New at Reason

Thomas Paine's Goiter | November 27, 2007, 9:41am | #

When I got December issue, I flipped through it and saw four or five articles with possibilities. This one did not disappoint. The subject matter and writing in the last few issues has been excellent.

x,y | November 27, 2007, 9:49am | #

Slight threadjack (but ultimately on topic):

Would the Paul campaign have the traction it does now if he had been a 10-term Democrat and was running for president as a Democrat? Assume all his positions are the same.

Episiarch | November 27, 2007, 10:20am | #

I mean, what I said above is generally true, but the arguments are presented on a more cool-headed, rational level.

Anybody think that might work?

Nope. Too many people's envy and hatred of the rich is vastly more powerful than their hatred of the government or its attempts to control them.

It sucks but it's true. A lot of people just want to see rich people brought down a peg or 10 (and have their wealth spread around), more than they want opportunities for themselves.

greenish | November 27, 2007, 11:01am | #

One could also argue that the only way to effectively "screw the rich" is to weaken government - since the rich have the power, using a gigantic nexus of power to screw them over is bound to fail or create a new rich class.

JBinMO | November 27, 2007, 11:20am | #

You would have a problem though. Most people seem to beleive that today we ahve a purely free market, I hear it about housing and the mortgage industry all the time. No one thinks about Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (both started by the government) FHA and VA loans, mountains of regulations. Despite all these, people are still convinced that the government is not involved in housing. That is a big problem.

ChrisO | November 27, 2007, 11:33am | #

This was a fascinating article. Thanks to Mr. Root and Reason for publishing it. What's interesting to me is how this shows the same issues coming up again and again in American history. Unfortunately, we have a tendency these days to limit our view of "American history" to post-World War II or even today to post-Vietnam.

The basic threads of American libertarianism go back to the very European settlement of this land, even if those same folks had some non-libertarian notions.

The Libertarian Populist | November 27, 2007, 12:02pm | #

The Government oppresses the average American through its suppression of private property rights! Big Brother's embraces eminent domain because it ultimately renders the average citizen powerless.

Big Government does not think about America...they continually ship billions of your hard-earned dollars around the world to prop up anti-democratic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Government should stop stealing from the mouths of our children to give to corrupt third-world country dictators. It's unacceptable.

The State is wedded to its rich "buddies" in the corporate world; the Government pilfers money from hard-working Americans like you and me and gives it to wealthy, well-connected welfare queens. Why is the American family paying for Archers-Daniels-Midland's executives to fly about the country in Lear jets?

The elites want to suppress the average American, by either having everyone dependent on Mommy and Daddy Government to provide, thereby rendering us helpless, or through onerous, "good-for-us" initiatives that take away YOUR choice.

BakedPenguin | November 27, 2007, 12:25pm | #

First, let me add to the kudos already stated for this article.

Second, to address I've always felt libertarian ideas aren't sold well, outside a small niche of educated politics enthusiasts.

I think this is very true.

One problem is that libertarians are seen as wanting to only take away things currently provided by the government. I believe a lot of liberals (and "compassionate" conservatives) have this idea that libertarians just want to see things taken away from poor people (for laughs, I guess). If more libertarians talked about a positive vision of libertopia, where many of the current government services were provided by communities and charities, using some of the money returned to private sources (since government would no longer get it), we would gain more traction. It is vital to liberty to state that wealth belongs to those that create it. However, pointing out that the "social safety net" won't collapse absent massive government won't hurt.

Another thing that somewhat bothers me is that everything in libertarian discussion appears to come back to the market. While I agree that nearly all choices humans freely make (with economic consequences) will be settled in a market setting, why assume it? Go back to "free choice" and discuss the implications from there, including the fact that people can "opt out" of the market, but they will be responsible for the consequences of that choice until and unless they opt back in.

Finally, there have been a few threads where the relative paucity of black libertarians has been discussed. Can you imagine if more Libertarian (or libertarian) candidate went into black neighborhoods to campaign, and talked about ending the War on Drugs, talked about more limits on police militarization / brutality, and more stringent judicial review?

peachy | November 27, 2007, 1:16pm | #

BakedPenguin - you're absolutely right, I think, that libertarianism is too often perceived as a negative approach, esp by liberals. Just the other day there was an article in Slate (which aside from the occasional screeds by Hitchens usually slants liberal) that decried the "cramped" small-government philosophies of the Republican presidential candidates. (Never mind that by libertarian standards they're almost all raving statists.) On the contrary, I said to myself; reducing the scope of government doesn't mean reducing the potential of individuals. It means liberating that potential.

But unless we can persuade the left that libertarianism is a positive philosophy, there's no chance of a long-term accomodation. And personally, I don't think there is any chance at all, because the modern left (like the modern right) seems to be dominated by the notion that positive means state-supported - that a small government is one that is restricted to less than its proper functions. Which is why 'liberaltarianism' is nothing more than a tactical marriage of convenience.

krg | November 27, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Someone should also tell these weenie dems that the "partying" they do should be available to all men...regardless of creed or income level. The drug laws that they tend to forget about when they are in control would give them a real issue young people could relate to...not "global warming"...

Carl Milsted | November 28, 2007, 11:48am | #

Liberty and equality should go together. I just recently looked at the Gini coefficients of various states (follow the link I just gave) and found that the two states that have elected the most Libertarians to the state house also have some of the lowest Gini coefficients: Alaska (lowest) and New Hampshire (4th lowest).

Small government coupled with taxation based on natural resource use (i.e., Georgism) results in more equality. Alaska has the Permanent Fund, funded by oil, and New Hampshire gets most of its state funding through property taxes.

A left-libertarian political party (combining more equality with smaller government) could become a major political party.

Craig | November 30, 2007, 4:36pm | #

If the Democrats would just stop proposing new government programs, and promise to stop increasing spending every year, they would probably become the permanent majority party.

Republicans have lost all credibility on fiscal issues, and Democrats are already better on war and civil liberties.

Giving up their addiction to bigger government shouldn't be that tough for the Democrats, either -- President Bush has increased spending by over 50% in the past 7 years. They could actually CUT spending and still have a bigger budget than Bill Clinton did, with plenty of cash to spend on progressive priorities.

Perhaps the Ron Paul Revolution will get their attention. An anti-war, pro-civil liberties, pro-Second Amendment, fiscally conservative, pro-smaller government party would not only be really popular right now, it would be gaining the young political activists and cementing its future status as the dominant party.