What's the Matter with Libertarians?
Given that the modern Republican party seems determined to impose its notions of morality on everyone else (Terry Schiavo, abortion, gay marriage) and to undermine our most basic civil liberties (Jose Padilla, warrantless wiretapping, torture), many have asked a logical question: why on earth do self-proclaimed "libertarians" continue to vote in large numbers for the Republican party?
Well, I'll let McQ of the libertarian blog QandO explain:
If I had the time tonight, I'd expand upon all of these points, but unfortunately I don't. So instead I'll just leave this as a sort of open thread to discuss any of the issues raised above. I'm curious what you think.
UPDATE: McQ responds.
Well, I'll let McQ of the libertarian blog QandO explain:
There is nothing "new" or "libertarian-flavored" about a breed of Democrats which still advocates safety-net welfare programs and public funding of education and health care or sees corporations as the enemy instead of engines of commerce. And, of course only a Democrat can see a corporation, and not the government, as a potential threat to individual liberties. And all of this talk about them struggling to find a coherent philosophy, is a smoke-screen. What they're trying to do is find a more appealing way to present the same old nonsense of big government welfarism to a voting faction which rejects it outright.Here's the comment I left in response to McQ's post:
What I always find is missing from this debate is the understanding that American politics is THE most economically libertarian in the world. We need some perspective, people. Both the Republican and Democratic parties in this country are WAY more libertarian than any major political party in any other first world country. We have much lower taxes than the rest of the world, much less regulation, and far fewer government programs. So let’s keep that in mind.
Second, though I realize that most people who self-identify as libertarians in this country tend to be driven more by economic libertarianism than social/civil libertarianism (if they weren’t, they would all have been voting Democratic a long time ago), isn’t it time to rethink those priorities, especially in light of the point I made above? After all, which is a bigger threat to liberty, a slightly higher marginal tax rate on the top 2% or a law giving the president the authority to detain whomever his pleases without charges?
And why are American libertarians so oblivious to the enhanced personal and economic freedom that comes with universal healthcare? People in other countries who want to quit their job and follow their dream or go into business for themselves don’t have to worry about what will happen if they get sick. Many Americans are stuck in dead-end jobs or scared of going out on their own because they have some sort of medical condition or because they won’t be able to provide health insurance to their family. That’s a HUGE problem and a huge obstacle to meaningful personal and economic liberty. People always talk about preserving choice, but I’d much rather have the choice to do what I want for a living than the choice of which crappy HMO to join (and let’s be honest, most people don’t even have that choice).
If I had the time tonight, I'd expand upon all of these points, but unfortunately I don't. So instead I'll just leave this as a sort of open thread to discuss any of the issues raised above. I'm curious what you think.
UPDATE: McQ responds.
35 Comments:
It's not like the Republicans are particularly libertarian, either. Even during most of my libertarian period, I could see that.
Given the choice between spending a billion bucks subsidizing big oil and subsidizing (ostensibly harmful) health care, I found it hard to choose the former.
It's not really all that complicated.
Libertarian don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves.
"Libertarians" just want the government to legally sanction what they coerced or stole so that others can't have an equal opportunity at those limited resources.
Nothin' really surprising that they vote repug, is it?
I always have to laugh at the "silicon-valley" style of "libertarians". Computer technology was largely developed at public expense by the federal government, primarily the military and space programs. The technology was given to a select few to exploit economically or only certain folks had access to the speciality skills/knowledge base to expliot that technology.
Most of these folks preach a political philosophy that they should be enabled to belly-up to the public trough, gorge themselves, and it is unfair for anyone else to get into the "club" because its all about their personal "freedom."
Its all about their personal "freedom" as long as someone else pays for it!
Libertarians are a strange breed. Most of them don't seem all that concerned that Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was literally deprived of his liberty for years without any charges or any access to an attorney. Maybe if the government has seized Padilla's property or raised his taxes, they'd be concerned.
"Libertarians" are really just republicans that are not comfortable admitting to be supporters of the GOP culture of corruption. They understand the hypocracy and doubletalk. They don't think that they get their share of the loot.
Instead of calling themselves "republicans," they proclaim themselves to be "libertarians" and then consistently vote GOP anyhow. Its really just another sham, but it makes them feel kewl and gives them an excuse not to give money to GOP.
Libertarians are a one of the many -isms and -ians that I put under the umbrella of "ideologue". NOT the same thing as idealISTS, Ideologues adhere mindlessly and fanatically to a single idea. Usually that single idea or ideal is in complete disregard on how it manifests in the real world, or how self-contradictory its implementation. Libertarians are perfect examples - their philosophy makes a great sound bite among young idealists but is crap in real life. I'd also include religious fundamentalists, free-trade fanatics, no-tax weirdos. You find some on the Left (e.g., those Socialist Workers people handing out their newspapers on the street), but they seem more drawn to the Right with it's willingness to use government to force people to behave in a certain way. Which is odd considering they also want government OUT of the picture. That's just part of the weird irrationality of the ideologue.
I think this habit of not seeing ideologues for the phenomenon they are is a real problem in society. We play wack-a-mole with each branch independently: the scientists fight the fundamentalists, the pro-choice people fight the right-to-lifers, democrats fight the right-wingers and so on. There is some cross-over on both sides, but what we don't do is see that ideologue-ism is the real problem and address it directly.
the QandO site seems to be just a bunch of military loving, gun loving young techies, whose preference for Republicans is just a an 'common interests' thing, not really liberarian. Note the 'neo' part of their title: God and Country, the supremacy of US interests, et al.
They don't really bother with questions of how one tenet is related to another. They just have these core beliefs. Perios
while not a fan of libertarianism, I find comments of the form "libertarians are/believe/etc X" just as meaningless as the analogous ones for dems/libs. eg, at the reatively new libertarian blog inactivist.org, mona - a "devout" libertarian - writes posts that will match or exceed any found here for vitriol in condemning the current R party. many posters there are very thoughtful and measured, though more ideological than I care for.
IMO, commenter "sic" correctly identifies ideology-driven authortitarianism - whether left or right, religious or secular, etc - as the umbrella over various threats to freedom. "dogma corrupts and absolute dogma etc."
slc, respectfully - have to totally reject your analysis of "Ideologues" because, in the end, libertarians are just republicans that are afraid to admit it.
A basic principle of market research is to NEVER accept people's descriptions of their behavior - we present ourselves based on what we think people want to hear, not on what we actually do.
IMHO, and maybe I am missing a nuance of your analsys, slc, what we are seeing is people rationalizin their behavior by consistently voting REPUG while identifying themselves as something else.
I admit my "analysis" is a little off-the-cuff, and hard to convert into any useful action. But I'm not sure about Libertarians as Republicans-in-Disguise. For instance, on a street corner near my house the Libertarians often set up a booth and hand out flyers. Their biggest boogey-man? Dick Cheney. I don't get it quite - after all, to me Libertarians really do seem to be more Republican than anything else, but there you have it.
But I'm not sure about Libertarians as Republicans-in-Disguise. For instance, on a street corner near my house the Libertarians often set up a booth and hand out flyers. Their biggest boogey-man? Dick Cheney.
I think what's confusing here is that we're talking about two different groups of people. There are people, a very small percentage, who are card-carrying members of the Libertarian party. Let's call them Liberterians with a capital "L". This group has some idiosyncratic views and is not a significant voting block. Then there are the libertarians with a small "l", i.e., the 10% or so of people who consider themselves libertarian-minded but tend, at least traditionally, to vote for the Republican party. It's this latter group that I'm referring to.
"[I] have to totally reject your analysis of "Ideologues" because, in the end, libertarians are just republicans that are afraid to admit it."
I think you aren't appreciating the concept of "ideology" that appears (to me, anyway) to be behind slc's analysis, viz, being driven by a dogmatic "policy template" rather than by broad principles. an ideology-driven R may adopt the label "libertarian" (eg, to add intellectual heft to their position), and an ideology-driven libertarian may find R policies to better match their dogma than do D policies. in either case, the person will vote consistently R owing to being ideology-driven. I assume they're the kind of closet-Rs your comment addresses.
but a true libertarian ideally thinks in terms of broad principles rather than narrow policies and is flexible enough to go with the (electable) party whose policies, weighted for relative importance, better comports with those priciples (or as a libertarian might argue, against the party that's worse). as AL notes, traditionally (l)ibertarians have voted R, but if they're not actually closet-Rs, they won't necessarily.
and believe it or not, there appear to be a number of such people out there. maybe not a lot, but enough to suggest care about "all libertarians are X" type generalizations.
-charles
Sorry, as soon as you said, "but a true libertarian ideally thinks in terms of broad principles rather than narrow policies and is flexible enough to go with the (electable) party whose policies, weighted for relative importance" you lost me.
And who are we to decide what a "true" whatever "ideally" thinks.....
Judge people by their actions, not what they say - most of what comes out of people's mouth is BS, and often we don't even realize it ourselfs.
We can parse the definition of a "libertarian" all day (always using our own biases) and talk about whether there are significant factions and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
In our 2 party system - IT DOES NOT MATTER!
They either (1). stay home (and then truly don't matter) (2). vote for a "libertarian" candidate (see results from #1). (3). vote democratic - LOL!!!! Not very often, get real. (4). Vote republican but pretend they are holier-than-thou because they are "libertarian."
Because the vast majority of self-proclaimed libertarians consistently vote republican - defining them as some group with "ideals" is just mental masterbation.
Again - judge people based on what they DO and not why they tell you they did it.
James Madison said:
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.
Libertarianism, as evidenced by its name, privileges liberty over justice. If that's what you want, then so be it. Those of us who privilege justice over liberty, or at least see them as necessarily entangled with one another, must reject Libertarianism as strongly as we do the rest of the GOP.
And, thank you for pointing to the most important issue: health care. It is a national embarrassment and a moral failure that we do not have a national health care system. I believe Madison's statement shows that he would have been in agreement with this today.
Your commie, tax-raising, welfare-stating, terrorism supporting reader,
JLB
I think the source of the cognitive dissonance is that you can't lump all libertarians into one group (as someone said above about Dems and GOP'ers).
The best way to categorize liberatarians is into four groups: those that have any concept of human nature, and those who don't, and, on the other axis, those who are rational, and those who are not.
Unfortunately, this split leaves nobody in one-fourth of the space: rational libertarians who have any concept of human nature is an empty set. So what you've got left are those who may be rational but have no concept of human nature (like most of those at Reason Magazine -- for whom I have great respect but who will never wield political power), those who are irrational but have a concept of human nature (take a look at Cato Institute's publications for a clue as to who these are) and those who are irrational *and* have no concept of human nature, which consituted the bulk of the "libertarians" out there.
Expecting those who are both irrational and have no concept of human nature to behave either rationally or in a politically sensible fashion is a waste of time. They voted Republican recently. They'll likely vote Democrat in this election, but don't count on it.
What's the matter with Libertarians?
Go to the Libertarian website:
What is a Libertarian?
Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.
BOILER PLATE
To me, a Libertarian philosophy is very enlightened, until it confronts reality.
Example:
Libertarians oppose zoning, because it restricts a property owners rights.
Pro zoning:
It allows people to purchase property with the expectation that they will not be overwhelmed by other property owners.
Examples:
1.
Your suburban neighbor wants to start a nightclub on his legally owned property. Unwanted traffic, pedestrian and vehicles.
2.
Your urban neighbor wants to delve into the science of genetic cloning. Something leaks.
3.
Your suburban neighbor converts his house into a McDonalds...fast food traffic.
Zoning to me is the compromise that we all make to live in a 'relatively organized society'. No, it's not perfect, but just like Democracy, it's the worst form of govt except all the rest.
Yeah right - libertarians belong in 4 groups:
1. Those that support republicans exclusively.
2. Those that actually vote republican, but tell you that they are "libertarians."
3. Those that don't actually vote at all, but tell you how great it would be if they did vote.
4. Those that vote republican but try to make themselves sound more rational by saying that they actually value "liberty" and "free markets."
Oh - notice that NONE of these libertarians support access to healthcare for all - see, they believe we all have to have "liberty" to be uninsured and be shut out of the current healthcare system.
On the positive side - it does look like AL has upgraded the reading materials in his bathroom - thanks!
Anonymous:
Your scatological comments are embarrassing -- mainly to yourself. I suppose this is why you remain "anonymous."
Best,
JLB
AL:
The link doesn't go to QandO, not that that's much of a loss.
In a later post than the one you commented on, McQ writes, "... the radical (material) egalitarianism that most Democrats support...." and, specifically in response to your bigger threat, "It isn’t matter of which is worse, it’s a matter that both comprise threats to our liberty. AL is of the opinion, apparently, that one is acceptable simply because it may not be as big a threat (yet) as the other."
If these quotes are a fair sample of McQ's reading comprehension and general thinking skills, then I for one am not impressed.
My opinion of libertarians of any stripe is that they have forgotten that it takes two to tango, but any jerk can cause trouble all by himself.
JBL - you are so important when you hide behind your initials - I am sure it makes you feel like a VERY important little person. To those of us that actually understand these issues, your petty ravings mean little to nothing and show your ignorance.
Keep comin' back; I am sure you mommy is just happy to get you off the porn sites for a while.
That's J-L-B.
Thanks,
JLB
My, my. So few comments from anyone familiar with libertarians or libertarianism.
Most fellow libertarian activists I know, [and I am personally acquainted with hundreds of 'em] --we actually like kicking Repubs. out of office to teach them a lesson every chance we get, Repubs. often employ libertarian rhetoric, but don't "walk the walk". Libertarians who've been around for awhile also know that liberty slips away faster when the Repubs. are in power than out of it.
If Democrats want to attract more libertarian voters, consider: Dems. usually don't even try to attract libertarian voters, so don't blame libertarians! Interestingly however, ever since the Neo-con takeover of the R. party, libertarians have progressively had more and more in common with Dems. than Repubs.
-
One more comment, libertarians oppose Universal Health Care based on principle: it's just not the job of government, period. You can argue all day about what it will do for small business owners, personal freedoms, blah blah blah... but libertarians oppose further politicizing private transactions, especially medical decisions. Libertarians believe that the job of government should be an extremely limited one and nationalizing doctors and hospitals just goes against all we believe. A government eduction system hardly even sets well with us, why should a healthcare system?
Oh, and libertarians don't do nuance.
Anybody who claims a single payer system, such as the Canadian system described at Orcinus, will "politiciz[e] private transactions" and "nationaliz[e] doctors and hospitals" isn't really living in the same world with the rest of us.
No fortunate son said...
"Anybody who claims a single payer system, such as the Canadian system described at Orcinus, will "politiciz[e] private transactions" and "nationaliz[e] doctors and hospitals" isn't really living in the same world with the rest of us."
Really?
The commentary at Orcinus included this:
"bellyaching about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey. And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day."
Unfortunately, the real world example of the United States health care system is a very much government regulated and sponsored system, and thus not a very useful comparison of free-market vs. govt.-monopoly health care. Insurance companies and HMO's already must observe thousands of federal and state government mandates about how to do business before ever attempting to please the customer. In addition, the U.S. system forces the insured and those able to pay to not only pay for their own services but foot the bill for 2-3 others who do not pay and thus force the hospital to write-off and pass-along costs, this in addition to the not insignificant taxes of Medicare and Medicaid.
If that's the best you can do, you should stop now.
How do complaining and press coverage support a claim of politicizing and nationalizing?
We all agree that the US system is breaking down. How does that amount to a criticism of single-payer?
If this is a fair sample of libertarian logic, then I remain unimpressed.
no fortunate son:
:How do complaining and press coverage support a claim of politicizing and nationalizing?
For the sake of argument, let's just say I misspoke when I used the word "nationalize". Simply substitute "government monopoly" or "single-payer" if it suits you. And no, I did not address that issue.
The obvious issue here is that for better or worse, a "single-payer" healthcare system is no longer merely a private transaction between patient and healthcare provider; it expands to become a matter that that will include both the "insurer" and by extension, the collective footing the bill and making demands of elected officials.
Just food for thought in response to material presented here, nothing more.
I might as well make a couple other responses to other things...
fran wrote:
"Pro zoning:
It allows people to purchase property with the expectation that they will not be overwhelmed by other property owners.
-
True, but the same result can be effected even more effectively by other more voluntary means such as protective covenants, neighborhood associations, co-ops, planned developments, and so forth.
FYI,you may find it interesting that there is a large amount of libertarian thought out there that asserts that real estate, water, etc. cannot easily be categorized as personal property but must be recognized more as "commons".
anonymous said:
"Computer technology was largely developed at public expense by the federal government, primarily the military and space programs."
Highly debatable topic there, but yes, ARPANET, and transistor behemoths developed at Bell Labs and so forth for the military certainly launched a lot of later high-tech.
But where do you logically go with this? Do Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have no right to the products of their minds and the wealth they created simply because they innovated on the shoulders of public works projects before them? Does this mean I ought to surrender my individualist ways now because I drove to work on a public road, checked out a public library book and fueled my brain this morning with govt.-subsidized corn?
So that must be why Windows used to crash so much, Bill Gates stole it from some government boondoggle!
"in this country are WAY more libertarian than any major political party in any other first world country. We have much lower taxes than the rest of the world, much less regulation, and far fewer government programs. So let’s keep that in mind."
We probably shouldn't keep that in mind because you are making that assumption without any evidence, in contradiction to your mission statement.
went to the Q and O website and read through a bunch of posts and other items on the site, been through the comments here and well..you all are much smarter than me but why in the world is it hard to see that lying to the american people to get us in a war that is killing our folks and lots of others is just BAD and those that enabled that war should be gone, without any other nuance.
National, government-run healthcare is not the answer (reference failing systems in Canada/Britain). An insurance program NOT tied to employment is the answer.
We can buy insurance for our cars, homes, businesses,etc. as individuals. I'm sure we have smart enough actuaries that can figure out a reasonable way for individuals to have affordable access to health insurance. Health care would be much more affordable if the government would stop regulating the hell out of it. I've had a serious illness this year and been hospitalized three times. I always come home with a folder full of needless CYA forms.
I know that I'm way behind on this thread, but I feel the need to point out that Libertarians are not egalitarian. When they speak about government impinging on liberty, they mean THEIR liberty, not common liberty. And the higher up the economic food chain they are, the less they care about the 'rights' of the people beneath them. That is what they have in common with the Republican opportunists -- they are fakes, using their politics as sheeps clothing in order to get closer to the herd.
To be fair, there are liberal fakes that disgust me just as much. I'm talking about the types who march in favor of immigrants rights as a cover for their own supply of cheap slave-wage labor.
The founding fathers discussed the idea of self-interest playing a part in the motivations of government, and counted on it to keep a sort of balance.. They just could not imagine personal greed so voracious and pervasive. And so disciplined.
thebigerns said:
Libertarians are not egalitarian. When they speak about government impinging on liberty, they mean THEIR liberty, not common liberty. And the higher up the economic food chain they are, the less they care about the 'rights' of the people beneath them.
Again, more ignorance of libertarians and libertarianism.
Libertarians are the most egalitarian of anyone when it comes to equal standing before the law in protection of natural (or 'negative') rights. Libertarians support the rights and liberties of the smallest minority of all, the liberty of any one single individual. There are many libertarian groups, especially legal aid charity groups that are constantly trying to help other people protect and preserve their rights against oppression by political power.
Libertarians are accused of being evil for being so contrary to socialism and its supposed moral high ground. Well, so be it; unless you understand that libertarians are opposed to socialism for moral reasons, you will continue to believe it is for destructive greed, arrogance, status, and so forth.
Most libertarians I know, (and I know hundreds across this country) they are not well-heeled, but they are generous and honest. Privileged corporations and the aristocratic-minded rich pay no homage to libertarian organizations or the Libertarian Party.
When democrats increase government spending by 4 percent, and republicans increase government spending by 30%, it’s clear who is less coercive.
There is also an economic argument to be made for a minimal social safety net. A man with nothing to lose is far more dangerous and destructive than someone just schlepping along. For a society this is a small price to pay, paid for by the people who can afford to pay it. Redistribution? Technically I suppose, but any insurance policy coud be described in much the same way.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home