The Editors wants to know what it is that libertarians really believe? That’s a fine question and one I’ve never really I’ve never able to wrap my head around. So many twisty bits, sudden shifts, unexplained exceptions and yet they move like a school of fish, always turning at the same time. From time to time, when I’m feeling exceptionally bitter about the prospect of Grover Norquist drowning the United States government in his bathtub, I’ve proposed that they’re either exceptionally stupid or remarkably cruel. But this can’t be the end of the story, can it? As The Editors points out, the problems with self reporting play a large roll in why it’s so hard to know what libertarians believe.
How do we know that people really believe what they say they believe, rather than just say they believe what they wish people to believe they believe? There are also potential problems in situations where when two or more principles contradict each other: how to know which principle is more deeply held? There is a lot of ambiguity, and many opportunities for error.
Fortunately for us, The Editors set up an experiment in 2002, wherein he transferred all federal power to a single party. For the purposes of the experiment, that party increased the size of the federal budget by record amounts and ceded nearly unprecedented powers to the executive, at the expense of already docile legislative and judiciary branches. That executive expanded his endless war on a tactic to a place where that tactic was largely absent, justifying it to the public with a nearly endless stream of falsehoods. For the purposes of the experiment, the executive authorized the use of torture, indefinite detainment without trial, secret prisons and warrantless wiretaps among other massive expansions of the police and military powers of the state, all justified by a poorly defined war on a tactic. All the while, the party’s voter base demanded more and more power for the government and branded any press coverage of the government’s policies, not loaded with accolades and stripped of detail, as an act of treason.
The question is, what will the small government libertarians do in the 2006 midterm elections? It should be an interesting conclusion to the experiment. I’m just glad The Editors are on the case, and doubly glad that the last four years have been part of a well thought out clinical experiment, rather than the gut wrenching madness I’d assumed.
Now do yourselves a favor and read the whole post, as it’s lovely through and through. My little summary here can’t even begin to do it justice and I may well be too thick to understand it fully, so feel free to make rude comments about me. Regardless of my own comprehension, some time in the next two weeks, I’ll be testing each and every one of you at length and without notes, just to be sure that you’ve done exactly as I’ve asked.
Most Libertarian I’ve read and know personally are walking contradictions, like “moderate republicans.” Why would a moderate be in an extremist organization like the repubs? Same holds true for libertarians – why would anyone who believes in personal freedom belong to such a repressive, extremist organization?
When push comes to shove, it’s ok to force people to pay taxes for war, but not to help people or inhibit anyone’s accumulation of wealth even if it’s dishonest or removes others freedoms.
I do know some libertarians (they’re really anarchists, but they just won’t admit it – too lefty) that are very consistent in supporting personal freedom and as a result don’t support either party. I actually have more respect for them than over-compromising dems or repubs always settling for what they don’t want because they fear the alternative. The dems and repubs simply sneer and say the anarchists – oops – libertarians don’t accomplish anything (like a war in Iraq?).
Many libertarians today are simply recycled Goldwater repubs – don’t pay taxes for anything but the war machine and bomb the shit out of the commies (now terrorists). John Stossel of ABC fame seems to be a pretty good example of a right wing libertarian – look at the ABC news 20/20 website and see what he attacks in his myths section (he seems to spend a lot of time attacking teachers, like they’re the number one threat to liberty and free markets). Rather benign, easy targets that won’t get him in trouble with the admin or Disney.
I haven’t seen much of Patrick Buchanan lately(haven’t really looked), but he was always pretty consistent in his extremist views and was one of the first to criticize Bush for “empire building.” He’s not a libertarian, more of a christian racist, but pretty consistent. I’d have more respect for many of the so-called libertarians is they were as consistent as Pat.
See Pinko Punko’s comment at the Poor Man Institute Post for a succinct summation of much of neo-libertarianism today.
What do “libertarians” really believe? Easy, it’s only one thing. They believe they should pay lower taxes. Note that I didn’t say that everybody should pay lower taxes. They should pay lower taxes. Everything else is expendable in pursuing that goal. They don’t care if somebody else is forced to pay for something they disproportionately get a benefit from. That’s their due. Just don’t dare ask them to pay taxes for what they actually consume, because according to their dogma they don’t consume any public goods. So long as they get lower taxes they’re happy campers and that’s why they’ll vote Republican like the good little borgs they are come November 2006.
and the naked beer run! What was the question? Seriously now, after the afore mentioned experiment where we have absolutely no fucking government worth talking about, no accountability, no checks and balances, taxpayers money flowing out in an unending stream of piss most any other philosophy of governement would have merit assuming anyone can tell just exactly what the current philosophy is other than soak the taxpayer.
I forget what the question was myself. Something about Arnold Schwarzenegger having 127 teeth. I think the current philosophy of government has something to do with destroying every government program that might benefit society.
coming out with an article that points to “Drown the Gov’t in a bathtub” Norquist as losing his clout. YEAAHHH!
I like it. I just hope it’s true.
That’s an awesome post by the Editors.
There area lot of people claiming the mantle of “Libertarian” these days who are either rightwing racist types like screeching radio fascist Boortz, or worshippers of Mammon, (the god of wealth and greed).
These imposters do a disservice to authentic libertarians who, while I don’t agree with many of their ideas, do advocate for a smallerless intrusive government and do so with reason and fact-based analysis.
But broadly speaking, the core problem for what passes for the current “libertarian” ideology is that they completely miss this fundamental point and the corresponding distinction that folows from it.
The point they miss is this; The only legitimate reason for government to exist is to serve, protect, and, when possible enhance the best interests of all it’s citizens.
They fail to distinguish that there’s a difference between serving the best interests of “all” the people and serving the best interests “of the few at the expense of the many”.
Real libertarians are not so afflicted with this dissonant and self-serving idea, but the imposters claiming the noble mantle of “libertarianism” have silenced their voices pretty much across the board.
(For the record I’m not a libertarian. I favor less intrusive government but I also favor a broad and comprehensive network of social programs inherent in the architecture of government that provide mechanism for the needy to rise out of their difficulties.)