Comments (21)

• samuel champagne

  what would be the hierarchy that would survive in libertarian world? whose administrator would survive the most? Who would be exempted from doing the work (how would we deal with anti-social behavior and psychotic case?) and how would it survive without being a nuisance to everyone else? Who will pay to help the ones who cannot take part in the growth of the society? How to convince others to give away for a just mean, when this mean is going to die anyway!?

  Published: October 5, 2005 9:52 AM

• Brian Moore

  Well, mistakes from the right don't make the left look any better to me. It only makes the right look worse. I personally can't stand either side.

  Part of my disdain for the left involves their unintentional sabotage of the anti-war movement with socialism and conspiracy theories. Do I think invading Iraq was a bad idea? Yes. Do I think it's a global conspiracy cooked up by [insert evil boogeyman of the month] and their capitalist minions? No.

  In no way is the anti-war left conceivably "on my side." The only thing we agree on is that "this specific war is bad." I base my agreement with people on what we think is good. Our agreement today will not engender any respect for other libertarian policies when/if they wrest this power back from the Republicans.

  Published: October 5, 2005 9:59 AM

• Steven K Peterson

  Hey Lew,

  You're not alone. Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/ has an extended essay on his libertarian opposition to the war.

  Published: October 5, 2005 10:32 AM

• Yves Grassioulet

  Samuel is raising an important issue here. If we all agree that "it's all about power" and that "libertarianism is contra power", how will it be done? How could an utopia - let be the libertarian one - not become itself its own contrary: a dystopia? For we all understand why the 20th century has so profoundly rejected communism's main paradigm: the killing of individualism. But now that communism has sort of died, and that the "I" won the grand battle against the "Us", what's remaining? How could we analyze and extract the best out of socialism, while promoting libertarianism? What should be kept alive? Would a stateless society, without any regulations, make any sense? Could we think of an alternative society that could for example keep on dealing with the basic needs from a collective approach (health, education...), while freeing other services from State control? What libertarianism has in common with anarchism? Does anarchy means chaos? To me, the answer is no. Giving liberty to people does not mean we should not at least share common collective and human regulation laws. I don't feel being a State partisan, neither do I feel being a consistent libertarian, but I do feel we'll have to accept critics of both communism and capitalism in order to extract the best ideals out of it. The common goal should be clear: a neverchanging organic and anarchist-like democracy, rid of power mysticism. In order to give shape to the realistic utopian and egalitarian "Polis" we all dream of, shall we get rid of political power in any sort?

  Published: October 5, 2005 10:43 AM

• Lisa Casanova

  Wow. I think my favorite parts are the phrase "nominally libertarian" (what do the real ones look like?) and the way he puts "state" in quotes. Does he not believe there is one? We're also members of a cult, which is of course a term one could never apply to Horowitz's little nest of vipers. And now, having visited FrontPageMag, I feel like I need to go take a shower.

  Published: October 5, 2005 10:45 AM

• Tim Swanson

  'Nominally libertarian': code words leading to a No True Scotsman Fallacy

  Only real libertarians post at FrontPageMag, National Review and WorldNetDaily.

  Published: October 5, 2005 10:59 AM

• Sag

  Yves and Samuel,

  You should take a look at Murray Rothbard's For A New Liberty. There's also his The Ethics of Liberty. Whether you agree with him on everything or not, you'll soon see that there's been quite a bunch of decent work done on your concerns. In fact, there's also Gustave de Molinari from the 19th century and a bunch of other writers.
  

  Published: October 5, 2005 11:29 AM

• Phinn

  It's odd -- out of people in my age group (36), I find a lot more common ground among self-described conservatives than among liberals.

  The left-liberals adhere to fundamentally anti-liberty ideas, like a total disregard for the concept of property, or a complete refusal to even understand the idea of government as a system of organized force. This group will never be convinced that libertarianism has anything worth listening to, except on this Iraq issue.

  Even on Iraq, I get the impression that their position is disingenuous. For example, they will never admit to any similarity between Iraq and Bosnia-Kosovo ("We were stopping genocide!"). Then, ask about our non-action in Rwanda ("It was too complicated!"). Or concede that Afghanistan was an equally bad idea ("At least we had a clear plan for victory!"). In short, the Left's anti-war position, in large part, is basically political, and not based on any discernible principle. Clinton would have gotten a pass.

  Among self-described conservatives, however, there is a subset of them that demonstrates a real openness to the ideas of the free market, limited government, etc. The problem with this group is not that they reject these ideas, but that that they've never heard of many of the ideas presented by Mises and Hayek. No one has ever shown them the causal relationship between the Fed (1913) and the Great Depression (1929). No one has suggested to them that Lincoln was anything other than a saint.

  The right wing war hawks will always be war hawks. But there are a lot of self-described conservatives, particularly those in Generation X, who are at best ambivalent about the war(s) and are basically receptive to libertarian ideas. The biggest problem, from a PR standpoint, is convincing them that a libertarian's top priority can be something other than legalizing weed.

  As my dad always said, ignorance we can cure. Stupid is forever.

  Published: October 5, 2005 12:19 PM

• Doug

  The premises of the Left are collectivist, egalitarian, secular and socialist. The premises of the Right (the Old Right, anyway) are individualism, elitism, faith and tradition, and free markets. With which does libertarianism seem a better fit?

  This dalliance with the Left is wrongheaded and will amount to nothing. If memory serves, Lew himself noted that Rothbard gave up on such an undertaking.

  "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt. 7:6

  Published: October 5, 2005 12:30 PM

• Steve Ziskey

  Curious that the author is at home championing the war when he could go one step further and oh-boy be out there fighting it! Demonstrated preference, go figure.

  And kudos to Phinn: I agree that conservatives seem to warm up to libertarianism more; perhaps it's because we have similar ends but differening means, but both parties, Democrats and Republicans (and yes, many Libertarians, too [even some libertarians!]) too much tend to uphold the party, not the idea

  Published: October 5, 2005 1:07 PM

• Bill St James

  As I see it, the biggest point of contention between libertarianism and pretty much all of the "accepted" ideologies is that libertarians reject the use of force for any purpose aside from direct defense and everyone else embraces its use as an agent of "good" (the end justifies the means if I like the ends being sought). In my opinion this is the quality that blurs the line between what is quaintly still referred to as the "two-party system." This belief in the use of force as beneficial is as natural as breathing to many Americans, right or left. In this regard, the challenge to change minds is a universal one.

  I believe that the difficulty many libertarians face when engaging those from the left arises to some extent from a disinterest in understanding where those people are coming from. An example of this is some form of emotionally-based concern for the plight of fellow human beings. Libertarians mimic their conservative brethren in addressing such concerns in that they mutter something about "everyone will be better off if the welfare state is dismantled." I suspect that many libertarians feel as though their concern for their fellow man is self-evident because of the wonderful, liberty-imbuing policies they preach, but we don't spend much time addressing the specific concerns nor establishing confidence in our belief that, left alone, humans do a magnificent job of taking care of one another. Instead, we come off as being even more cold-hearted than liberals' identified conservative enemies.

  The fact is, the percentage of people who spend a lot of time philosophizing, researching ideological positions and chatting about it with one another is fairly low. As a result, it's an easy trap to fall into that we're smarter than everyone else and are entitled to talk to them that way. I'd like to suggest a) that's another common characteristic of the thinking that allows for the encroachment of a centralized state ("obviously we know better than you how your life and property should be expended") and b) talking down to people is both counter-productive and antithetical to libertarianism as a recruitment strategy.

  We have similar problems convincing any non-believer of the benefits of our position, regardless of their previous orientation. I'd say the most important thing is to know your audience, give them the benefit of the intellectual doubt and frame your remarks accordingly.

  Published: October 5, 2005 2:38 PM

• Bananas

  It is quite interesting the difference in exchange you see on FrontPageMag and here on Mises.org. You have hateful name calling there and a thoughful discussion here.
  
  
  It is also interesting to see how the "conservatives" have become drunk with power and cannot see where they have gone. What can you do.

  Published: October 5, 2005 2:58 PM

• Brian Gladish

  Joining with the Left is a mistake which comes from thinking that there is the possibility of a successful political strategy. Rothbard was heavily involved in the LP. Rockwell and Rothbard held their noses and joined with Buchanan in the early 90's. Now it's the Left. When will the lesson be learned? Politics doesn't work (See LeFevre, among others, on this subject).

  Published: October 5, 2005 4:22 PM

• Daniel R.

  Totally agree with Brian. As I have commented before it leads to a watering down of ethical positions, starting with concessions in language as not to offend your allies.

  Unfortuately if you stick with the madhat crowd on the left you will be tarred by the same brush.

  Published: October 5, 2005 6:55 PM

• Daniel R.

  It should be noted that the article was written by Jacob Laskin, and after his attitude during the moonbat central debacle, nothing he writes should be taken too seriously. Nonetheless....

  Also defining libertarianism as "contra-power" is dangerous. The worst thing to do is to adopt the attitude of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend", which is just naked pragmatism and lacking in principle.

  Published: October 5, 2005 7:09 PM

• xteve

  I came into libertarianism via the right, so I have a bias. I was really only a right-winger because, as far as I knew then, that was the alternative to the socialist left. To this day I tend to equate the left with statism & the right with resistance to statism, but what they call the "right" these days is just the Republican statist socialist left. I won't even bring up the whole controversy over what "liberal" "really" "means".

  All this talk of whether we should or shouldn't ally ourselves with the left or right never gets us anywhere, because we're all talking about different things. I say we shun their entire left/right power game & form no alliances at all, but talk with anyone who will listen, never compromising our "anti-war, anti-state, pro-market" message.

  There are bound to be people who are with the left solely because they think it's the only anti-war game in town. Let's show them another option. But let's not fret over "alliances" or any of that garbage. I'd hate to have someone who heard Lew speak at that rally, & was intriged, & came here to learn more, only to be turned off by people saying "the left is no good."

  (if any are here: Welcome leftist pinko scum! No, seriously, welcome. We hate state-capitalism too. Check us out.)

  Lew's doing a fine job. As good as anyone can in this crazy upside-down world.

  Published: October 5, 2005 11:44 PM

• Bill St James

  I tend to agree that politics as practiced in this time and place doesn't work, particularly when one's primary goal is to essentially dismantle the machinery that perpetuates the mess we find ourselves in.

  However I see no need, nor do I advocate in any way a compromise of principle. Aligning with "leftists" as a strategy to strengthen the anti-war movement doesn't require that. (I'm not really sure what defining oneself as "contra-power" means.) It's not like we get some libertarians elected to Congress who make deals with liberals ("you give us some ground on gun control and we'll give you more welfare state"). I don't know of anyone who's advocating that sort of "pragmatism."

  But to look upon those who don't already buy the program in its entirety at this moment as "enemies" would seem to insure that we're never going to get there from where we are now. This sort of militant libertarianism is self-defeating, not to mention a contradiction in terms.

  Many people's political positions are formed by a strong opinion about one or two issues with the rest of it hazily sketched in with little reflection...often based on the handbook of the side which agrees with them on those opinions. Libertarians often have the advantage of having connected more dots than the average person and we can use that to our advantage provided we don't alienate our audience in the process. Seeking to not alienate, again, doesn't require any compromise on principle...unless your principle is that you must insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

  If we rely on a critical mass of True Believing Libertarians to storm the castle, we're going to be waiting a long time. Anyone who's had any experience with it knows that trying to organize libertarians to do ANYTHING (a bunch of individuals who revel in their personal visions) is undertaking a monumental task. And those are the self-identified ones (and there aren't enough of us at the moment to storm a McDonald's, much less the castle). I submit we don't have the resources, nor the time at this point in history to take the steps that need to be taken all by ourselves. It seems that using any common ground we have as an entry point both to those searching for a consistent, humane ideology and as a meaningful wedge inserted into the machine is the only practical strategy we have.

  If what those who preach the militant sort of libertarianism ("buy our complete program or get off the bus") are really advocating is some sort of second American Revolution, why don't you say that? Let's talk about what sort of consensus would be required. A case could certainly be made that there's more motivation now than existed for the first revolution. But I don't think it's helpful to just say, "if we can't get to our Utopia from where we are in the next couple of weeks, we'll just whine and point fingers and go down the tubes and it'll all be the fault of the people who were too dumb to recognize our solution." That smacks of the same thing I see as the major remaining shred of dignity that those who support the current administration cling to: "scoreboard...we won, you lost, and whatever pile of crap we've got, it's OUR pile of crap, so there."

  Published: October 6, 2005 11:20 AM

• Yves Grassioulet

  Cheers Sag, I'll read the references you've shared.
  -Y

  
  

  Published: October 6, 2005 11:23 AM

• David White

  How exhilarating to watch Moonbat Laskin take another beating -- http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=19727&commentID=611227 -- though I must say, we could use a t-shirt like theirs. Maybe when libertarianism is finally "busting out all over."

  Bill St. James,

  One of the points that I've been making for some time now is that libertarians don't need to storm any gates; we just need to help prepare the American people for the inevitable collapse of their welfare-warfare state.

  Yes, it's our state, too, in that we all stand to suffer the consequences of its endless folly, which is why I so intently follow what the folks at The Daily Reckoning -- http://www.dailyreckoning.com -- have to say.

  Published: October 6, 2005 11:51 AM

• Yves Grassioulet

  Bill: I agree with your critics of ideology, let it be libertarianism! As said by the famous Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa: "I'm not an ist of any ism!"

  To me, the necessary common ground we have to search lies on a better understanding of humans' complexity. Proudhon was already drawing such prospect back in the 19th century. The Occupational Sciences will pave the way, so we might stop politics now?!?!

  Published: October 6, 2005 11:51 AM

• Joel

  I read Laskin's article on freerepublic.com, and it made me physically ill to read the willful ignorance in the discussion underneath. I don't know why I bother following websites of that nature, or act suprised when I see the anti-intellectual spew that inevitably follows.

  The stark comparison to this discussion is amazing.

  Published: October 6, 2005 1:16 PM