The other day I posted a link to Ilya Somin's post at The Volokh Conspiracy about the conservative-libertarian relationship that is questioned after every election. Glenn Reynolds caught an interesting comment from someone named "Splunge." It's rather profound and I'm posting it here in full:
Well, Somin, in the first place I think you need to distinguish between libertarians and mere narcissists. A lot of the latter masquerade as the former, e.g. pretty much the entire crowd at slashdot.org, substantial slices of the Reason potheads, and lawyers eager to fling monkey wrenches into the persecution (I use the word advisedly) of public enemies so long as it brings them personally some bankable fame.
For these folks, "liberty" pretty much means I get what I want, even if it puts everyone else into chains. They believe in "liberty" in the same degenerate sense that a Stalinist believes in "sharing." (Oy! Comrade, if you share with me your bread, I will share with you my slogans to educate your stupid peasant mind.) No one following in the philosophical steps of Madison should give these fraudsters the time of day, let alone indulge the illusion of meaningful alliance. They belong to the party of ego and self.
The remaining core of principled libertarians, who really do believe strongly in live and let live, should be regarded as a militia, not a standing army. They'll rise up when sufficiently enraged to defend their liberty, but between active threats they disperse to their actual lives. I mean, the principled libertarian is nauseated by the necessity of government, and tends to loathe every application of it with which he cooperates. It's like taking out the garbage. Who prolongs it? You run for the dumpster, get it over with as fast as possible.
So the notion of some extended mutual NATO alliance-building, complete with cultural exchanges, is kind of unlikely. True libertarians are going to just zone out, thinking about skiing or sex, during your logistics and strategy meetings. A better idea would be to fashion some kind of skeleton structure of conservatism, into which the libertarian militia could comfortably slot itself when an existential threat arose.
That means, on the conservative side, conservatives have to carry the ball for libertarians when the latter are off-duty. You can't neglect those principles -- small government, property rights -- when you're at peacetime strength, because it's like stripping off the insignia. When you call for libertarian reinforcements, they don't recognize you any more as their ally.
From the libertarian side, there needs to be some appreciation for the fact that conservatives do form the standing army. Libertarians tune in for crises, then drop out and go on with their lives. But somebody has got to keep watch all the time, and that tends to be conservatives. Libertarians need to give them credit for that, make accommodations to some of their reasonable claims for leadership. You can't reserve the right to refuse every marching order, parachute in and out of the party as you please, and expect to wield the same level of leadership as those who are full-time and fully loyal soldiers.
They also need to practise a little strategic deafness. Conservatives like to talk about values and sin a lot, and it grates on the libertarian ear, because the libertarian fears such talk leads to oppressive action. But very often it's just talk, a form of mere community bonding -- ghost stories over the campfire -- that libertarians don't quite get, not being that fond of community bonding in the first place. Frequently enough, if you merely let conservatives have their talk, and nod appreciatively I see what you mean, yes, an interesting and valuable point then they're happy enough.
The unanimous Declarationof the thirteen unitedStates of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Shannon Love proves once again why she is one of the smartest bloggers on the Internet with this post on same-sex marriage:
With the contemporary culture of the invasive nanny state, we do not let people suffer the consequences of their own mistakes.
We can see this in the history of the sexual revolution. We were sold the idea that people had the right to make their own decisions about sexuality free from the involuntary restraints of law and culture. Yet, at the same time, it quickly become standard to regard dealing with the negative consequences of those choices as the responsibility of the rest of society.
People are free to have sex however and whenever they choose, but if they catch an STD, the state is expected to pay for their healthcare. If they get pregnant, the state is expected to pay for abortions or pre-natal care. If people choose not to form and maintain a traditional family, the state is responsible for picking up any economic short fall or dealing with the social pathologies of their children.
In an ideal free society we could let people make their own mistakes because social natural-selection would rapidly correct any errors. People who did stupid things would end up poor, marginalized, unemulated. Nothing cures stupidity like the freedom to fail.
Inadvertently, the Belgian government has proven that government is best which governs least. After spending 9 months in a political deadlock, the country found itself chugging along without so much as a hiccup. The Financial Times reports:
For all its regional rivalries, Belgium went about daily life as normal. Its famed bureaucracy chugged along under its own power. Guy Verhofstadt, the long-serving and outgoing prime minister, proved just as capable as a temporary caretaker. Social security benefits were paid and the trains ran on time.
Politicians should take note. Belgium has opened the door to an enticing possibility. Non-government has attractions. Imagine living without fear of new taxes being levied or of a daily diet of attention-grabbing policies.
David Mamet, one of the best screenwriters of the past 20 years has taken to the pages of the Village Voice to proclaim that he is no longer a "brain dead liberal." Huzzah! Many on the Left are already complaining how he has "swung to the right" proving that most on the Left have very poor reading comprehension. Mamet has hardly turned into Ronald Reagan, but he has come around in certain areas. Let me expound:
A big push for Mamet came from listening to Socialist State Radio:
As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart. These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. "?" she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio."
This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.
In other words, he always went with the popular Leftist notion that America and everything it stands for is evil, but the reality is we all get by despite our own greed, lust and desire and government only gets in the way.
I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.
Conservatism and libertarianism are forms or naturalism, the philosophy that man is best left to his own devices even though they may be selfish. It is folly to fight human nature. Liberalism serves to fight it every step of the way and destroy free will. Mamet understands that now and his writing can only get better with the knowledge.
Ironically, he's been conservative in his work all along. Many interpret things as they want to see them, but much like the work of Larry David, Mamet's has a conservative/libertarian flair that he didn't (and David doesn't) realize. You can say Glengarry Glen Ross is an indictment of capitalism and greed, but is it really? Listen to Ricky Roma go on and tell me he isn't speaking the truth. When Shelley "The Machine" Levine talks about the feeling of making that big sale, he's talking about heroics, the desire of all men to achieve legitimacy in the world rather than being merely a slave.
I digress, but welcome aboard David. Read his whole column here.
While things may be gloomy on the national side of politics, there is a conservative/libertarian revolution going on in Louisiana. While we brace for an Obama Presidency and deal with a Republicans in Congress that have refused to disavow earmarks, Bobby Jindal is taking the most corrupt state in the nation and turning it on a dime. You want real change? Check out the Louisiana Governor. (Hat tip: RedState)
Big: Supreme Court Turns Down Domestic Spying Challenge
I'm a libertarian, but being libertarian doesn't involve entering suicide pacts with people that want to kill you. The domestic spying program is one of those elements of democratic society that we wish wasn't necessary, but it is. Can this power be abused? Absolutely, that's why the burden is on us to elect men and woman of character to our government.
I'd love to ask a Hillary supporter who's against the eavesdropping on Americans who speak with terrorists how they can vote for someone who confiscated dozens of FBI files for her own political use.
I remember in college the Theater Arts Department performed The Crucible during my Freshman year. I also took some theater classes where we had to read, yes, The Crucible. Arthur Miller, Arthur Miller, Arthur Miller!
Now don't get me wrong, despite my Midwestern-conservative-libertarian-Hayekian philosophical views, I am a fan of the theater...but I hate The Crucible! It's a play about McCarthyism that ties the search for communists in the 1950s to the search for witches in Colonial America. It's hard for me to enjoy something when I know from the start that the premise is completely wrong, but Arthur Miller is a god in theater departments across the country.
Anyway, John J. Miller touches on this subject in a throw-back column that has significance on this day known as Presidents' Day.
I've said recently, "DeMint '12" partly in jest, partly in truth. Well, forget the jest. Please play the video below and listen to every word. If you're like me, it will be music to your ears. If a presidential run is overreaching, DeMint needs to at least be put in charge of recruiting for Senate elections. The GOP has to start from scratch and the Congress has some long years of fighting the new president (no matter who it is) ahead of them. DeMint needs to be up front and center.
Anyway, here's the South Carolina Senator on so-called "Stimulus Package."
Captain Ed has an excellent look at Ayn Rand's epic novel 50 years on. The good Captain and I are in agreement: put simply, her philosophy is solid, her flair for literature...not so much. Libertarians can't help but enjoy the book for it's message, but Rand was no poet, and that's alright. Ed continues:
At least Rand tried serving the right notions in her less-than-engaging polemic. As Michelle says, we have had a drought of popular-culture defenses of capitalism and individualism. We need another Rand or perhaps someone even more talented, who can write a narrative that uses realistic situations and approachable characters to exemplify the virtues of economic liberty and the dangers of statist policies. We have plenty of examples from real life in the history of the past century, but few seem willing to mold them into the kind of literary icon that Atlas Shrugged truly is.
A really interesting post this morning from Ilya Somin over at The Volokh Conspiracy on a new study concerning the ideology of university academics. The surveys asked the participants if they considered themselves "conservative," "liberal," or "moderate." So what's a "libertarian" to do?
Faux Libertarian Ron Paul is making news for his recent fundraising numbers. The Washington Post has even gone so far as to call him the Howard Dean of '08. It's not that far-fetched:
Among the Texas congressman's loyal, passionate, Web-savvy supporters, that's not a question. It's a statement -- and a semi-accurate one. Here's a very important similarity: Like Dean, Paul has been against the war on Iraq from the beginning, setting him apart from the rest of the GOP field.
And just as Dean's insurgent campaign effectively used the Web to raise money, rally its supporters and create buzz the year before the 2004 elections, Paul's campaign throughout the year has singularly relied on the Internet to fuel his engine.
And like Dean...he's a total crank.
Look, it's true Ron has some libertarian views that are worthy of applause, but he's missing a key element that would make him a true libertarian: reason.
One of the best writers in the Blogosphere, Shannon Love of Chicago Boyz, has a great primer on true libertarianism. Here's a nice snippet:
I often butt heads with libertarian purists over such matters. They criticize my willingness to use the state to fight wars or to socialize the cost of raising of children. I simply don’t care if such stances render me outside the libertarian true believers. I don’t care if some consider the stances immoral. Particular solutions work in particular times, places and circumstances and there is no point whining about it. I won’t try to shoehorn an ultimately unworkable solution into an ideological framework just to prove I am one of the gang.
At the risk of sounding like a campaign ad, this is why I'm a fan of Rudy Giuliani. He looks at what is best for the particular situation. It's something the Christian Right (a group with a very rigid ideology) can never understand. Running New York and running the United States are two very different things. What works in New York may not work nationally and vise-verse. Results first, ideology second.
I have a friend who has a great take on the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. The thing with Savage, while you agree with a lot of what he says (and disagree with some of the more extreme views), when you listen to him you end up feeling kind of down. The world is hopeless, we're losing, etc., is the feeling you get. Then you listen to Rush and you feel optimistic, you're proud to be conservative (or libertarian) and you're ready to take on the world.
Then there's Mark Levin, who I call the conservative guilty pleasure. If you're feeling really pissed off about the state of affairs in this country and need to blow off some steam by hearing someone that's as pissed about it as you are...Mark's your man. Case in point, his take on Media Matters.
The Washington Post gets it right...gestures should not be enough to charge a person with a crime. Larry Craig was wrong to plead guilty, but so are police in charging people with lewd conduct for supposed gestures (like foot-tapping) that supposedly imply solicitation of sex. That's just too much police power and it needs to be changed.
A British judge says that every British citizen and visitor to the island nation should be added to the national DNA database.
Sedley said he was aware his idea would be viewed as a dangerous breach of civil liberties.
"It is authoritarian measure to the extent that it demands people depart with some further measure of their autonomy and privacy and it has to be justified," he added.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said there were no plans to make the database compulsory for all residents and visitors for the foreseeable future.
An anonymous source (so take it with a grain of salt) is telling the Associated Press that Idaho Senator Larry Craig will announce his resignation at a news conference tomorrow morning. This would really be the best thing for the GOP since the Republican governor can appoint an interim Senator who can go into the 2008 race with some clout. It's a deep red state, but a race between two new challengers would be risky. Best to lay the groundwork now.
While we're on the subject of Larry Craig, I've got some real problems with this whole situation. While I'm no fan of his (I knew little about him until his vote for Amnesty), as a libertarian, I have a real problem with the misdemeanor charge he got in Minneapolis. If he had said to the cop "wanna have sex?" that would be one thing...but to say that he is guilty of soliciting sex by putting his foot next to another person's and swiping his hand under the stall...that to me is a real stretch. They say these are the known signs of someone looking for public sex...I guess I've lived a sheltered life.
Someone asked me recently, have you ever heard of this? I said, no, but I'm glad I have now so I don't accidentally do it in the future!
Exit question: Shouldn't airport police be worried more about terrorism than sex in the bathrooms? Also, what if they caught a Muslim soliciting sex in an airport bathroom? Just asking...
Rudy Giuliani: The Real Libertarian In The GOP Race
James Pethokoukis has an excellent piece on how Rudy Giuliani is the only GOP candidate that's putting forth libertarian ideas to deal with the real issues. He supplies this nugget from Rudy at last night's debate:
"Health insurance should become like homeowners insurance or like car insurance: You don't cover everything in your homeowners policy. If you have a slight accident in your house, if you need to refill your oil in your car, you don't cover that with insurance. But that is covered in many of the insurance policies because they're government dominated and they're employer dominated."
In terms of this Republican administration, some views about stem cell research, gay rights, separation of church and state, and on and on—I don’t agree with any of them. But you can worry about the trees and the environment and gas emissions later. Right now there’s a bigger problem, and it’s a guy who doesn't care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat; he wants to blow himself up and take you out. That’s the problem.
So yesterday I went to the anti-Harry Reid protest here in Las Vegas and snapped some pictures. I posted them on my website and gave the facts...a handful of people showed up for the rally. Well, this made some folks mad and they left some comments chastising me for saying I'm a libertarian and yet I support the war. Here's a bit of the back-and-forth:
I see a dozen protesters in at the most, and two of them seem to be from the press.Where are the "hundreds?"Somebody looks like a monkey today.I applaud your effort, but I can't abide your lack of reason. Blue Patriot 05.17.07 - 4:44 pm # I can only speak to the Las Vegas rally, which I said contained "a handful" of people. There were, however, two other protest in two other cities. You need to read more carefully. Jim Rose Homepage 05.17.07 - 5:00 pm # we up in Carson City reported for duty!Homepage 05.17.07 - 5:48 pm # "making America work" eh? bvac 05.17.07 - 9:27 pm # Support the mission! I don't care how many troops come home in body bags, we're staying until America is victorious! jr666r 05.18.07 - 2:08 am # Hilarious! Really!Most healthy Americans realize that we can only genuinely support the troops by getting them out of a situation that they don't belong in.They did their jobs -- Hussein is gone, no wmds, an "elected" parliament. Granted our troops were deceived while Bush laughed at the idea of finding wmds during the White House press corp dinner a few years back, but what the heck, "bring 'em on!"The pathetic turnout says it all -- let's see, is that the 28% idiot base?It's hilarious -- you guys try to make up for the fact that a "handful" of folks showed up because Republicans work for a living. I guess that's why there are more vets in congress who are democrats than republicans --You screw ups care more for the money than what really matters -- like civic duty.Oh well, I'm sure that the few Republican soldiers who are as easily mislead as you will appreciate the "handful" who showed up who support the fact that their lives are in danger because of lies and incompetence.Truly hilarious if it wasn't so sad! abdiel 05.18.07 - 4:32 am # Ah!The Carson City Protest was "quite successful!"Not just a handful -- but two! And all the media -- some channel 4 cameraman!Oh! And they got a staff person to close the door because she didn't want a confrontation with a potentially overzealous ideologue!Way to show you're a man -- you sure intimidated that nice girl with the glasses!It's a good thing you weren't on the other side where Bush brownshirts would have very happily shoved you on your way!But hey! You gotta admit, closing a door in your face is really more profound -- it says, the door was open, you were invited in, you asked a stupid question, you got a stupid answer.Alls fair and even!"Quite" a "success!" abdiel 05.18.07 - 5:06 am # First of all, stop having the nerve to call yourself a libertarian. No libertarians are supporting this war. Libertarians do not take part in "wars of choice". We defend our country and leave alone those who leave us alone.Second, Melanie Morgan and MAF are just one Prozac short of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist crazies. That's why there was no one there, not that they were all working. C'mon, lets cut the BS. Nobody is buying it. Ed 05.18.07 - 9:59 am # We defend our country and leave alone those who leave us alone.Exactly, but the terrorists didn't leave us alone, did they?(see 9/11) Isolationism is NOT libertarianism. You need to do your homework. Jim Rose Homepage 05.18.07 - 11:10 am # How did our website get populated with so many cheese eating defeatistist surrender monkeys Jim? Those guys suck. Iraq will pay for attacking us on 9/11 and if our troops have to massacre 100's of thousands more iraqi civilians to be victorious then so be it (there not even christians anyway). jr666r 05.18.07 - 11:43 am # Sorry Jim, I forgot the 9/11 attackers were Iraqi.Oh wait a second, according to EVERYONE, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghanistan did. I could have been convinced on Saudi Arabia's involvement. Maybe even Pakistan. But not Iraq. It not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but was dominated by secular Sunni's, the enemies of Shiite Al Queda.So how does that fit into libertarianism again? Ed 05.18.07 - 12:55 pm #
Can you feel the love?
It looks like I'm going to have to write a treatise on my philosophy before libertarianism is totally usurped by Noam Chomsky and his band of zealots.
British Gun Crime Raises Questions About Gun Control
My libertarian brethren in the U.K. are fighting the good fight in Britain, pointing out that with tighter gun-control laws, gun crime seems to be getting worse. You do the math.
There's a scary movement going on in some libertarian circles that libertarians should hitch their wagons to the Democrats soon to take over Congress. Andrew Cassel of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes about Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute who has proposed such an idea:
Libertarians already agree with the left on social issues such as stem-cell research, immigration and censorship, Lindsey wrote.
Even where they differ - chiefly over the virtues of capitalism and free markets - libertarians can frame their arguments in progressive terms.
Libertarians detest farm subsidies, for example, because they inflate government and distort markets. Call them "corporate welfare," however, and many liberals will applaud.
Lindsey's real point is much like Frank's: Support for free global trade can be bartered for stronger social-safety-net and worker-protection programs.
"The central challenge," Lindsey wrote, "is to elaborate a vision of economic policy... that both liberals and libertarians can support."
Part of that vision, at least for the moment, may stem from opposition to what has passed for conservatism during much of the last six years.
Libertarians who champion small government and open markets have been appalled by Congress' deficit spending and the Bush administration's embrace of protective tariffs for steel and other industries.
Lindsey, and others, suggest it would be more useful to cut a deal with liberals - higher taxes in exchange for balanced budgets, say.
You could call this kind of horsetrading "pouring liberal wine into conservative bottles." Lawrence Seidman does - that's the title of his new book.
Okay libertarians, I know things are bad right now, but for the love of Milton Friedman let's not lose our heads! Noam Chomsky makes a mockery of the language (ironic since he's a linguist) every time he calls himself a "libertarian socialist." These two words cannot be put together... they are fire and ice. Yes, the Republicans went socialist in the past few years, but that doesn't mean we should go running to other party which historically makes the GOP seem like penny-pinchers. Rationalize it all you want, but libertarians and "liberals" don't mix.
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
