Fitzmas!!

This strict adherence to "principles (or ideology) is what makes libertarians the Marxists of the 90's.

I don't think libertarianism produces true believers. From my experience, it seems that libertarianism appeals to people who take an absolutist view about everything.

Libertarianism isn't the cause, it's the outcome.

Yes, Kevin. Some words have a negative connotation, and some a positive. And these connotations change over time. Sometimes, that change is engineered (ie. how "Liberal" became a dirty-word).

Someday, when you grow up, and become a real, professional, writer, you'll understand this fascinating thing called "The English Language".

I've worked with many computer programmers, and find that this group contains a particularly large proportion of libertarians.

I've come to believe that this is so because in engineering you are continually confronted with things that either work or don't, and come to be judgmental about systems in general, particularly about when things are worth fixing, and when they should be begun anew. Thus programmers seem inclined to believe that government is unfixable, let's start over with something simple and fair.

I strongly second the comment about Marxists. Until recently they were the best example of people who were willing to place their principles above any mundance pragmatic or humanitarian considerations.

So is a libertarian a "principled idealogue," then?

I thought I was a libertarian when I first went to college. Eventually I noticed a similar pattern to Yglesias. Almost every person who considered themselves a libertarian turned out to be a person who had never been marginalized in their lives.

So, not seeing consequences and not having empathy for people who do suffer consequences of their desired policies, seemed to be about believing that they were not their brother's keeper because they themselves had never needed help or been discriminated against.

You're obviously right that libertarian organizations tend to have their greatest appeal to people who have not just an attraction to certain ideas, but a fanatical loyalty to rigid doctrines. After all, the most recent Libertarian nominee for President is a man who, true to his belief that the government has no right to license drivers, has several times been jailed for unlicensed driving.

Libertarians are indeed too extreme.

Right AH. Some so-called libertarians like Bob Barr have spoken against the War on Terrorism because they say it restricts our freedoms too much. But having freedom doesn't help much if you're dead. Real conservatives understand freedom is about ceding to lawful authority the discretion to do what is right. And that is why real conservatives support giving discretion to George W Bush to do the right thing in defending America from the terrorists.

Extradite: Really? I never knew that before. Thanks!

And now, if you promise not to be a total dick in the future, you may resume commenting.

I think you fail to consider that most Libertarians are simply social misfits with huge egos.

I'll agree with your take on Libertarians, and more generally on ideologues, whose inflexibility I'm inclined to ascribe to a lack of confidence in their own ability to think through, and cope with, even slightly messy situations that don't admit of quick, neat, formulational solutions.

But I'll disagree on the part about "principles," because having and using principles is both logical and practical. It avoids having to re-think every decision de novo (the assumption that this is possible is a standard Libertarian fallacy, by the way), and it distills and encodes experience and thereby provides both perspective and a "sanity check."

In other words, insofar as "principles" resemble Standard Operating Procedures, they're efficient, and insofar as they comprise wisdom, they're ... well ... wise.

It's when principles deteriorate into reflexive, inflexible dogma -- aka ideology -- that they become impractical and unwise.

So I don't think they're synonymous. One is an extreme example of the other.

I thought I was a libertarian when I first went to college.

Lots of us do. Then we quit smoking dope.

"...libertarians are far more likely than most people to go over the cliff with their principles, examining issues on a bright-line, unidimensional philosophical basis without taking into account real-world outcomes or real-world issues of human nature that might soften their views..."

Interesting that just 25 years ago people used to debate Communism's practicality and the same arguments about lack of insight into "human nature" were used then. The common use of the term "ideology" became negative with respect to Communism primarily as well. "Principles" implies a guide to personal *behavior*. I don't think stating something like: "That is a principled person" would ever garner a negative connotation.

A Classic:

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

And now, if you promise not to be a total dick in the future, you may resume commenting.
Posted by: Kevin Drum on March 22, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry. That did come off as a bit harsh. Too much caffeine, and not enough hard-core fitzmas posts have made me a bit grumpy this morning.

I can't promise not to BE a total dick. But I can promise I'll try. Depends on how much bitch-slapping AH needs today.

... If making it a dirty word was engineered, it was engineered by liberals themselves.
Posted by: American Hawk on March 22, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Rush Limbaugh is a Liberal?

Arguing with a libertarian is useless because all they can talk about is how the world SHOULD be, not the way it really is.

I believe most of Kevin's post is correct, but it seems to me that libertarians* are happy for OTHERS to go off the cliff. I have a LOT of personal experience with so-called libertarians, and almost without exception their ideology is pure self-indulgence.

Libertarians almost never are tolerant or supportive of the ACLU or other civil liberties watchdogs. The vast majority of "libertarian" blogs supported the invasion of Iraq and extremely hawkish positions otherwise. The Objectivist Society and other Rand-devotees are so militaristic it's breathtaking.

The reason is, they are "libertarians" because they want to have an ideology that says society foolishly requires too much of them.
____________________________________________
*libertarians: it is entirely unreasonable and philosophically invalid for market fundamentalists to characterize themselves as "libertarians." Outside of the USA, where they are a sacred cow, they are known more accurately as "anarcho-capitalists"--provided, of course, they're consistant enough to accept limitations on non-economic roles for governments--not at all common.

The above comes from the following list:

Critiques Of Libertarianism

KEVIN DRUM: And now, if you promise not to be a total dick in the future, you may resume commenting.

I think the other thing at play is that if a minority becomes "disaffected" or believes that they are not given a big voice in public policy decisions, they will get more ideological and less concrete or pragmatic.

Examples:
- Libertarians
- Communists (they still exist!)
- Hard-core liberals (like kucinich)
- Hard-core conservatives (like the Texas platform)

etc.

Basically, if you are not really a part of the daily debate about this or that minor pragmatic issue, you have the "freedom" to dream big things. Since people do not debate your big things because they are not in the mainstream, you become embittered and imagine the "big things" are really awesome and everyone just doesn't understand.

I know many self-proclaimed "libertarians," and their core principles seem to come down to two or three items:

1. All taxation is theft

2. There can be no restrictions whatever on gun ownership

3. Pot should be legal (this is optional)

In reality, their vision of utopia is a world where everyone else works, supports the infrastructure of civilization, and obeys the (unwritten) rules while "libertarians" soak up the benefits and contribute nothing.

"I've come to believe that this is so because in engineering you are continually confronted with things that either work or don't, and come to be judgmental about systems in general, particularly about when things are worth fixing, and when they should be begun anew."

I think you would find that the more experienced a programmer is the less likely they are to advocate starting over (where "experienced" means "had to live with the consequences"). for example jamie zawinski quit the netscape project when the powers that be decided that it should be rewritten from scratch. maybe experience is why libertarianism becomes less attractive with the passage of time.

Libertarian analysis is a useful tool. In dealing with a problem, it's a good thing to ask "Is there a solution that involves minimum government intervention? Can we minimize regulation, taxation, legislation?"
The point is that often the answer is no, even if it's illuminating to go through the analysis and the debate.
If the libertarian argument is insufficiently well represented in a discussion, I'll often make it.
But to be someone who automatically assumes that the libertarian positiom is always right is not thinking.
Yglesias had it right, and I'll add to it: Principles are good to have, but they must be constantly re-examined.

Kevin Writes:

". . . libertarians are far more likely than most people to go over the cliff with their principles, examining issues solely on a bright-line philosophical basis without taking into acount real-world outcomes or real-world issues of human nature that might soften their views."

In my experience with Libertarians, this is true only to the extent that they don't actually have to _do_ anything that costs them financially or otherwise.

For example, I remember having long discussions with Libertarians about the good or bad of government subsidized university education. They were all against it, right up until I pointed out that we were all going to a state university and that if the government wasn't funding the university, we would each have to pay several extra thousand dollars per term. I suggested that if they were really philosophically opposed to government subsidies, then they should pay the university the out-of-state tuition (minus a percentage of what their family's paid in taxes every year - since taxes cover other things they are using besides university funding), as that would reflect the actual cost without state subsidies.

Of course, they didn't like this idea. They immediately changed their position to saying, "I'm not going to pay extra when everyone else isn't".

So, principled up until it really would cost them something to follow their principles - I've seen it from Libertarians on all kinds of different issues, from street repair to education to medical research, etc.

Make of that what you will.

When ideology or principle is applied it has to be tempered with pragmatism and reality, otherwise it becomes a belief system that forces all experience and behavior to be rationalized to the overall guiding ideas.

Hannah Arndt used the Soviet ideology to demonstrate this concept. The Soviets said they had no unemployment, as unemployment was caused by capitalist societies. The Soviets had no welfare system to provide minimum support for all of those people without jobs and denied they even existed.

In the US we see some of this. Charter schools and voucher systems are offered as ways to bring 'competition' to the educational system. It is believed competition always creates better performance, but the facts are charter schools usually perform worse than public ones. This reality is denied by free market ideologues, who want to destroy the public school systems.

But having freedom doesn't help much if you're dead. . . .
Posted by: Al on March 22, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Coward.

I don't know about you Al, but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad." -- James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)

"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis-—that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it." - Antonin Scalia, eviscerating the Bush administration's detention of terror suspects without charges or trials.

Boaz's statement is a crock. There's not a single libertarian principle that they actually adhere to. Libertarianism is inconsistent with capitalism, which requires extensive government apparatus to enforce property rights.

A truly libertarian society would have no real property, no patent law, no copyright. There's a huge stinking contradiction in their very basic principle of substituting tort for regulation, because compensation has to be adjudicated. The trusted third party who is adjudicating has to have some kind of enforcement mechanism. That enforcement mechanism ultimately takes property away from one party or the other by force.

The closest thing to a description of an operational libertarian society is Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You'll note that he recognized the judicial problem. The trusted third party in his society is selected by mutual agreement. And the enforcement mechanism is social ostracism and, ultimately, murder.

Libertarians are selfish pricks.

Now that we have that out of the way, a couple of comments and a question.

I spent my whole career in DP, and met exactly one avowed Libertarian. It's true that programmers work in a highly structred environment, but paradoxically, most consider themselves and their craft to be more art than science.

The numbers of Libertarians that self-identify and vote along party lines are infintesimal. We should just ignore them.

The whole Libertarian idea is premised on personal and economic freedom. Why is it that when faced with the option of actually voting for one or the other, Libertarians invariably vote with their wallet? I guess that's where the selfish prick part comes into play.

The way Yglesias quotes Boaz's statement, it sounds like an excuse to ignore the arguments in favor of school vouchers. Both Yglesias and Boas seem to be saying that because libertarians ignore real world consequences, they should not even be a part of the debate.

I find many libertarians like to refer to themselves as "independent thinkers" -- not beholden to any one ideology (as if our only lot in life is to subscribe to a single ideology).

Libertarianism among these people frequently masks a strong conservative outlook. Perhaps Libertarians adopt this label to avoid being ostracized by their more moderate (read: Democratic) friends. Perhaps they like always being the foil in political and economic discussions ("Let me play the Libertarian devil's advocate for a minute . . .")

I find Libertarians to be either nuts or too coy by half.

Libertarians are self-indulgent, spoiled little brats who think they alone exist and all things belong to them.

Toddler's Property Rules:

1. If I like it, it's mine.

2. If it's in my hand, Its mine.

3. If I can take it from you, it's mine.

4. If I had it a little while ago, It's mine.

5. If it's mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way.

6. If I am doing or building something,all the pieces are mine.

7. If it looks like mine, it is mine.

8. If I saw it first, it's mine.

9. If you are playing with something and you put it down, it automatically becomes mine.

10. If it's broken, it's yours.

~~ Author Unknown ~~

This goes for Republicans too.

I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

You and me both.

ideology = dogma
Principles = moral compass

My experience with libertarians is a bit more concrete. I remember interviewing a roomful of 'em during a Presidential year once, and after listening to discussions about the folly of government ownership of roads and the power of entrepreneurial capitalism, I finally asked: that reminds me -- what do you guys each do for a living?

They all worked for very large corporations, like the phone company. Not one of 'em was an ACTUAl entrepreneur, like a sole proprietor of any sort. They all worked as mid-level managers, albeit sometimes independently, in very large and highly regulated (and thus, risk-averse) industries.

More recently, I've had endless public debates with the folks at CATO, which is sorta kinda libertarian. In every case, they promote subsidies for favored industries behind astonishing layers of bullshit. And they are very shy and ever surprised to be called on it: hothouse flowers.

I particularly recall a meeting at George Mason University a few years back. I had been invited by the National Academy of Science to talk about the H-1B visa program. They asked me who would give the best counterargument, and I said Steve Moore -- then of CATO, now full time with the Club for Growth. So they invited Steve, at my suggestion. (I do not think Steve would ever have suggested a similar group invite me.)

I spoke first, before Steve showed up, and I told the panelt they would hear from him a pro-immigration argument for a non-immigrant visa, that the distinction between the H-1B and "immigration" is entirely the regulations that make it, as no less than Milton Friedman observed, a subsidy.

Steve showed up -- and that's exactly the argument he made. It was so clear that the first question from the panel was: "So, there is NO argument for a temporary visa?"

He literally stammered.

After he was done, I spoke up to suggest that his next gig be: "Libertarian Economists for Excessive Government Regulation."

Between those two experiences, pretty much sums up "libertarianism" in America.

Not just libertarians. Conservatives are like this as well. Priciples or ideology trump results. While liberals can be like that, we have a tendency to look at the data and go with what works.

Interesting that just 25 years ago people used to debate Communism's practicality and the same arguments about lack of insight into "human nature" were used then.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on March 22, 2007 at 1:30 PM

It shouldn't be surprising. They are virtual mirror images. Communism and libertarianism are both utopian social philosophies. They are both based on an abstract notion that there can be a "true" and eternal "best state of man." At their heart both are based on 19th century Social Darwinism. Neither has the capacity to acknowledge the chaotic foibles and inconsistencies of daily life.

The only thing more bizarre than people professing to be libertarian is the sight of otherwise rational people discussing libertarians. Libertarians are republicans who are ashamed to admit their political allegiances publically. They place no particular value on any personal freedom. Their sole political goal is to shift responsibility for payment for the common obligations of society (e.g. public works, defense) to other citizens. They are utterly insignificant in U.S. politics.

Ironically, if it weren't for the internet we would never have to be exposed to them.

Children always think their bedtimes "should" be later, Grover Norquist always thinks taxes "should" be lower, and libertarians always think there "should" be more "freedom," as defined, of course, by them. The arguments in defense of these cases differ, but the "principle" behind them -- which might better be called a emotional presdisposition -- is much the same.

When I watched Deadwood I thought - "this is what America would be like under a Libertarian rule."

Libertarians deny that public costs exist. A true libertarian ideologue would insist all polluters pay 100% for their polluting, but they do not. They deny the existence of the commons and appropriate it for themselves as private property. Many ranchers use public lands at below cost prices to overgraze their cattle. They deny they receive welfare and that they are destroying publicly owned ecosystems.

"I've worked with many computer programmers, and find that this group contains a particularly large proportion of libertarians.

I've come to believe that this is so because in engineering you are continually confronted with things that either work or don't, and come to be judgmental about systems in general..."

I think that the libertarian chunk of computer programmers has a lot more to due with the fact that many of them recently did very very well in the dot com bubble, and continue to do well in the tech economy. They made a bunch of money quick and think it's because they are so fantastically great and fantasize about how much more they would have racked up if they had not had to pay taxes and about how pathetic everyone else is not to have gotten rich in the late nineties. It seems to me that both older and younger programmers have far fewer libertarians.

In reality the vast majority of them just happened to be born in the right few years to have thier particular interests and state subsidized educations rewarded ridiculously well as decades of government research took off.

"They all worked for very large corporations..."

Heh, the most libertarian computer programmer I have known recently went to work for Boeing.

"Don't confuse me with facts. I've made up my mind." -- Rep Earl Landgrebe, R-Indiana, 1974.

Once upon a time, when I was in college, I was a Libertarian.

I've found talking to Libertarians highly unproductive for basically the same reason I ultimately rejected it as an overarching political philosophy: it fails obvious common sense objections.

What turns it into an "ideology" rather than a "set of principles"? The insistence of every Libertarian I have ever known on "saving the theory" in the face of those obvious objections.

The initial deal breaker for me was that Libertarianism and Libertarians essentially have no way to cope with the concept of a monopoly, especially with the idea that a monopoly might be a relatively common occurrence, and not some freakish phenomenon.

Now, apriori, it would seem on rational grounds quite plausible that the forces that enable a monopoly might come about with some real frequency. It's really an empirical matter whether such things happen or not, and how often they might happen. But Libertarians believe, on purely ideological grounds, that such things really can't happen (or at most very very rarely, and in very limited and temporary situations). They believe that in essentially every and any circumstance, entirely unfettered capitalism will enable effective competition, and that such competition will always create a better solution for all parties in the economy. The notion that, for example, a large business in a capital intensive market might be able to cripple new entrants by "dumping" products far below cost for a period of time, then raising prices when the new entrants go out of business, is inconceivable to them. The idea that a company like Microsoft might be able to leverage its ownership of the standard OS on which virtually all other applications must run into control over the desktop market is likewise inconceivable. Such things can't happen, their ideology tells them so, and they will come up with a million reasons, however implausible, to refute the possibility of such things going on. It is, again, lost on them entirely that one can't really know whether such things might happen unless one looks at the real world empirically, instead of dictating the result by means of a theory.

But the monopoly issue is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the irrationality involved. You name the thing we might point out would be damaged in a Libertarian economy, and they will find a way, however desperate, to dismiss the concern.

Suppose you point out that good schools will not be available to poor children. No problem for the Libertarians -- by some miracle charity will cover their tuition handsomely. If you point out that this is an empirical claim for which they have no direct evidence, and they will launch the "moral" argument that the government has no "right" to take money away from people to finance the education of others. You point out the cruelty of that policy, and they simply refuse to budge from their "moral" principles. In the end, they always save the theory, facts and morality as others understand it be damned.

Suppose you point out that there would be no public roads or rights-of-way in a Libertarian world. You get the same kinds of stupid, convoluted justifications.

You come away from such discussions thinking that they are either monsters or idiots. Likely, they are both.

In general, there's no way of reducing these people to absurdity when they so happily wallow in it.

And that is one way to think of what it is that makes them ideologues instead of thinkers.

My personal experience is that while everyone has principles, libertarians are far more likely than most people to go over the cliff with their principles, examining issues on a bright-line, unidimensional philosophical basis without taking into account real-world outcomes or real-world issues of human nature that might soften their views.

I think you are confusing "libertarians" with "Libertarians". Libertarians are, IME, very frequently over-the-cliff, tilting-at-windmills types unconcerned with or utterly disconnected from pragmatic reality. But those adhering to a libertarian principles but not necessarily adhering to the policy prescriptions of the libertarian party are not.

But parties tend to be concentrating pools for the worst things associated with "ideology"—fanatical, quasi-religious devotion to policy prescriptions rather than the underlying principles—and I don't exclude my own party from that. Parties are a pragmatic tool, but they the exigencies of policy alliances make it hard to keep them devoted to principle while adapting to new understanding of the pragmatics of accomplishing those needs. All too often, the means become cast in stone, the ends they are supposed to serve forgotten, or simply recited by rote without consideration of whether the evidence is still there to support them.

Give me one simple idea that I can wish I lived by, and then all those bothersome facts fall into place as examples of the category: "things that are wrong with the world because it does not conform to my beautiful simple idea."

Capitalism. Communism. God.

Ok, folks, this is about as sporting as skewering the KKK at an NAACP convention. Let's bash liberals instead.

What's weird about libertarians is that they essentially have a two-pronged rational for every laissez-faire policy they promote:

1. Deontological - e.g., it's wrong to dictate to property owners what they do with their property.

2. Consequentialist: e.g., restrictions on property will make us all poorer and unhappier.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with this; having multiple reasons for your view is a good thing. But what's curious is that these two rationale MIRACULOUSLY apply to EVERY SINGLE issue!

This is literally incredible: what are the chances that for every issue of government, the consequentialist answer and the deontological answer would line up exactly? Surely sometimes it happens that one is present but not the other. Can it really be the case that every single state action that violates rights as libertarians see them also fails to be conducive to the general good?

Deontology deals with duty. i believe you are looking for Utilitarian.

No, that's what I'm talking about. They think the government has a duty not to violate the property rights of individuals. Disobeying this duty is wrong no matter what; you can't say, yeah but look at all the nice consequences that followed.

They ALSO think that libertarianism is justified on conseq./utilitarian grounds: we will all be much happier and better off if the government doesn't violate individual property rights.

Okay. I just always associate deontology as a duty on the part of the individual. Rather in the Kantian sense.

JG,

I think that you're right that Libertarians generally DO believe that on both moral and practical grounds they are right.

But what I've noticed is that they tend to argue first on practical grounds for as long as that seems to work, and when it goes into serious failure, they resort to "moral" grounds. For example, they argue that even if some people wouldn't do well under a Libertarian economy, it's because they don't "deserve" to do so, because they are not as productive as others, or that they can't be allowed to do better when doing so involves "stealing" other people's property.

As a former libertarian, of many years, I can tell you it's pointless to debate them at all. They (the rank-and-file, anyway) add little to any issue, and they treat everything with religious fervor making them impermeable to reason. Don't waste time.

One of the most striking blog comments I ever saw was from a libertarian commenting on a universal health care thread. This fellow recounted that his beloved uncle had just passed away from a cancer which would have been preventable if detected early. The uncle did not see a doctor upon the first appearance of symptoms because he had no insurance and felt he couldn't afford it.

The poster thought this was right and proper, and a consequence that we all should accept for the benefits of having a free-market health care system.

This isn't ideology - it's brain disease.

Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with this; having multiple reasons for your view is a good thing. But what's curious is that these two rationale MIRACULOUSLY apply to EVERY SINGLE issue!

Not really; I'd say it would be odder to have a belief system in which the correct action would not also be believed to lead to the best results.

My problem with Libertarians is more that I find their stated deontological arguments to be overly simplistic (that is, they tend to articulate good general principles on an outline level, but take those simplistic articulations as absolute maxims), and their consequentialist arguments to be unconvincing in light of the evidence, on just about every policy position.

I just always associate deontology as a duty on the part of the individual.

I think that's true of Libertarians as well, generally. While they talk about government, many of them are very clear that the duty of restraint they would apply to it is because "the government" acting to regulate is just other people coercing you, and those people have an obligation of restraint.

(Zoomed out to the maximum extent, I agree with them on that; its when it comes to specific applications that I have problems with them.)

A libertarian is just a Republican who doesn't have the testicular fortitude* to come out and admit he's* a total, greedy, ignorant asshole.

(*I was going to include "ovarian" fortitude and "she," but I've never, ever met a female Libertarian ... which may explain why Instacracker is such an uptight fuqtard.)

I know a couple of female Libertarians, including one who ran strictly-to-get-the-word-out campaigns against Jesse Jackson Jr., Rod Blagojevich and some others. She was in her 20s, in good shape and fairly pretty at the time, and used to distribute campaign photos of herself in way sexy poses with guns cocked. Got a lot more press pickup than she might've otherwise.

It's true that there are very few female libertarians. It's pretty much only guys who are subject to the delusion that, in a modern society, they can go it alone just fine.

shortstop--
I figured there were a few out there (double meaning intended). I've just never met one, and I drive by the local Libertarian HQ on a pretty regular basis -- their office in on a corner, all glass, and is also part of a radio station.

All I ever see are overweight dudes who look like their idea of a good time is mixin' up some virgin Daiquiris on a Friday night and playing a D&D until dawn.

OT (but still about principles, or ideology if you will):

"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.

What a hoot.

The GOP argues stridently to the point of ranting about government not being mommy and daddy to every American citizen, telling them what they can and cannot do, and about government not a suitable replacement for the judgment of parents, then argues the exact opposite when faced with a law designed to restrict pornography.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

What utter hypocrites.

Then again, the GOP believes in government telling people what they can and cannot do with respect to virtually every aspect of sex.

Why are conservatives so obsessed with regulating sex.

And gambling.

And drugs.

But not . . .

pollution . . .

health care . . .

smoking . . .

business fraud . . .

price gouging . . .

and so on and so on.

I thought I was a libertarian when I first went to college.

Likewise. Then I got an education.

"(*I was going to include "ovarian" fortitude and "she," but I've never, ever met a female Libertarian "

Try googling "Marty Zupan". She used to work for the IHS. There are some female libertarians, but damned few.
Of course, I've actually heard male libertarians claim it's because women are weaker than men, and NEED socialism. No lie.

Gosh, the level of preening, smug, self-satisfaction by many here in this thread exceeds the norm in this forum, and that is saying something; Oh, goodness, those stupid, ideological, etc., etc., (place invective here), libertarians!

First, as was noted above, there is quite a difference between Libertarian and libertarian, and even within those two variants there are widespread differences on a whole range of issues. What does tend unite them all is a deep suspicion of the wisdom of relationships and interactions which are compelled by state power, and recognition that property rights are as critical as other rights to the maintainence of liberty. Are there Libertarians and libertarians I consider extremely impractical and ignorant of reality? Sure. However, to have a bunch of people, many of whom that are possessed of a deep abiding Faith in the efficacy and morality of central planning by a coercive state, despite a century's worth of evidence of the inevitable trade-offs and negative unintended consequences of central planning by the state, broadly denounce libertarians for being divorced from reality, is more than a little ironic. To have statists broadly denounce libertarian thought as being insufficiently mindful of the welfare of individual citizens would be hilarious, if not for the tragic record of innocent citizens' treatment by majorities with their hands on the levers of state power.

A substantial percentage of people who strongly align with the Republican or Democratic Party are little more than majoritarian thugs who just know that if they can just capture a wee bit more of the electorate, they can proceed to impose their will on those that oppose them, and they find the prospect absolutely enthralling.

Gosh, how does that feel?

Libertarians have political autism. They are useless except as an almost inchoate but powerful collective voice for individual freedom. Funny, isn't it?
The idea of freedom, expressed in exactly the same terms by so many fruitcakes, really IS an important part of our political dialogue. I personally will never discuss politics with a Libertarian though.

Took you long enough to get here, Will, but we know you'll be good for the night, repeating the same five or six sentences until 2 a.m. or so and then starting right up again tomorrow morning.

I have greatly annoyed many Libertarians by calling them conservatives with intellectual pretensions. By the way, Jawk, a woman's right to choose for her own body is libertarian position.
They act that they have no connection to the real world because they are superior beings, only they're not. Conservatives also begin with an Procrustean ideology and adjust what facts they can to fit, ignore what facts they can't. Extreme leftists are the other side of the same coin. Most center-left people are pragmatists while center right seem to be corporatists. Racists gravitate to the right these days.

Keep on telling yourself how wonderful you are, and how evil and stupid all that differ with you are, shortstop. That's what usually passes for critical thinking with a lot of people in this forum.

Knee jerking by the incurious exists across the political spectrum.

Libertarian is french for dumbass.

I was in Atlanta in the Spring of 1980 and dropped by the Libertarian Party HQ and met two beautiful young women. Foolishly I donated $10.

Will Allen on March 22, 2007 at 5:54 PM:

Keep on telling yourself how wonderful you are, and how evil and stupid all that differ with you are..

Proceeded by:

Will Allen on March 22, 2007 at 5:31 PM:

Gosh, the level of preening, smug, self-satisfaction by many here in this thread exceeds the norm in this forum..

Gosh, Will, keep telling yourself how wonderful you are, and how evil and stupid those who differ from are, in the most preening, smug, self-satisfied manner possible, you hypocrite...

I'm principled, you're an ideologue, she's a wingnut. Degrees of separation make all the difference. My first rule of life is "When it's your own, it's different." Which is why people with horribly spoiled, selfish, badly-behaved children sit around and talk about how horribly spoiled, selfish and badly behaved OTHER people's children are.

Will Allen: there is quite a difference between Libertarian and libertarian, and even within those two variants there are widespread differences on a whole range of issues.

Right out of the textbook. From Libertarianism Makes You Stupid:

criticism: There are all kinds of Libertarians.

rebuttal: I call this criticism "X means nothing, except for the good parts". Rare is the person (especially the Libertarian), who will attempt to invalidate a criticism of Communist ideology along the lines of "There are all kinds of Communists - Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyites, etc.". Yes, Libertarians have factions such as Objectivists and debates on "minarchism vs anarchism" and so on. But such obscure doctrinal divisions over theological points don't make broad descriptions any less valid for an overview. Even a harshly critical overview.

I am for mostly unrestricted personal liberty. The drug laws and other laws restricting individuals' behavior were enacted to enforce a public morality to either conform to religious or business needs. Prohibition satisfied both the moralists and the corporatists, who thought preventing people from drinking alcohol with state police powers was a good thing. Two other factions were also enthusiastic about prohibition: organized crime and law enforcement. Both of these institutions saw an opportunity to become rich and increase their institutional prerogative, much to the detriment to the rest of society.

Just because I think alcoholic beverages should be available for conusmption, I still agree with prohibitons against selling it to children and driving while intoxicated. Although I might disagree with Draconian punishments for DUI, I still recognize that communities need to regulate that behavior for the safety of the community. That need to regulate behavior for the safety of the community can be a perfect balance, ignored or abused. Usually those ignoring or abusing the safety of the community are adherents to an ideology.

Gosh, the level of preening, smug, self-satisfaction by many here in this thread exceeds the norm in this forum,

Well, its certainly gone up since you showed up.

First, as was noted above, there is quite a difference between Libertarian and libertarian, and even within those two variants there are widespread differences on a whole range of issues. What does tend unite them all is a deep suspicion of the wisdom of relationships and interactions which are compelled by state power, and recognition that property rights are as critical as other rights to the maintainence of liberty.

Which, actually, is exactly unites pretty much almost everone in the broad modern western consensus descended from classical liberalism. While there may be some analytical utility to a "libertarian" vs. "authoritarian" distinction, you'll note that very few people self-described with terms referring to strong government, and any term with that connotation has a widely seen pejorative connotation. Ditto with opposition to private property, though of course there is disagreement on its precise boundaries and application.

So, while that's where libertarian rhetoric is centered, its not a particularly good way of distinguishing libertarians from anyone else, or defining what unites them as distinct from any other political movement.

What's unique and uniting about people who primarily, above all else describe themselvse as libertarian (with either a big-L or a small-l) is that they view their (broadly accepted) view of the need for government restraint as paramount and of greater priority than almost any vision of proper goals of the government.

(One thing that makes libertarians seem over-the-top is that they fundamentally have a set of uniting principles that, when it comes to government policy, addresses means almost exclusively, rather than ends. While there is a popular warning about being to ready to accept arguments about ends justifying means, the absence of a corresponding warning about the reverse is not an indication that that form of reasoning is seen as more acceptable, rather, that it is so foreign and unattractive to most people that there is no need to warn against it.)

However, to have a bunch of people, many of whom that are possessed of a deep abiding Faith in the efficacy and morality of central planning by a coercive state,...

One thing that distinguishes "libertarian" internet trolls, though perhaps less so libertarians more generally, is their deep and abiding faith that everyone who disagrees with their prescriptions on how to run government does so out of "a deep abiding Faith in the efficacy and morality of central planning by a coercive state".

...despite a century's worth of evidence of the inevitable trade-offs and negative unintended consequences of central planning by the state...

We've got more than a centuries worth of evidence of the dangers of ineffective, weak states, too. There is a reason that the greatest successes ,in terms of economic growth, popular satisfaction, lifespan, etc., has been in moderately regulated states with strong social welfare systems.

There is a happy medium between minarchism and (pardon the possible neologism) maxarchism, and the libertarian extreme of the former ain't it, from any practical evidence.

...broadly denounce libertarians for being divorced from reality, is more than a little ironic.

Not so much as having someone try to assert that history's demonstration of the failures of the most authoritarian systems somehow demonstrates the superiority of libertarianism, despite the fact that the victors were the moderately regulated welfare states that libertarians rail against, and then go on to assert that everyone disagreeing with that does so out of blind faith.

To have statists broadly denounce libertarian thought as being insufficiently mindful of the welfare of individual citizens would be hilarious, if not for the tragic record of innocent citizens' treatment by majorities with their hands on the levers of state power.

Which might be relevant, if the "statists" involved were advocating unlimited majoritarian government with no constraints. But, you know, it would be more credible for you to argue against the position that you were detached from reality if you could even show any contact with the reality of the forum, rather than just simply posting what seems to be entirely canned rants based on your inability to distinguish among different viewpoints that don't perfectly agree with yours, instead lumping them all together as identical.

A substantial percentage of people who strongly align with the Republican or Democratic Party are little more than majoritarian thugs who just know that if they can just capture a wee bit more of the electorate, they can proceed to impose their will on those that oppose them, and they find the prospect absolutely enthralling.

Well, for a somewhat broad view of "substantial", and focussed only on the elites of the parties, that's probably true.

Just as true of Libertarians, too; a weaker government is less able to prevent the powerful from coercing the weak, as has been amply demonstrated in weak states throughout history.

Gosh, how does that feel?

About typical for the canned rants you are wont to post here. That line suggest you might think of this as a parody of something you perceive going on here by others, but if that was your intent, it fails because it is indistinguishable from much of what you post regularly. If it is intended as a parody, it works only as a self-parody.

Keep on telling yourself how wonderful you are, and how evil and stupid all that differ with you are...

Er, this from the guy who wrote rants about how everyone who disagrees with him is a power hungry statist looking for the power to coerce everyone else. Forget pots and kettles, its more like the night calling the day "dark".

Grape crush, you apparently are unable to grasp the meaning of a modifier, as opposed to a categorical attribution of a negative quality. I suspect the same is true of Mr. Cheney. English is hard.

Alex, your attribution would have some usefulness, if it had any relationship to reality. Given that many critiques of libertarianism include the false notions that libertarians are universally of one mind regarding things like public education, a social welfare net, national defense, abortion, public transportation etc., etc., many critiques of libertarianism are decidedly divorced from reality.

Now, if a critique of communism states that collective ownership of the means of production nearly alwyas leads to extremely retarded wealth generation, then, yes pointing out the different types communism would be pointless. However, if a critique of communism states that communism always results in mass murder in the tens of millions, then one would rightly point out that this is not the case.

Now, if a critique of communism states that collective ownership of the means of production nearly alwyas leads to extremely retarded wealth generation, then, yes pointing out the different types communism would be pointless.

But pointing out that this critique is factually incorrect would not be pointless. For one thing, "collective ownership" is not "state ownership", consider Mondragon-style cooperatives, which have been quite successful in promoting economic development in some areas. Whether this is important in regards to a critique directed at "Communism" depends on whether or you consider as "Communist" modern devotees of Marx who find both Marx's critique of capitalism and some broad elements of prescription to be compelling, but reject Leninism and its descendents as "state capitalism", and favor the government role in acheiving ownership of the means of production by the workers to be instead in favoring through government policy, or even mandating (either directly or as a right that workers may invoke akin to the right to unionization, either with compensation or without depending on the particular advocate) the transfer of ownership of firms to worker collectives.

I used to think I was a Libertarian until I realized that all of the card-carrying one I ran into were truly dogmabots - admittedly it's a small sample, but I was taught to be skeptical of nearly everything and was congenitally anti-authoritarian. The problem with the dogmatic Libertarians is that they are slaves to their "ideal world" models of human behavior and the consequences of that behavior. The models work great on paper because it's a closed system. Once you get into the real-world, they don't have a prayer of working because there are too many variables unaccounted for in their models.

I still consider myself "libertarianish," but I also find it odd that a philosophy that is supposedly based on enlightened self-interest can be so utterly inflexible, unenlightened and often willfully ignorant of basic facts.

Shouldn't Libertarians, of all people, strive to be skeptical and empirical when testing their own theories? Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" is one of my favorite shows, but they certainly don't challenge their own assumptions very often.

Still, there are more and more people who feel that Big Business/Big Government aren't really the answer to our problems. Who wouldn't be distrustful of centralized control structures? I think what we'll see is the "libertarianization" of both parties over the next few years among the younger set.

Apparently, cmdicely, you are also largely unfamiliar with the use of modifiers, and how they change the meaning of a sentence. This surprises me.

If you wish to think that any entity in American or world history has even remotely approached the capability of the modern state, in terms of the application of coercive powers on the unwilling, thus making those with libertarian leanings as thuggishly covetous of such power as the elites of the Republican or Democratic Party, well, I'm against the War on Drugs, so don't worry, I won't tell the authorities.

Give me librium or give me meth.

Yes, cmdicely, and in some regards, General Electric is collectively owned. Thank you.

Dope on the Slope: I used to think I was a Libertarian until I realized that all of the card-carrying one I ran into were truly dogmabots

Dogmabots, I love it! Is that Brooklyn slang? It oughta be.

The problem with the dogmatic Libertarians is that they are slaves to their "ideal world" models of human behavior and the consequences of that behavior.

A great irony - slavishly devoted to anti-authoritarianism.

Still, there are more and more people who feel that Big Business/Big Government aren't really the answer to our problems.

Of course they're not the answer to all problems. But all too many people who claim to believe in minimal gov't really mean that the part of gov't they don't like should be minimized. The part that lines their pockets is just fine.

Who wouldn't be distrustful of centralized control structures?

People with a reflexive authoritarian bent, or those ignorant of history.

I think what we'll see is the "libertarianization" of both parties over the next few years among the younger set.

Oh ye of much faith.

any entity in American...history has even remotely approached the capability of the modern state, in terms of the application of coercive powers...

Triangle Shirt Factory. Pullman Palace Car Company. Ford Motor Company. United Fruit. Anaconda Copper Mining Company. I do not know the name of any coal companies from a hundred years ago, but add them to the list of private coercive powers that destroyed tens of thousands of lives while promoting a capitalist ideology.

Will Allen, blathering on still:

..you apparently are unable to grasp the meaning...

No, I understand. You really are a hypocrite.

English is hard.

Must be, because you don't seem to get that your use of English has revealed you as a hypocrite.

Alex, your attribution would have some usefulness, if it had any relationship to reality.

Gosh, the level of preening, smug, self-satisfaction by Will Allen here in this thread exceeds the norm in this forum...if only he 'had any relationship to reality', he'd realized what a pompous, hypocritical ass he sounds like.

..many critiques of libertarianism are decidedly divorced from reality.

While many aren't, Will Allen. To dismiss a critique because it doesn't encompass each individual's interpretation of what libertarianism is, well, is kinda dumb.

Apparently, cmdicely, you are also largely unfamiliar with the use of modifiers, and how they change the meaning of a sentence. This surprises me.

"Apparently" based on, what, exactly?

If you wish to think that any entity in American or world history has even remotely approached the capability of the modern state, in terms of the application of coercive powers on the unwilling, thus making those with libertarian leanings as thuggishly covetous of such power as the elites of the Republican or Democratic Party, well, I'm against the War on Drugs, so don't worry, I won't tell the authorities.

You'd have to be on rather strong drugs yourself, to honestly think it is necessary to believe a single entity was as powerful as a modern nation-state to believe that the degree of coercion and thuggishness many individual Libertarians could hope to acheive as a result of Libertarian policy was comparable to that many opportunists of other parties might hope to acheive through their party's policies.

But inventing ridiculous arguments that are neither in nor implied by your opponents positions and thus misattributing them to your opponents and using them to justify personal insults about how stupid and ill-motivated your opponents are seems to be your principal debating tactic here. Ironic, given your attack on others for supposed smug attribution of evil or idiocy to their opponents, but I guess its hard to take the beam out of your own eye.

Brojo, show me a private coercive power in U.S. history which locked up 100,000 people in camps for several years, and allowed the prisoners' belongings to be sold off at a profit. Show me the private coercive power which forcibly sterlized people (gotta' love those "progessives"!) who were deemed insufficiently intelligent. Show me the private coercive power which has erected a gulag system, populated it with millions of people, many of whom who have done others no harm, and allowed, and in some instances even encouraged, that the weak within the gulags be mercilessly tortured. Show me a private coercive power which can send massive military forces to all corners of the globe to wage war. Show me the private coercive power in this country which has a nearly limitless supply of capital to engage in these acts, due to it's ability to imprison any who don't comply with the edicts to supply such capital.

Nope, you need a state for those things to happen, and to fend of the preditable strawman, that isn't an argument for anarchism. What it is an argument for is to frankly recognize that there is no entity which remotely approaches the power of the modern state, and that using such an awesomely powerful tool is best done with a great deal of circumspection.

Will Allen: What it is an argument for is to frankly recognize that there is no entity which remotely approaches the power of the modern state, and that using such an awesomely powerful tool is best done with a great deal of circumspection.

Golly, gee, Will, that sounds like a darn good argument for a system of government with checks and balances on its power, accountability ensured by periodic elections, and a list of rights and restrictions on government power.

Wow, I guess only a Libertarian (or is it a libertarian?) could come up with a great idea like that. Maybe you could put the whole proposal on a piece of paper of something, and we'll have a big party (oops, call it a convention - sounds better), and ask for ratification. Hey, how's Philadelphia work for you?

Sucks, if I'd known that only L/libertarians are opposed to governments murdering millions of their citizens, I woulda become one years ago!

Brojo, show me a private coercive power in U.S. history which locked up 100,000 people in camps for several years, and allowed the prisoners' belongings to be sold off at a profit.

Well, lots of private coercive powers in US history did that (and more) combined, though no one did it individually. I refer, of course, to the slaveholding private individuals, whose only reliance on the state was for the purpose libertarians point to as the principal, central, and sometimes sole role of government, the protection of those slave holders property rights.

Since individual entities aren't important, what is important is people, either as the perpetrators or victims of coercion, I don't really think it matters whether mass oppression is accomplished through a single artificial juridical entity or handled retail, what matters is the coercion effected and the unjust harms produced thereby.

Do tell, grape crush, where, in this thread, I've categorically assigned an extremely negative quality to those who don't share a sympathy for libertarian beliefs, in the manner that extremely negative qualities have been categorically assigned to any who do have that sympathy. A thread well populated with comments categorically describing those with such sympathies as, to give just few examples, "assholes", being a "dumbass", "self-indulgent..brats", "impermeable to reason", "selfish pricks", among other insults. In what regard is it inaccurate to call such commentary preening and smugly self satisfied? Can you grasp the meaning of words?

I take it then, Alex, that you would join me in actually embracing that document drafted in Philly, along with it's ratified Amendments? Including the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments, and without the perversion of language which allows nearly all human activity to be descibed as having been encompassed by the term "interstate commerce"? Yes, having checks on the power of the state is a most excellent idea. We should try it again.

cmdicely, when you attribute to me the belief that I think "all" who disagree with me are of a single motivation, it can only be concluded that you fail to grasp the meaning of modifiers. Or perhaps you are just making stuff up.

Of course, given that any libertarian, of any subset, would disagree with the idea that a human being could legitimately be categorized as private property, your remarks regarding slavery and private entities is largely pointless, especially since slavery could not have survived without state intervention.

Will Allen on March 22, 2007 at 7:54 PM:

Nope, you need a state for those things to happen..

No, Will. You don't.

Will Allen on March 22, 2007 at 8:26 PM:

A thread well populated with comments categorically describing those with such sympathies as, to give just few examples, "assholes", being a "dumbass", "self-indulgent..brats", "impermeable to reason", "selfish pricks", among other insults.

Will, are you too tone deaf to realize that the hypocrisy, smugness, lack of a valid argument, and self-satisfaction you choose to display here turns those insults into accurate descriptors? You are what those people are describing with those pejorative terms.

frankly0 on March 22, 2007 at 2:34 PM:

You come away from such discussions thinking that they are either monsters or idiots. Likely, they are both. In general, there's no way of reducing these people to absurdity when they so happily wallow in it. And that is one way to think of what it is that makes them ideologues instead of thinkers.

...Exactly...

grape crush, please explain how the conditons in Saipan, as deplorable as they are, the equivalent of a being locked up and tortured in Pelican Bay, or an internment camp. Did the American government land Marines in China and capture these people? The condition are horrible, but it is not equivalent, and you are lying if you say it is.

I'll also note that you are also too dishonest to answer whether my description of the comments I quoted were inaccurate in any way. Why does an accurate description of a series of remarks bother you so?

Again, grape crush, please quote me hurling categorical invective against those I differ with, in the maner that categorical invective has been deployed against those who have libertarian sympathies.

Do tell, grape crush, where, in this thread, I've categorically ...

Blah blah blah. You don't categorically do much of anything, preferring to post vague characterizations of persons and groups without specificity as to who the personal characterizations refer to, or which comments your vague characterizations of arguments apply to. Which is generally a good idea, given that those vague generalities don't seem to have any specific referents in reality, they seem to represent your own fantasies.

cmdicely, when you attribute to me the belief that I think "all" who disagree with me are of a single motivation, it can only be concluded that you fail to grasp the meaning of modifiers.

It could be concluded that when I attribute to you a belief like that, I am doing so as an inference from your posts, not stating that that is the literal, denotative meaning of the words you post.

Which someone who is fond of making claims about peoples beliefs that not only aren't the literal meaning of what they say but have no rational relationship to any thing they've said ought not to complain about. But, then, again, self-awareness isn't a trait you frequently exhibit in your postings.

Of course, given that any libertarian, of any subset, would disagree with the idea that a human being could legitimately be categorized as private property, your remarks regarding slavery and private entities is largely pointless, especially since slavery could not have survived without state intervention.

So long as it was not hereditary and was voluntarily entered into, I've heard self-described libertarians who were otherwise within the libertarian mainstream defend slavery for a time certain or even lifetime indentures. So, no, I'd reject your "no true Scotsman" argument, and, further, the challenge was about private coercion, not about "coercion by private action that libertarians would support", so even if I accepted your "no