Good debate on libertarianism

[Simon]

I get Reason magazine and thought this was a good series of articles in this month's issue.

 

Where Do Libertarians Belong?

 

For those who cherish the ideals of free minds and free markets, 21st century politics in the United States has not been a particularly welcoming place. The big-government conservatism of George W. Bush has been followed by the bigger- government liberalism of Barack Obama. The twin crises of 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown spawned the twin leviathans of national security hyperextension and the never-ending bailout. The nation’s political class has rallied around the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and the country’s short-term financial picture only looks tenable when compared to the long-term fiscal nightmare that just about everyone agrees is coming.

So where should libertarians drop anchor and forge alliances within the famous four-sided Nolan Chart spectrum of political beliefs and groupings? In this exchange, Contributing Editor Brink Lindsey argues that it’s time, once and for all, to sever the libertarian-conservative alliance that dates back to the New Deal while remaining skeptical about the illiberal populism of Tea Party activism. In response, a conservative writer—National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg—disputes Lindsey’s portrayal of the right and contends that the only major party giving free market economics the time of day is the GOP. Meanwhile, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Lindsey and his think tank fellow travelers to climb down off that high horse and celebrate the most promising limited-government popular uprising in generations.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

What a tremendous benefit to the country Lindsey would be if he could achive a Libertarian party that actually had voting clought. His scathing criticism of the wildly irrational and misguided Conservatives is right on. I just wish Libertarians like himself could attract voters, which he can't. There then might be serious challaenges in GOP primaries that address big government issues like NASA, Medicare, EPA, FDIC and the FDA. Can you imagine Lindsey winning voters by his pledge to "expand individual liberty," as he claims his goal is, by eliminating those government agencies? Wow!

 

Really, what liberties does he feel we are lacking right now? Anyone?

[Rob's House]

I get Reason magazine and thought this was a good series of articles in this month's issue.

 

Where Do Libertarians Belong?

 

For those who cherish the ideals of free minds and free markets, 21st century politics in the United States has not been a particularly welcoming place. The big-government conservatism of George W. Bush has been followed by the bigger- government liberalism of Barack Obama. The twin crises of 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown spawned the twin leviathans of national security hyperextension and the never-ending bailout. The nation’s political class has rallied around the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes, and the country’s short-term financial picture only looks tenable when compared to the long-term fiscal nightmare that just about everyone agrees is coming.

So where should libertarians drop anchor and forge alliances within the famous four-sided Nolan Chart spectrum of political beliefs and groupings? In this exchange, Contributing Editor Brink Lindsey argues that it’s time, once and for all, to sever the libertarian-conservative alliance that dates back to the New Deal while remaining skeptical about the illiberal populism of Tea Party activism. In response, a conservative writer—National Review Online Editor-at-Large Jonah Goldberg—disputes Lindsey’s portrayal of the right and contends that the only major party giving free market economics the time of day is the GOP. Meanwhile, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe tells Lindsey and his think tank fellow travelers to climb down off that high horse and celebrate the most promising limited-government popular uprising in generations.

The idealistic proposition of libertarians splitting with conservatives is enticing except that it is met with the reality of effectively splitting the non-statist vote, thus enabling the Democrats, who have devolved into outright socialists (Is it still "outrageous" to call a duck a duck?), to maintain a level of governmental power that NO party should ever possess.

 

A better alternative would be for the GOP to be taken over by it's libertarian factions with the GWB conservatives forced to the fringes of the party. The Keynesian crowd learned in the 30s that you can't fuel an economy on empty fiat money. Too bad our modern day Keynesians didn't get the memo.

[Magox]

I support a lean-n-mean government machine.....

[whateverdude]

What a tremendous benefit to the country Lindsey would be if he could achive a Libertarian party that actually had voting clought. His scathing criticism of the wildly irrational and misguided Conservatives is right on. I just wish Libertarians like himself could attract voters, which he can't. There then might be serious challaenges in GOP primaries that address big government issues like NASA, Medicare, EPA, FDIC and the FDA. Can you imagine Lindsey winning voters by his pledge to "expand individual liberty," as he claims his goal is, by eliminating those government agencies? Wow!

 

Really, what liberties does he feel we are lacking right now? Anyone?

 

Bha ha ha ha ha

Edited September 5, 2010 by whateverdude

[whateverdude]

This guy Lindsey has nothing new to add he's of the older open borders libertarians. His views on conservatives are phobic and border on paranoia, in my view of course

.

Edited September 5, 2010 by whateverdude

[OCinBuffalo]

Or, we can see this for what it is:

 

A last ditch attempt, by a self-described "Obama Republican", to try and divide and/or minimize the tidal wave that is coming to wash the far left(see, I didn't say socialist, happy?) agenda, and the president this guy supported, out of DC. Or, this is a way for a political professional who has gotten burned by Obama to try and justify his poor choices and even worse analysis of a presidential candidate.

 

There are analysts who are making plausible cases for an 60-90 seat blowout in the house. Again, this is not me talking, click on the link and see that this is data and historical trends talking. This has the potential to be even bigger than 94, Obama is too addled to pull a Clinton, and this Obama Republican knows it.

 

Given the lack of options, and the lack of time, the average Obama supporter has veerrry little to work with before November. Articles/positions/arguments like this is only the beginning. Between then and now we are sure to see every canard, straw man, phony moral superiority argument and every other tactic in the book.

 

Hint: all of that is only going to make things worse for Democrats. Their positions aren't based on reality or common sense, and everybody knows it. They are based, and I'm being nice here, on an over-reliance on failed ideology. This is why we keep seeing all these unforced errors. Articles in Reason magazine aren't going to stop what's coming. The best thing for Democrats(or Obama Republicans) right now is introspection, but I doubt they even know what the word means.

 

How much do you want to bet I get yelled at by Simon...when the failures of his far left heroes have nothing to do with me?

[Booster4324]

Or, we can see this for what it is:

 

A last ditch attempt, by a self-described "Obama Republican", to try and divide and/or minimize the tidal wave that is coming to wash the far left(see, I didn't say socialist, happy?) agenda, and the president this guy supported, out of DC. Or, this is a way for a political professional who has gotten burned by Obama to try and justify his poor choices and even worse analysis of a presidential candidate.

 

There are analysts who are making plausible cases for an 60-90 seat blowout in the house. Again, this is not me talking, click on the link and see that this is data and historical trends talking. This has the potential to be even bigger than 94, Obama is too addled to pull a Clinton, and this Obama Republican knows it.

 

Given the lack of options, and the lack of time, the average Obama supporter has veerrry little to work with before November. Articles/positions/arguments like this is only the beginning. Between then and now we are sure to see every canard, straw man, phony moral superiority argument and every other tactic in the book.

 

Hint: all of that is only going to make things worse for Democrats. Their positions aren't based on reality or common sense, and everybody knows it. They are based, and I'm being nice here, on an over-reliance on failed ideology. This is why we keep seeing all these unforced errors. Articles in Reason magazine aren't going to stop what's coming. The best thing for Democrats(or Obama Republicans) right now is introspection, but I doubt they even know what the word means.

 

How much do you want to bet I get yelled at by Simon...when the failures of his far left heroes have nothing to do with me?

 

LA remember when I called you a partisan hack? My bad, you are so not a partisan hack in comparison.

[ieatcrayonz]

What a tremendous benefit to the country Lindsey would be if he could achive a Libertarian party that actually had voting clought. His scathing criticism of the wildly irrational and misguided Conservatives is right on. I just wish Libertarians like himself could attract voters, which he can't. There then might be serious challaenges in GOP primaries that address big government issues like NASA, Medicare, EPA, FDIC and the FDA. Can you imagine Lindsey winning voters by his pledge to "expand individual liberty," as he claims his goal is, by eliminating those government agencies? Wow!

 

Really, what liberties does he feel we are lacking right now? Anyone?

They pretty much all just want to smoke pot.

[olivier in france]

how i'm impressed by that Lindsey guy... In those crazy times it is so rare to find someone with whom i agree on about everything!!

i had never heard about him before so can some of you tell me a little more about who he is?

[whateverdude]

how i'm impressed by that Lindsey guy... In those crazy times it is so rare to find someone with whom i agree on about everything!!

i had never heard about him before so can some of you tell me a little more about who he is?

Been to a college campus lately

[olivier in france]

Been to a college campus lately

 

no... i wish i could! that's the problem when you live at the end of the world!!

Edited September 6, 2010 by olivier in france

[OCinBuffalo]

LA remember when I called you a partisan hack? My bad, you are so not a partisan hack in comparison.

Ah another no value post. And name calling to boot. Why is it that Booster never says anything insightful? Ah that's right, Booster isn't capable of that level of thinking. We never see Booster start a thread with something interesting. In fact we never see Booster post early on in a thread....because he has to have everyone else explain things for him, and do all the high level thinking....so he can come along and tell us what he "agrees" with and what he doesn't.

 

Booster, the linear thinking ex-bartender with no analytical ability whose insecurity is made worse every time I post See, the truth is worse than all the names you could ever call me.

 

I think we should start calling Booster Charlie Gordon from here on out. Except instead of a wonder drug that makes Booster temporarily smarter than he is, its posts and linked articles on this board.

Edited September 6, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[Booster4324]

Ah another no value post. And name calling to boot. Why is it that Booster never says anything insightful? Ah that's right, Booster isn't capable of that level of thinking. We never see Booster start a thread with something interesting. In fact we never see Booster post early on in a thread....because he has to have everyone else explain things for him, and do all the high level thinking....so he can come along and tell us what he "agrees" with and what he doesn't.

 

Booster, the linear thinking ex-bartender with no analytical ability whose insecurity is made worse every time I post See, the truth is worse than all the names you could ever call me.

 

I think we should start calling Booster Charlie Gordon from here on out. Except instead of a wonder drug that makes Booster temporarily smarter than he is, its posts and linked articles on this board.

 

You are such a good puppy. Now fetch my slippers.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

In my ideal world I would be a libertarian Conservative if such party existed

[Peace]

In my ideal world I would be a libertarian Conservative if such party existed

 

What does that mean? The term "Conservative" has lost any accepted meaning.

[IDBillzFan]

What does that mean? The term "Conservative" has lost any accepted meaning.

The term "conservative" has lost any accepted meaning to whom?

[Peace]

The term "conservative" has lost any accepted meaning to whom?

 

What does it mean? To me, it's been coopted by a socialist Republican Party that is not interested in conservative approaches to spending. It is also not interested in conservative approaches to controlling government control of people's lives. I'd say the term Conservative is hollow these days.

 

If you have an accepted meaning, by all means, do share.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Peace

[Peevo]

Man, this is really, really good.

 

This paragraph describes exactly my problems with the "mainstream" conservative right. I couldn't have said it better:

 

"Notwithstanding the return of libertarian rhetoric, the right today is a fundamentally illiberal and authoritarian movement. It endorses the systematic use of torture. It defends unchecked presidential power over matters of national security. It excuses massive violations of Americans’ civil liberties committed in the name of fighting terrorism. It supports bloated military budgets, preventive war, and open-ended, nation-building occupations. It calls for repressive immigration policies. Far from being anti-statist, it glorifies and romanticizes the agencies of government coercion: the police and the military. It opposes abortion rights. It opposes marriage equality. It panders to creationism. It routinely questions the patriotism of its opponents. It traffics in outlandish conspiracy theories. If you’re serious about individual freedom and limited government, you cannot stand with this movement."

 

The neo-conservative movement needs to fail.

[GG]

Man, this is really, really good.

 

This paragraph describes exactly my problems with the "mainstream" conservative right. I couldn't have said it better:

 

"Notwithstanding the return of libertarian rhetoric, the right today is a fundamentally illiberal and authoritarian movement. It endorses the systematic use of torture. It defends unchecked presidential power over matters of national security. It excuses massive violations of Americans’ civil liberties committed in the name of fighting terrorism. It supports bloated military budgets, preventive war, and open-ended, nation-building occupations. It calls for repressive immigration policies. Far from being anti-statist, it glorifies and romanticizes the agencies of government coercion: the police and the military. It opposes abortion rights. It opposes marriage equality. It panders to creationism. It routinely questions the patriotism of its opponents. It traffics in outlandish conspiracy theories. If you’re serious about individual freedom and limited government, you cannot stand with this movement."

 

The neo-conservative movement needs to fail.

 

You recognize that there are now four distinct schools of thought among conservatives, yet you took the left's bogeyman descriptions of each topic and ascribed it to the entire group.

 

Bravo.

[IDBillzFan]

What does it mean? To me, it's been coopted by a socialist Republican Party that is not interested in conservative approaches to spending. It is also not interested in conservative approaches to controlling government control of people's lives. I'd say the term Conservative is hollow these days.

 

If you have an accepted meaning, by all means, do share.

I think what you're trying to say is that the meaning of "Republican" has changed, not the meaning of "Conservative." In my mind, there was a time when using those two terms together would have been considered redundant. Not any more. When people like McCain, Schwarzenegger or even Specter calling themselves "Republicans", it kind of makes my point. They can get away with calling themselves "Republicans" but they could never, ever get away with calling themselves "conservatives."

 

My hope is that the current administration has made tremendous efforts to bring committed conservative politicians out of the closet and into the fold; and when I say "committed," I mean they stick to their principles and not flip all over al a John McCain for the sake of getting elected.

[Peace]

What does it mean? To me, it's been coopted by a socialist Republican Party that is not interested in conservative approaches to spending. It is also not interested in curbing gov't control of people's lives. I'd say the term Conservative is hollow these days.

 

If you have an accepted meaning, by all means, do share.

 

I think what you're trying to say is that the meaning of "Republican" has changed, not the meaning of "Conservative." In my mind, there was a time when using those two terms together would have been considered redundant. Not any more. When people like McCain, Schwarzenegger or even Specter calling themselves "Republicans", it kind of makes my point. They can get away with calling themselves "Republicans" but they could never, ever get away with calling themselves "conservatives."

 

My hope is that the current administration has made tremendous efforts to bring committed conservative politicians out of the closet and into the fold; and when I say "committed," I mean they stick to their principles and not flip all over al a John McCain for the sake of getting elected.

 

But I ask: What is a Conservative? I honestly don't know. I see it as a term without meaning, hollowed out because of its long association with Republicans. Put to the fire, I would say a Conservative espouses fiscal restraint combined with acceptable government intervention to promote traditional family values.

 

That being the case, it's value 2 regarding government intervention RE traditional family values that differentiates a conservative from a libertarian. BTW, this is me on a limb: I don't think anyone can agree on what "conservative" means anymore.

 

Republican changed when Reagan made the big tent mistake. Accepting the Southern Democrat/Family Values crowd into the Republican Party was the beginning of the end for a party that supposedly valued small government.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Peace

[murra]

peace, yo

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

What does that mean? The term "Conservative" has lost any accepted meaning.

no not true at all. the "republican" party no longer shares my ideals, they are just democrat-lite with their wreckless spending and policies. the majority of modern republicans no longer hold true to the party and constitution's principles and I feel the party has left me.

 

I mostly identify now with the conservative / libertarian ideals.

 

I want smaller government, less government involvement in my day to day life, conservative interpretation of the constitution and conservative values. in my ideal world there would be a party which includes that.

 

I think what you're trying to say is that the meaning of "Republican" has changed, not the meaning of "Conservative." In my mind, there was a time when using those two terms together would have been considered redundant. Not any more. When people like McCain, Schwarzenegger or even Specter calling themselves "Republicans", it kind of makes my point. They can get away with calling themselves "Republicans" but they could never, ever get away with calling themselves "conservatives."

 

My hope is that the current administration has made tremendous efforts to bring committed conservative politicians out of the closet and into the fold; and when I say "committed," I mean they stick to their principles and not flip all over al a John McCain for the sake of getting elected.

 

^ +2 what you said

Edited September 8, 2010 by drinkTHEkoolaid

[Peace]

no not true at all. the "republican" party no longer shares my ideals, they are just democrat-lite with their wreckless spending and policies. the majority of modern republicans no longer hold true to the party and constitution's principles and I feel the party has left me.

 

I mostly identify now with the conservative / libertarian ideals.

 

I want smaller government, less government involvement in my day to day life, conservative interpretation of the constitution and conservative values. in my ideal world there would be a party which includes that.

 

 

It sounds like you equate Libertarian and Conservative. I do not. Nor, I believe, do many people. Lots of people--in fact likely "most" people--equate Conservative with Republican (ie, family values type conservatives).

 

This is the problem with using the term "conservative." Rush Limbaugh would eagerly call himself a Conservative. I--closest to a Libertarian--would never call myself a Conservative.

 

You won't find much agreement regarding the term and that's why I don't even bother using it anymore. Democrats and Republicans carry some meaning. They are very similar but their differences define them.

[Magox]

It sounds like you equate Libertarian and Conservative. I do not. Nor, I believe, do many people. Lots of people--in fact likely "most" people--equate Conservative with Republican (ie, family values type conservatives).

 

This is the problem with using the term "conservative." Rush Limbaugh would eagerly call himself a Conservative. I--closest to a Libertarian--would never call myself a Conservative.

 

You won't find much agreement regarding the term and that's why I don't even bother using it anymore. Democrats and Republicans carry some meaning. They are very similar but their differences define them.

There are different types of conservatism.

 

1) Social conservatives

 

and

 

2) Fiscal conservatives

 

I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I believe in controlled government spending, lower taxes and a leaner and meaner government.

 

Social conservatives care more about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, immigration, war on drugs etc.

 

Libertarians believe in an ultra small government, laissez-faire attitude in just about all aspects, limited spending, legalization of drugs etc.

 

So there are some core similarities between fiscal conservatives and libertarian POV's.

[Rob's House]

There are different types of conservatism.

 

1) Social conservatives

 

and

 

2) Fiscal conservatives

 

I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I believe in controlled government spending, lower taxes and a leaner and meaner government.

 

Social conservatives care more about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, immigration, war on drugs etc.

 

Libertarians believe in an ultra small government, laissez-faire attitude in just about all aspects, limited spending, legalization of drugs etc.

 

So there are some core similarities between fiscal conservatives and libertarian POV's.

The only exception I take with your description is regarding immigration. I agree that libertarianism takes a generally more relaxed view on immigration policy than your typical conservative, but I wouldn't classify open border policy as a libertarian issue.

 

I know several of us who lean libertarian are inclined to a more relaxed a free flowing form of legal immigration, which if that's what you are referring to, I would then agree.

[IDBillzFan]

But I ask: What is a Conservative? I honestly don't know. I see it as a term without meaning, hollowed out because of its long association with Republicans. Put to the fire, I would say a Conservative espouses fiscal restraint combined with acceptable government intervention to promote traditional family values.

First, I apologize for the Barry Brady-like length of this. It wasn't intentional.

 

I think your inability to find an acceptable meaning for "conservative" doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Now, I understand what you're saying, and the simple truth is that today's political climate is probably creating your confusion. Part of the problem is that the people who are fully engaged now -- me being one of them -- find themselves needing to prioritizing their beliefs, and consequently we find ourselves cleaning the political attic where so many pre-conceived notions have been left untouched in storage.

 

Personally speaking, politics was never discussed in my house. In fact, I can still remember the first true moment I found my political footing. I was tending bar at an empty campus pub one night, and sat virtually alone watching a new president give a speech explaining why we needed to build our defenses against an ever-threatening Russian army. I was completely mesmerized, not just by the message, but by the messenger. That was the moment I became a Republican.

 

Now, that said, like most Americans, I just tossed myself in that category without thinking that I was able to modify my positions. It was simple; I was a Republican. This is what Republicans believe. Therefore, this is what I believe.

 

That's changing now for millions of Americans, as we suddenly find ourselves needing to clean the attic of pre-conceived notions in order to better defend the positions we care about most. Suddenly you have millions of political neophytes FINALLY speaking out in the face of the embarrassing stimulus and health care bills, but speaking out based on those old notions. So what happens? The political left, including a large part of the media, begins the process of defining people who are too new to following politics to effectively define themselves first.

 

Enter the name-calling: we're hypocritical racists and bigots who never complained when Bush was screwing things up, so we should shut up while Obama screws things up. We're intolerant of muslims and faggots and spics and especially those nasty colored people, and THIS is why we're yelling. Because we're white, and we're afraid all the coloreds are going to take over!! This is stupid, to be sure, but I've quickly learned that this is what the left does when it can't defend itself.

 

So I understand your confusion, but I personally think it's a good thing. People are starting to rebuild the meaning of conservative, starting with the most basic of beliefs: fiscal restraint, smaller government with less intervention in our lives, with an eye toward protecting our country. What's good about this is the formerly a-typical "Republicans," in cleaning out and prioritizing their attics, are finally admitting that they don't care that deeply about the stupid stuff that used to cause division; gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, etc.

 

It's a process, and the process will have ups and downs and success and failures, but in the end, this is pretty good stuff for our country because regardless of what you hear from the far left, these pissed off Americans are probably not going away. Yes, they're redefining their priorities, but they're not going away.

[/dev/null]

I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little orc

-Treebeard

 

Whether you're young or old, some Tolkien is always enlightening

[X. Benedict]

First, I apologize for the Barry Brady-like length of this. It wasn't intentional.

 

No apology required. Good stuff.

 

In my opinion - and this is why the country needs conservatives - is that they should be the ones asking "At what expense?" when legislation is proposed.

 

Where this got lost in the last decade was largely in their "starve the beast" approach to legislating and budgeting. Budget deficits would eventually cause the role of government to shrink because and nobody would be dumb enough to keep borrowing. Add this to some very unsuccessful attempts at deregulation and ...

 

50 years from now we might be talking about the era of the Chinese Funded American wars.

 

Now I'm no conservative, and certainly no believer in the spiritual morality of markets nonsense I hear from time to time.. . But I would be interested in a Conservative that says fiscal sanity starts with a much more limited Executive Branch and a reduced overseas role.

 

But...I really can't see this movement getting divorced from the Judeo-Christian civilization/American Exceptionalism/Culture Warrior folks.

[drnykterstein]

I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side, little orc

-Treebeard

 

Whether you're young or old, some Tolkien is always enlightening

 

http://www.nostate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/votefornobody.jpg