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

Yet many who think of themselves as libertarians (or who are friendly to many but not all libertarian goals, like me) don't particularly care who is ascendant in Washington, or what party affiliation appears beside the name of a legislator. If fewer people are caged for inhaling the smoke of a plant, that's a libertarian victory. If fewer people's doors are kicked in late at night by police officers dressed in combat fatigues, that's a libertarian victory. If more cancer patients can legally obtain a substance that alleviates their suffering, that's a libertarian victory. If fewer assets are seized by police without proof of guilt, that's a libertarian victory. (Were I to embrace the rhetorical tactics of Paul Krugman, I might point to the war on drugs and ask, "Is non-libertarain domestic policy at all realistic?")

There are, I hasten to add, intense disagreements among libertarians about which future victories are most important. In Frum's article, he writes that "young voters are more likely than their elders to believe that government should intervene in the economy to create jobs. They support government aid to education and healthcare more than any other age group. Their voting behavior tracks their values: Under-30s massively voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012."

He is right, of course, that young people are at odds with libertarians on various issues of importance to both groups. But America could be a much more libertarian country than it is even with more federal education and healthcare aid. The United States could be as libertarian as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek and still embrace a social safety net that involved coercive transfers to poor people. Efforts to provide equality of opportunity and a safety net do require the redistribution of wealth—but we're a society with wealth beyond the wildest dreams of even elderly Americans still alive today, and apart from the coercion inherent in any taxes, there are ways to deliver both of those goods without reducing liberty, which is why more libertarians ought to make peace with them.

Frum sees the fact that under-30s voted for Obama in 2008 as evidence that they weren't at all libertarian. But based on the promises made in that election, I'd argue that libertarians who supported Obama over McCain (as I did) acted perfectly reasonably, because I believe that a penchant for launching wars of choice, support for indefinite detention without trial, and an expansive view of executive power are far more ruinous to liberty than, say, favoring Clinton-era rather than Bush-era tax rates. There are libertarians who'd kick me out of the Free State for such beliefs. (And fair enough. I'm a classical liberal who is happy to stay in California.) Other libertarians would eagerly endorse a guaranteed basic income for every American if it could be severed once and for all from the coercive, metastasizing welfare state. They understand that the Iraq War cost far more in blood and treasure than any policy antiwar Democrats could've passed. A commitment to liberty and freedom precludes loyalty to either political party. Both perpetrate awful abuses. The GOP provides no real home for libertarians, who should engage with the two-party system opportunistically.

The United States is a big, sprawling, complicated nation that faces an array of complex policy challenges. Doctrinaire libertarians don't have all the answers any more than any other ideological faction. Insofar as they have an advantage over their more mainstream competitors, it springs from the law of diminishing returns: We've long since tried the most popular conservative and progressive ideas.

I wish it were otherwise, but people tend to be libertarian only after it's demonstrated to them that the government can't deliver the results they want.

And that, I think, is the elephant in the room that Draper largely misses. Example is the school of mankind and they will learn at no other, Edmund Burke observed. What he meant was that you can't just tell people X won't work; they have to see and experience the failure of X on their own. Noam Chomsky didn't suddenly become more persuasive during the Bush years. The reality of the Iraq War turned people off military interventions.

UNI88 wrote:Good article. Here's another on the same topic ...

Americans are selective libertarians
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... olumn.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish it were otherwise, but people tend to be libertarian only after it's demonstrated to them that the government can't deliver the results they want.

And that, I think, is the elephant in the room that Draper largely misses. Example is the school of mankind and they will learn at no other, Edmund Burke observed. What he meant was that you can't just tell people X won't work; they have to see and experience the failure of X on their own. Noam Chomsky didn't suddenly become more persuasive during the Bush years. The reality of the Iraq War turned people off military interventions.

UNI88 wrote:I wish it were otherwise, but people tend to be libertarian only after it's demonstrated to them that the government can't deliver the results they want.

CID1990 wrote:

UNI88 wrote:I wish it were otherwise, but people tend to be libertarian only after it's demonstrated to them that the government can't deliver the results they want.

This this this, a thousand times this.

The problem is that some people are a little slower on the upstroke than others.

To me, a real progressive is like Spandos. Even if there was case closed evidence that we landed on the moon (and of course there is) he would still be convinced that we didn't, and there is nothing that will change his mind.

I like to ask the question, "Where does your faith in government come from- what is that crowning achievement of government that convinced you that it is OK to place your life's direction in its hands?"

Certain posters (well, actually just one) like to reply with things like the Hoover Dam.

Ivytalk wrote:It's a "fantastic read" because it could have been written by kalm himself -- and I read the whole thing. Libertarians, like others, occupy a spectrum. The author of this piece was more concerned with the NSA/drone subject matters and the "drug war" than with more humdrum libertarian concerns of taxation and economic regulation. It all depends on what your concept of "liberty" is, I suppose, and on what issues really rile you up. He took more swipes at Frum than at Krugman, and virtually none at Chait. What were the "inane professional licensing " issues he referred to? Not a word. It's really a thought-provoking article about how progressives can cherry-pick libertarian ideas for political gain, as I read it. And the Atlantic is perceived as a progressive magazine -- which I read often, by the way.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
This this this, a thousand times this.

The problem is that some people are a little slower on the upstroke than others.

To me, a real progressive is like Spandos. Even if there was case closed evidence that we landed on the moon (and of course there is) he would still be convinced that we didn't, and there is nothing that will change his mind.

I like to ask the question, "Where does your faith in government come from- what is that crowning achievement of government that convinced you that it is OK to place your life's direction in its hands?"

Certain posters (well, actually just one) like to reply with things like the Hoover Dam.

Yoo hoo! Hey CID, I'm in the room…I'm right here, you don't have talk as though I'm not here. I'm the guy who started a positive thread about libertarianism.

The irony is, you work for the government, while I'm in private business and directly compete WITH government operated entities. The downfalls of government and it's bureaucratic nature are known. The progressive push back on this topic is directly related to certain ideologues who make the argument that government does no good and that the market can solve EVERYTHING. I know you're too smart to be one of those.

But nice straw man anyway. Should I follow your lead and suggest that in CID's world, we would have never reaped the benefits of the Louisiana Purchase, Homestead Act, RR act, Interstate Highway system, GI Bill, NASA, and yes…Grand Coulee Dam?

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:


Yoo hoo! Hey CID, I'm in the room…I'm right here, you don't have talk as though I'm not here. I'm the guy who started a positive thread about libertarianism.

The irony is, you work for the government, while I'm in private business and directly compete WITH government operated entities. The downfalls of government and it's bureaucratic nature are known. The progressive push back on this topic is directly related to certain ideologues who make the argument that government does no good and that the market can solve EVERYTHING. I know you're too smart to be one of those.

But nice straw man anyway. Should I follow your lead and suggest that in CID's world, we would have never reaped the benefits of the Louisiana Purchase, Homestead Act, RR act, Interstate Highway system, GI Bill, NASA, and yes…Grand Coulee Dam?

None of those things are examples of government overreach. In fact, infrastructure (and expansion... thank for putting that one in there) are examples of what government SHOULD do. Nowhere in there do you see anything that would encroach on the rights of American citizens. So if you are looking for straw men, look no further than the guy who puts forth infrastructure projects as examples of "big government".

And there is nothing ironic about someone who works for the government stating that government is not capable of taking care of you from cradle to grave. If anything I am an AUTHORITY on the subject of government ineptitude as I see it every single day.

Chizzang wrote:I love the Baldy comment that Libertarianism is diametrically opposed to Liberalism
Like somehow inversely it can snuggle right up to the Republican Military Industrial Complex



With True Libertarianism
There is no shelter for either Democrat or Republican ideologies to comfortably reside
if executed properly - It kicks them both to the curb

Republicans in practice (see the past two Republican Presidents)
'aren't a hell of a lot different than Democrats


after all wasn't Ronald Reagan a serial tax raiser
and a deficit spender like history had never seen at that time... (I think yes)
While tripling the size of the Federal Government - Not very "Libertarian" of Reagan...

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I love the Baldy comment that Libertarianism is diametrically opposed to Liberalism
Like somehow inversely it can snuggle right up to the Republican Military Industrial Complex



With True Libertarianism
There is no shelter for either Democrat or Republican ideologies to comfortably reside
if executed properly - It kicks them both to the curb

Republicans in practice (see the past two Republican Presidents)
'aren't a hell of a lot different than Democrats


after all wasn't Ronald Reagan a serial tax raiser
and a deficit spender like history had never seen at that time... (I think yes)
While tripling the size of the Federal Government - Not very "Libertarian" of Reagan...

"Like" "somehow"

"Liberal" "Republican"???

WTF are you talking about Chizz???

I didn't mention Liberals or Republicans in my post, and now you're making all these asinine assumptions. However, what I was doing was giving IT props because we saw the same thing while reading the article. A poor attempt by the author of trying to link "progressives" and Libertarians as like minded individuals on most issues.

There are vast differences between Libertarians and Conks on many issues, but nobody can't explain why the more Libertarian minded members of Congress all caucus with the Conks and not the Donks. Even you should be able to agree that on the most fundamental issues Conks and Libertarians share the same fundamental beliefs.

UNI88 wrote:

Baldy wrote:

"Like" "somehow"

"Liberal" "Republican"???

WTF are you talking about Chizz???

I didn't mention Liberals or Republicans in my post, and now you're making all these asinine assumptions. However, what I was doing was giving IT props because we saw the same thing while reading the article. A poor attempt by the author of trying to link "progressives" and Libertarians as like minded individuals on most issues.

There are vast differences between Libertarians and Conks on many issues, but nobody can't explain why the more Libertarian minded members of Congress all caucus with the Conks and not the Donks. Even you should be able to agree that on the most fundamental issues Conks and Libertarians share the same fundamental beliefs.

"Libertarianism and progressivism are more diametrically opposed to each other than any other two political philosophies"? Libertarians tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The socially liberal aspect has common ground with many progressives but they tend to caucus with Conks because fiscal conservatism is the priority in today's environment. I would argue that Libertarianism is more diametrically opposed to Neo-conservatism than it is to progressivism. Neo-conservatism is big government spending, foreign adventurism and social conservatism. Pretty much the opposite of libertarian beliefs.

UNI88 wrote:

Baldy wrote:

"Like" "somehow"

"Liberal" "Republican"???

WTF are you talking about Chizz???

I didn't mention Liberals or Republicans in my post, and now you're making all these asinine assumptions. However, what I was doing was giving IT props because we saw the same thing while reading the article. A poor attempt by the author of trying to link "progressives" and Libertarians as like minded individuals on most issues.

There are vast differences between Libertarians and Conks on many issues, but nobody can't explain why the more Libertarian minded members of Congress all caucus with the Conks and not the Donks. Even you should be able to agree that on the most fundamental issues Conks and Libertarians share the same fundamental beliefs.

"Libertarianism and progressivism are more diametrically opposed to each other than any other two political philosophies"? Libertarians tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The socially liberal aspect has common ground with many progressives but they tend to caucus with Conks because fiscal conservatism is the priority in today's environment. I would argue that Libertarianism is more diametrically opposed to Neo-conservatism than it is to progressivism. Neo-conservatism is big government spending, foreign adventurism and social conservatism. Pretty much the opposite of libertarian beliefs.

Baldy wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
"Libertarianism and progressivism are more diametrically opposed to each other than any other two political philosophies"? Libertarians tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The socially liberal aspect has common ground with many progressives but they tend to caucus with Conks because fiscal conservatism is the priority in today's environment. I would argue that Libertarianism is more diametrically opposed to Neo-conservatism than it is to progressivism. Neo-conservatism is big government spending, foreign adventurism and social conservatism. Pretty much the opposite of libertarian beliefs.

Very good point 88, and on paper I totally agree.
However, if you put a gun to their heads, I still believe Libertarians would overwhelmingly pick the NeoCon over the "progressive" if they were forced to pick between only two candidates.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
None of those things are examples of government overreach. In fact, infrastructure (and expansion... thank for putting that one in there) are examples of what government SHOULD do. Nowhere in there do you see anything that would encroach on the rights of American citizens. So if you are looking for straw men, look no further than the guy who puts forth infrastructure projects as examples of "big government".

And there is nothing ironic about someone who works for the government stating that government is not capable of taking care of you from cradle to grave. If anything I am an AUTHORITY on the subject of government ineptitude as I see it every single day.

No you dolt, the irony is our respective positions on the topic.

Regarding the rest, thank you for begrudgingly agreeing with me (and Hoover Dam) although I will add that small government of the "drown it in a bathtub size" (which is who I have my beef with) would have had a difficult time providing many of my examples.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
No you dolt, the irony is our respective positions on the topic.

Regarding the rest, thank you for begrudgingly agreeing with me (and Hoover Dam) although I will add that small government of the "drown it in a bathtub size" (which is who I have my beef with) would have had a difficult time providing many of my examples.

Your examples are all straw men as none of them are examples of intrusive government. People complain about the nanny state and you give us prewar dams and 19th century land purchases. Who's the dolt?

And it was, by comparison to today, an extremely small government that achieved all of those things.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Your examples are all straw men as none of them are examples of intrusive government. People complain about the nanny state and you give us prewar dams and 19th century land purchases. Who's the dolt?

And it was, by comparison to today, an extremely small government that achieved all of those things.

Ahhh…so we basically agree then. Nanny statism is a pain in the ass, but government has done some really positive things and on a big scale. (Keep in mind, Jefferson really struggled with the idea of the Louisiana Purchase from a limited government standpoint.)

Again…the point being that libertarianism has some super positive traits that liberals should get behind. Still wanna fight?

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Ahhh…so we basically agree then. Nanny statism is a pain in the ass, but government has done some really positive things and on a big scale. (Keep in mind, Jefferson really struggled with the idea of the Louisiana Purchase from a limited government standpoint.)

Again…the point being that libertarianism has some super positive traits that liberals should get behind. Still wanna fight?

The only thing that happened here is you just owned up to using non sequiturs. Your examples have nothing to do with the functions of government that libertarians object to. You like to throw them out there when people talk about government overreach and there is only one way to interpret that. None of them are examples of nanny statism.

and

Jefferson did not struggle with the Louisiana Purchase from a limited government standpoint. That is a misinterpretation of what his concerns were.

Ivytalk wrote:And the subtext is that, with both major parties cherry-picking those aspects of libertarianism that their constituencies prefer, the LP will never be a major force in this country. Nor will any other third party.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:And the subtext is that, with both major parties cherry-picking those aspects of libertarianism that their constituencies prefer, the LP will never be a major force in this country. Nor will any other third party.

Not with establishment sack fondlers like you!