Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Some of the radical libertarians are Ayn Rand fans who divide their fellow citizens into makers, in the mold of John Galt, and takers, in the mold of anyone not John Galt.

Some, such as the Koch brothers, are economic royalists who repackage trickle-down economics as “libertarian populism.” Some are followers of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whose highest aspiration is to shut down government. Some resemble the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, who has made a career out of trying to drown, stifle or strangle government.

Yes, liberty is a core American value, and an overweening state can be unhealthy. And there are plenty of self-described libertarians who have adopted the label mainly because they support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance. These social libertarians aren’t the problem. It is the nihilist anti-state libertarians of the Koch-Cruz-Norquist-Paul (Ron and Rand alike) school who should worry us.

Like communism, this philosophy is defective in its misreading of human nature, misunderstanding of how societies work and utter failure to adapt to changing circumstances. Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish, when in fact cooperation is the height of human evolution. It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders. And it is fanatically rigid in its insistence on a single solution to every problem: Roll back the state!

Communism failed in three strikingly similar ways. It believed that humans should be willing cogs serving the proletariat. It assumed that societies could be run top-down like machines. And it, too, was fanatically rigid in its insistence on an all-encompassing ideology, leading to totalitarianism.

Radical libertarianism, if ever put into practice at the scale of something bigger than a tiny enclave, would also be a disaster.
We say the conditional “would” because radical libertarianism has a fatal flaw: It can’t be applied across a functioning society. What might radical libertarians do if they actually had power? A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress. A Secretary Norquist would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service and progressive taxation, so that the already wealthy could exponentially compound their advantage, as the programs that sustain a prosperous middle class are gutted. A Koch domestic policy would obliterate environmental standards for clean air and water, so that polluters could externalize all their costs onto other people.

Ibanez wrote:Bloomberg as the source tells me all I need to know.

CAA Flagship wrote:Libertarians

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Libertarians

They're probably the best hope for your party.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
They're probably the best hope for your party.

Well I hope they are bringing a side dish to share.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Bloomberg as the source tells me all I need to know.

I also linked to Reason.com which is the most prominent libertarian rag around. These are both "think" pieces so I can see why you'd wanna bow out of the discussion early.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Well I hope they are bringing a side dish to share.

See? This is exactly what they're driving at. It's all about what others bring you isn't it? Typical "taker" mentality.

blueballs wrote:The article is solidly from the left as it identifies Paul and Cruz as extremists, when in fact their opinions are widely held by most middle class folks.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
See? This is exactly what they're driving at. It's all about what others bring you isn't it? Typical "taker" mentality.

Taker?
I said "side" dish and I said "share". That means I am covering the main course. My "take" is less than my "production".

blueballs wrote:The article is solidly from the left as it identifies Paul and Cruz as extremists, when in fact their opinions are widely held by most middle class folks.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Taker?
I said "side" dish and I said "share". That means I am covering the main course. My "take" is less than my "production".

Oh...so now we're "shaaaaring"...fucking commie.

Ivytalk wrote:Not sure how much new thought is in this piece, which I read in its entirety. The authors (one of whom worked for Clinton) set up the very "straw man" they purport to dismantle, in playing off "radical libertarianism" against communism, in order to set up a "golden mean" which reserves a role for government in promoting social well-being. The fact is that neither extreme works, and the authors are candid enough to recognize that. It will be interesting to see how much national traction Rand Paul gets, either within or beyond the GOP. For a new legislator, he's unusually in love with himself, and it's not at all clear that he'll be any more effective than his father was.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh...so now we're "shaaaaring"...**** commie.

Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that. You have a point there. Thanks for the heads up.

Next time someone brings a dish to share, I will call them a communist.

Grizalltheway wrote:

blueballs wrote:The article is solidly from the left as it identifies Paul and Cruz as extremists, when in fact their opinions are widely held by most middle class folks.

Didn't you just chastize me for questioning the accuracy of an article based on the political leanings of the author?

blueballs wrote:The article is solidly from the left as it identifies Paul and Cruz as extremists, when in fact their opinions are widely held by most middle class folks.

Ivytalk wrote:Not sure how much new thought is in this piece, which I read in its entirety. The authors (one of whom worked for Clinton) set up the very "straw man" they purport to dismantle, in playing off "radical libertarianism" against communism, in order to set up a "golden mean" which reserves a role for government in promoting social well-being. The fact is that neither extreme works, and the authors are candid enough to recognize that. It will be interesting to see how much national traction Rand Paul gets, either within or beyond the GOP. For a new legislator, he's unusually in love with himself, and it's not at all clear that he'll be any more effective than his father was.

dbackjon wrote:

blueballs wrote:The article is solidly from the left as it identifies Paul and Cruz as extremists, when in fact their opinions are widely held by most middle class folks.

Only to those extremist middle class folks. Cruz and Paul ARE extremists.

blueballs wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Didn't you just chastize me for questioning the accuracy of an article based on the political leanings of the author?

That wasn't my intention at all...

IvyTalk said what I was thinking... I didn'tcommunicate it very well- he communicated it very well.

Radical libertarianism assumes that humans are wired only to be selfish, when in fact cooperation is the height of human evolution. It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers.

It is in failed states such as Somalia that libertarianism finds its fullest actual expression.