Unfunny is Right
Concerning the ridiculous piece this morning in the Wall Street Journal, purporting to define and discuss libertarianism within the ranks of Republicans, is supposed to be a humor piece, but Steven Horwitz at Liberty and Power is right: "I can't tell you how much I hate the "libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke pot/have an abortion/watch porn" line of thought." He also grants, with regret, that the caricature too often applies: "When libertarians who feel comfortable with the GOP are going to wake up and smell the imperialism, Keynesianism, and theology remains a good question."
By the way, this good article by Daniel McCarthy defending libertarianism has received too little attention.
Comments (21)
Wow, that article was repugnant. The second aspect of government is "to provide ethical and moral leadership"? God help us.
Published: March 15, 2005 8:43 AM
The tenets of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are fundamentally different from the positions advocated by both the Left and Right, and any attempt to integrate these disparate ideologies will ultimately flounder in contradiction and inconsistency. While agreement may be possible at times regarding certain limited topics, the basic outlooks and premises of Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism are incompatible with those of both the Left and Right. When I first read Mises’s "Liberalism" many years ago, I was struck by how different his view of social interaction and economic cooperation is from the then prevailing (and current) views of both the Left and Right. His logic, rationality, and consistency are outstanding. Of course, one can argue that Mises’s utilitarianism should be replaced by a natural/property rights framework as Rothbard and others have done, which I believe puts the Classical Liberal/Libertarian position on even firmer ground.
Published: March 15, 2005 9:07 AM
Libertarians are people who don't like theft and murder. What a "radical" position.
Published: March 15, 2005 9:29 AM
"Libertarians are people who don't like theft and murder. What a "radical" position."
That would include allmost everyone.
Published: March 15, 2005 9:34 AM
Of course L/libertarians are like sexually frustrated Republicans. And there are two types of soda, and little girls want to grow up to be mommies and all little boys play football and want to be the next Babe Ruth.
Right. No. The world is a lot more complex and dynamic than the classic yet increasingly popular oversimplified red/blue mentality. I think it's an affront to our creativity to just be a fusion of the left and right. If anything, we've been around, as classical liberals or otherwise, longer then they have. It would be more fair, therefore, to just say left-liberals are spendthrift libertarians, or right-conservatives are repressed libertarians who vent that frustration by throwing their hands up and saying..."that's it, I'm threatened! We're going to kill everyone!"
Published: March 15, 2005 9:44 AM
"That would include allmost everyone."
Except non-libertarians still create ways to steal and kill when it is considered "necessary" by the State. There's plenty of stealing and killing going on now with Reps and Dems in charge.
Published: March 15, 2005 10:03 AM
I'm a republican on the local level because the dems are just far more socialist. Bush is NOT a good example of republican ideals IMO. With the dems, it's like being on the express bullett train to socialism, but with the repubs were taking more of a scenic route... Lesser of two evils??
Published: March 15, 2005 10:36 AM
Thanks Jeff for bringing our attention to the Daniel McCarthy article, which I found to be an excellent short introduction to Libertarianism -- something to pass on to the uninitiated. One question: Is “The American Conservative� an old-right or neo-conservative leaning magazine, or is it not possible to make the differentiation?
Again, thanks Jeff.
Published: March 15, 2005 10:44 AM
The American Conservative is a paleoconservative magazine. It is run by Pat Buchanan. Unfortunately, while the magazine is good on anti-imperialism, they're not so good on economics issues.
Published: March 15, 2005 11:13 AM
"That would include allmost everyone."
A principled logically coherent stand against murder and theft is entirely absent from at least 99% of the population of the world. This "everyone" you speak of might not be willing to commit such acts themselves, but no doubt cheerlead the state's efforts to do these very things. If it were not a position held out of sheer ignorance and inability to form logical positions it would be downright cowardly.
Published: March 15, 2005 11:13 AM
Chris, thanks for the response. Despite "The American Consevative's" problems with economic issues, at least the magazine did allow publication of an article like McCarthy's.
Published: March 15, 2005 11:29 AM
One follow up: at least Gorin in the WSJ was trying to be funny. This guy was not.
Published: March 15, 2005 12:50 PM
I'd add voxday.blogspot.com and his wnd.com article in response to the AmCon piece.
I don't know how much libertarianism is merely bad press and how much is actual defect.
For me, I can condemn actions which are socially destructive, but also point out that it is not government's business and that there are many other organizations in society that can encourage or discourage things - e.g. churches, volunteer organizations, and employers.
Use drugs to excess, but if no one will hire you, and if no one will give you food and shelter, you will have to stop if you aren't independently wealthy. Be a sexual libertine, but you are still responsible for any offspring, and you will have to bear any health consequences.
Government is lust to power, and it cannot solve poverty or other moral problems. Taxation is not charity, and attempts to find other government substitutes for individual virtue will fail.
Only when something becomes extremely disruptive ought government act - murder, robbery, and theft are examples, but I'd add public health and national defense, but narrowly defined.
Government is like chemotherapy so ought to be used only on societal cancers, not on slight bruises.
Published: March 15, 2005 1:03 PM
"at least Gorin in the WSJ was trying to be funny."
If it was meant to be funny, it failed miserably and only served as a further indication of how statist, in the neoconservative sense, the WSJ has become.
Published: March 15, 2005 1:14 PM
It is frustrating to me that those who fob off libertarianism as liberitinism just don't seem to grasp that one does not have to advocate a behavior to state that they are not going to sanction, or hire someone to sanction, someone who engages in a certain behavior. The world is so black and white for such folk. I'm not a supporter of many activities including drug use, other than the occasional bock brew, or hired sex, but I'm not going to put someone in a box, or carry off some of their property, because they do.
Published: March 15, 2005 2:01 PM
"Ethical and moral leadership"
First, if our government is supposed to provide that, they're doing a very poor job. Last time I checked property theft and starting wars are immoral acts.
Second, is it so horrible that libertarians actually believe people can follow a moral code on their own? What makes the state morally superior to me or anyone else? As a Christian, I find it offensive that the state presumes to occupy a role that I reserve for God.
Perhaps it is a positive sign that the enemy can only attack us with slander and lies.
Published: March 15, 2005 3:51 PM
Add one more set of mad props to that McCarthy article...
Published: March 15, 2005 5:39 PM
TZ,
You think that there should be public health...? That's a very un-liberal view on things - and immoral, in my view.
Published: March 15, 2005 5:56 PM
I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist and when I read those Articles that Mr. Tucker Provided I was not only distressed about what the author said but I saw right through her vacuous intellegence. I also saw that she had no clue what she was even talking about, she didn't state the reasons why Libertarians are "Radical".
People that don't understand economics or think the state is doing a good job is usually a socialist. I've identified Democrats as Socialists and the (Hijacked) Republicans as National Socialists, not really much difference between them other then one is a welfare state and the other is a welfare-warfare state same ends only two different roads to get there.
What's really distressing about Ms. Gorin's stupidity, or lack of intelligence, on economic as well as political history/matters. The Prohibition on Alcohal for example made more crime not less. State intervention actually made the stock market collapse in 1929 worse, the new deal made people's lives more miserable.
My guess is Ms. Gorin had done no research on the Party or the Thinkers like Murray Rothbard's books Market and Power, Man, Economy and State or Ethics of Liberty. Ms. Gorin can't think of a society that can thrive without a state. Her thinking and lack of research on the subject of Libertarianism is going to make her a very big target for Anarcho-Capitalists (such as myself), Libertarians (True Libertarians), and Austrian Economists alike.
Thank you for reading
Kyle From California (the most Socialistic state of them all at least some free-thinkers awaken here)
Published: March 15, 2005 11:29 PM
Lighten up, there's little we're going to accomplish bemoaning amongst ourselves every misrepresentaiton of Libertarian ideology (you don't see me complaining about my misspelling of 'misrepresentation')
Yes the piece does misrepresent Libertarian thought, yes the author has probably not read Rothbard, yes it can be taken as an insult, but how can this misrepesentation (and all others) be rectified when our responses are limited to internet posts confined within the Libertarian community which simply argue
1) This author has absolutely no idea what Libertarian thought entails
2) This author is a big dumbhead
3) While we're on the subject, the state sucks
Now don't get me wrong, the state most certainly sucks, but, to use a righteously Republican cliche, there's no point in preaching to the choir. I suggest, in lieu of posting your outrage here, someone write a response to Gorin which proves that
1) She has absolutely no idea what Libertarian thought entails
2) She is a big dumbhead
3) the state sucks
but is similarly light-hearted and humorous, and send that in to the WSJ or any relevant periodical. A great stepping stone would be looking into how it's the government's job 'to provide ethical and moral leadership'; that just gets funnier every time I read it. I would write the piece myself, but as you can see from this post, it would end up being even less funny than Gorin's article.
Published: March 16, 2005 9:55 AM
it's crazy enough that there are socialists who want Nader and universal health care but call themselves "libertarian" simply because they want to smoke pot.
Published: March 22, 2005 4:22 AM