Charles Kesler pointed out, William F. Buckley
And as WFB elsewhere wrote, Rothbarians surely in mind: "If we cannot hold up the Bill of Rights over against the Communist Manifesto and declare the one a benchmark of civilization, the other of modern atavism, then learning is really of little use...." · 3 hours ago
Nonsense? Again, Rothbard was not an individualist.
Here is the difference between a Rand disciple and a libertarian in the Rothbard tradition. If a group of people wanted to live in a commune - the Rand cultist would scorn them. The Rothbardian on the other hand, would be concerned with only one thing - that the state didn't get in their way.
The WFB quote you cite is about a completely different issue... Rothbard's demented views on the cold war.
Oct '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Barkha Herman
I have to admit - I am skeptical of any group that has the conventional wisdom that they should be "nice" to someone to keep their followers. I would like to learn more about this. Where is this conventional wisdom acquired / documented / preached? · 4 hours ago
Well, it's the reason why Paul was on the stage during the debates even though he didn't deserve to be. It's what people would say when discussing Paul's momentum at particular times when he was getting attention.
Apr '11
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers would be a great name for a band.
Jan '12
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
It's a very sad day when the notion of liberty becomes a rallying point for factional contention, but nobody who has read Hegel could be surprised.
That said, anybody who has been too lazy not to have immersed himself in Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk or Carl Menger simply has NO understanding of the economics of marginal utility, the ONLY conception of HUMAN ACTION worthy of the name Libertarian! There, ipse dixit!
And may Ludwig haunt all heretics to von Mises!
C'mon, MFR, you must have your Constitution of Liberty down pat. The party is waiting for your solemn address! von Hayek is watching from that very celestial haven of free souls (or maybe from Galt's Gulch, who knows?) where Barbara winks at Nathaniel's indiscretions.
Edited on June 18, 2012 at 6:54amNov '10
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Todd
Robert Lux
Nonsense. Whatever the differences between the two, Rothbard's extreme individualism was why, as Charles Kesler pointed out, William F. Buckley
And as WFB elsewhere wrote, Rothbarians surely in mind: "If we cannot hold up the Bill of Rights over against the Communist Manifesto and declare the one a benchmark of civilization, the other of modern atavism, then learning is really of little use...." · 3 hours ago
The WFB quote you cite is about a completely different issue... Rothbard's demented views on the cold war. · 2 hours ago
No, you miss the point. It's related to his anarchism -- i.e., radical individuality.
Jan '12
Re: Libertarian Tent-Shrinkers
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
So... libertarians want to shrink the tent and non-libertarian conservatives want to kick libertarians out of the tent?
This is what the good Lord invented alcohol for. Have a beer. Now you're in a beer tent. Isn't that better? · 6 hours ago
It's Friday, a beer for the bear!
No, no, I'll take a Moylans.
You don't know Novato IPAX?
Sigh, you just don't know-know Marin.
Un-, unwissenshaftlich as a black cow
in the night, night.
...
No, no, thou art sadly unTamal-pious.
Edited on June 16, 2012 at 5:48am