The Case for the Libertarian Democrat, really?
Cato Unbound’s topic for this month is which political party libertarians should associate with if you buy that idea that being a libertarian Libertarian is a gigantic waste of time.
Here’s the lead essay by “Kos” saying it makes sense for libertarians to vote for Democrats.
However, he’s actually hinting at more than that, a deeper alliance that might be forged between the two groups. Is it possible? Have libertarians disenchanted with the Libertarian Party found a home?
At the end of the day I don’t buy his argument, at all. I mean, I can see a temporary alliance of libertarians and Democrats over civil liberties, but certainly not the broader alliance he is suggesting, for two reasons:
1. First is that his post/essay basically says “Look, ‘new’ Democrats and libertarians have a lot in common, except that you need government instead of the market to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.” He also makes the classic Democrat mistake of only seeing personal liberties in the context of being a consumer of business, and not personal liberties in the running of a business, and expects libertarians to say “Thank you sir, may I have another?” I predict this is one of the areas he is going to get a major smack-down in the coming responses from actual libertarians.
Sure, he scores some cheap points about corporate influence on government, but the traditional (and accurate) libertarian solution is that you vote for people who will actually take power away from government. Without government power, there is less reason for corporations to spend money influencing . . . nothing. What Kos is suggesting is perhaps a major-party-inspired band-aid, but wow it just does nothing to address the underlying issue.
2. Even assuming for the sake of argument that “new” Democrats exist, how could it be anything more than a temporary reprieve to get the civil liberty-thieving Republicans out of office? If Hillary wins the White House in 2008, on what non-insane basis does anyone expect someone like her to *not* push Universal Health Care? In what fantasy-land world does she scale back Medicare? Or push privatized Social Security? If libertarians and Democrats were to form anything more than a temporary alliance, it would create a huge rift in the Democratic party between “new” Democrats and “all the other” Democrats who still believe big, active government is a public benefit. I certainly don’t see Democrats becoming the new party of “fiscal responsibility,” unless by that you mean “Let’s raise taxes until we can cover all the government programs on the agenda.” Sorry, if “fiscal responsibility” only means “more fiscally responsible than Republicans have been since coming to power” I expect libertarians to by and large reject that outright, for obvious reasons.
No, I think Kos is out to win the next election and sees libertarians as a convenient way to leverage a few votes. As soon as Democrats can regain power they’ll forget about us, and all libertarian principles, as quickly as the Republicans did in 2000.
As much as some days I believe it is a futile effort, I believe I have no principled choice but to continue to advocate that libertarians push their own agenda and hope that education about the consistent values of freedom (civil liberties and economic freedom) start getting through to an ever-more oppressed populace. Perhaps the only exception to that is if I could vote for candidates that would guarantee near total gridlock in government that would be perhaps the best available alternative. At least getting nothing done means as little harm is done as possible.
I hope that the responsive posts to the lead essay reinforce that (1) Republicans did, indeed, turn their backs on libertarianism as soon as it became convenient to do so to the benefit of their own personal and political power, (2) there is absolutely no reason to believe Democrats won’t, and (3) both major political parties have, in reality, no consistent political philosophy or ideology beyond securing and maintaining their own power.
on October 2, 2006 on 7:01 pm
As a democrate in Washington State, I am a firm believer in fiscal responsability and in controlling and limiting government powers.
I also think that the libertarian extreme (No public education, no government aid to people at all…) is far too extreme. Government needs to be limited in its power to bring harm to people, and made financially responsable in its attempts to help people.
on October 2, 2006 on 8:00 pm
I’ve always been curious about people who claim to be limited government Democrats. Aren’t most of the core Democratic proposals/programs about centralized government power? Nationalized education standards, the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Universal Health Care, minimum wage, restrictions on insurance, etc. While the intentions behind these programs and more might be to “help” people, there is no denying that they represent expansive government powers that limit people’s choices. When the programs themselves become too expensive to maintain, then what? Then you get doctors who say they won’t take in new Medicare patients because the government cut back on amounts it will compensate doctors for treatments under Medicare plans. You get seniors whose benefits don’t match the cost of living over time, or that can’t be tapped extra for emergencies the way a private account could.
Yes, some people are “helped” be Social Security, but those are the same people who made poor decisions when they were younger about retirement. It’s still less freedom no matter how you slice it.
I think Democrats who say they are for limited government powers are fooling themselves in either one of two ways–either they aren’t really Democrats, or they are only for limiting and controlling government powers when it suits them.
on October 2, 2006 on 8:32 pm
“Libertarian Democrat” Quote of the Day
“[Moulitsas'] post/essay basically says: Look, ‘new’ Democrats and libertarians have a lot in common, except that you need government instead of the market to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, th…
on October 3, 2006 on 2:07 am
I personally think that you are dead on the money. I don’t believe that the republicans or democrates have the best interest of anyone. When you look at either election budget you quickly realize that neither has any purpose other than getting elected. After that it is a free for all, after the dust of the congress settles out of course. I am truely convinced that each electable offical goes in with either their own agenda or the agenda of the nearest/highest bidders.
Its good to see that the few libertarians that are still left out there can easily see through the many scams both sides are putting to us. Applause…
on October 3, 2006 on 2:50 am
“Even assuming for the sake of argument that “new” Democrats exist, how could it be anything more than a temporary reprieve to get the civil liberty-thieving Republicans out of office? If Hillary wins the White House in 2008, on what non-insane basis does anyone expect someone like her to *not* push…”
Nevermind what they would push, are people seriously expecting the Dems to relinquish the powers that the Repubs have added/enhanced?
on October 3, 2006 on 5:39 am
[...] Markos Moulitsas has brought his discussion of libertarian Democrats to Cato Unbound. In doing so, Kos is transforming from a blogger purely interested in strategy while ignoring ideology to one who has some points to make on political principles, even if the arguments do become awkward at times. Kos’s version of libertarianism does vary from conventional libertarian beliefs (as sites such as QandO, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of, Homeland Stupidity, and Zen Politics discuss). However it must also not be forgotten that Republican policies differ widely from their rhetoric favoring freedom, limited government, and the free market. [...]
on October 3, 2006 on 8:16 pm
A Challenge For a Libertarian Democrat
So I issue a challenge. Someone, preferably of the left-leaning variety (but does not have to be), address this libertarian argument, explaining why it is either wrong or unpersuasive.
on October 4, 2006 on 2:04 am
I’ve been a libertarian most of life, despite the fact that my sister and her circle were liberals, my parents conservative Republicans, and friends from all over the place. I believe in limited government, far fewer taxes and laws than we have now, a movement to have parents better control their children, and have certain standards for the private industry to follow, whether for the highway or when it comes to computer things. The government should not allow discrimination of any kind, but should also back out of economics. It is only there to make sure people are treated equally and are defended from any form of violence, war, or whatever. There are other options besides public and private education…
on October 4, 2006 on 3:15 am
[...] Thus Moulitsas is now an ersatz theorist of intellectual convergence in American political thought: and his big project is to rationalize the desires of libertarians and — well, Democrats. The problems with this seem fairly obvious, beginning with the fact that “Democrat” does not describe a discernible ideology any more than “Republican” does. It’s a political party, and as such represents a coincidence of interests and actual ideologies. That being said, it is possible to describe broadly what Democrats stand for, even if that description cannot meet the standards expected of an ideological or philosophical definition. In doing so, the contrast with libertarianism becomes something of an embarrassment to Moulitsas’ case. As author at ZenPolitics notes: [H]is post/essay basically says “Look, ‘new’ Democrats and libertarians have a lot in common, except that you need government instead of the market to do this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.” [...]
on October 6, 2006 on 7:42 pm
[...] My one critique of Timothy’s post is that his conclusion ignores one powerful concept ground in practicality that some libertarians might find persuasive–voting for Democrats for the purpose of causing gridlock. Now, I’ve previously indicated that I believe that, on principle, I can’t vote for Democrats, but that doesn’t mean that I ignored how tempting that is or that libertarians might not find that awfully tempting as a practical matter. [...]
on October 9, 2006 on 1:35 am
The most important aspect of Kos’ proposal is that he thinks it worth trying to get the attention of libertarians. We are being recognized as a force worth courting. In some respects his proposal is also an implicit confession that the traditional Democratic approach is increasingly a losing proposition.
It would be better if both sides pandered, however weakly, to the libertarian-inclined rather than pandering to their existing bases.
on October 10, 2006 on 11:58 pm
[...] TalkLeft believes Markos may be dressing up liberal, FDR-style ideas in Libertarian clothing to get people onboard, and based on Andrew’s comment and those of many other Libertarian blogs, I’d say they see through this little trick. [...]
on October 17, 2006 on 10:10 pm
The problem with most libertarian’s ideology is that they are so hopelessly naive and utopian. They seem completely ignorant of the entire world outside the United States.
hktelemacher writes:
“Without government power, there is less reason for corporations to spend money influencing . . . nothing.”
What about corporate spending to influence public opinion directly? Corporation, even today, spend FAR MORE trying to influence public opinion of their company than all the “contributions” (a.k.a. bribes) to political campaigns combined – not just ads for products, but corporate public relations too.
Watch any news shows, who are the main advertisers? Big corporations – like ADM or GE or Pfizer, etc. Viewers don’t buy wheat from ADM, nor power plants from GE, nor do they pay for drug research, nor can they get pharmaceticals they advertise without a doctor’s prescription. So, why are corporations spending billions, on top of the millions they give to political campaigns, marketing to people who can’t even buy their products? It’s all about influencing the public and creating a public image of their company. They do this so ordinary people will pressure their elected representatives (or their doctors) to take actions that benefit them. This is because people vote and sit on juries and because positive public opinion is needed for local permits and licenses.
After the libertarian revolution brings us all a free utopia, will corporations no longer need to lobby the public to allow them to build new factories and roads or dump their wastes wherever they want??? Will there be no local conflict nor even any (weak underfunded) zoning board anywhere to tell your neighbor that he can’t burn garbage (on his private property) because your farm or a school is downwind? Will corporations all voluntarily stop running ads that make spurious claims about their products? And, who will then stand up for the public interest when a snake oil salesman kills people with claims his product cures cancer? Or, if a pyramid scheme wants to run ads to attract investors. Will there be no more corporate-sponsored development plans or ballot intitiatives or legal actions that corporations will want to fund big PR campaigns to try to advocate for or against? And, who besides the government is big enough or powerful enough to stand up to wealthy corporate interests and prevent such claims or attempts to smear critics and competitors?
With fewer government officials to pay off and fewer officials overseeing the legality of corporate actions, corporate crime will increase. Attempts to directly influence the public with slick corporate PR campaigns will also increase – in order to counter critics of their anti-competitive and anti-public interest activities.
LIBERTARIANS NEED TO SPEND SOME TIME IN THE THIRD WORLD TO CURE THEIR NAIVETE
Look at ANY capitalist economy in any poor developing country in Asia, Latin America, or Africa. Most have small governments and low taxes, especially for the wealthy. There are usually many wealthy monopoly landowners and local businessmen, but most people remain poor. So, why are they still poor? Usually precisely BECAUSE their governments don’t have the funds to build modern roads & rails & ports & other infrastructure needs. So, no one will invest there. Why don’t they raise funds to build these things? Because they have no tax base, because they won’t tax the wealthy. Why? Because invaribly Third World countries with small governments usually have rampant corruption.
Their governments are OWNED by wealthy private monopoly interests, who don’t want to be taxed and are always capable of bribing under-paid government officials to get whatever they need and prevent the government from raising sufficient taxes to invest in growth of the national economy. Underpaid government officials (in small governments without sufficient resources for oversight) are always looking to supplement their incomes with favors to wealthy special interests.
Tht is why they don’t develop economically. Local and national monopolies don’t want competition coming in and they don’t even necessarily want local economic growth. They want to maintain their power. Capitalism and low taxes in NOT sufficient to yield growth or else we would see tremendous growth in many capitalist Third World countries that have been stagnant economically. Growth requires fair enforcement of laws for investors and other adherance to otbusiness standards and MOST IMPORTANTLY investment in general infrastructure improvement designed to increase access to markets for all, not just for the already wealthy elite status quo monopolists.
America under the Banana Republicans (& the influence of their wealthy corporate monopolist friends) is on the fast track to third world economic status.
Look at ALL the wealthy industrialized economies of the world! Every one is in a nation with a large government with many regulations and safeguards against corporate crime and unscrupulous businesses. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Wealthy people in the USA are relatively low taxed compared to most wealthy industrialized nations with high standards of living. Protection of public standards attracts people to live there and creates a climate for investors. A large government is also needed to effectively promote the national interests of powerful wealthy nations. When the USA had a smaller government, back in the 19th century, it was not a world power or large international trader; its economic focus was internal, not external as today.
Strict government enforcement of business laws to uphold public standards is what creates HIGHER STANDARDS OF LIVING and attracts talented people and big investors, NOT relaxing standards or allowing business to collude to maintain their national power.
GOV’T OVERSIGHT OF CORPORATE CORRUPTION/ FRAUD
This idea of libertarians that corruption will be LESS after the libertarian revolution destroys all government power to stand up to the private interests and monopoly corporations is just absurd! It’s like saying that if you cut the police force, crime will disappear. No. Doesn’t work that way. Cut the police force and prosecution of criminals will disappear, but crime will florish like never before.
Government regulators are our corporate police. They protect the public from businesses and individuals who seek to foul our air and water, or mistreat workers, or sell dangerous products, or collude to fix prices, or defraud their investors with false reports. Seeking to cut one’s costs by cutting corners on waste disposal or by inflating the value of one’s stock through creative accounting are NOT in themselves criminal acts. These are examples of capitalists behaving rationally. But, someone must step in to draw a line in the sand somewhere to define when such activity becomes illegal (i.e. contrary to public standards) and to enforce those public standards. Without clear lines drawn to define acceptable business behavior and an impartial enforcer of public standards – who is outside of industry, yet has the power (i.e. legal authority and funding) to enforce those standards – then not only are public interests harmed, but competition OFTEN eats itself and markets ultimately collapse.
What libertarians NEVER seem to understand is that consolidation of private economic power in a few hands is just as great a threat to personal and economic freedom than the worst examples of government regulation of businesses and markets. Monopolies fix prices. (e.g. OPEC) They are anti-thetical to free market competition. It is always an easy task for any firm (or group of firms) with dominance over the market to prevent new market entrants and small businesses from successfully competing with them. Anti-competitive behavior that kills competition in the marketplace only occurs when wealthy private interests are unrestricted in their ability to undercut competitors to maintain their dominance over the market.
Independence of government regulators is vital and so is sufficient funding for enforcement by inspectors and regulators. It happens all the time, everywhere, even with today’s federal government. In fact more so today than in the past, because funding for many regulatory agencies has been decreased and because of lack of oversight of private influence over regulators.
When an oversight program is insufficiently funded, regulators are dominated (and/or bribed) by wealthy private interests. Always. Corporations NEVER take any government regulations seriously if they know that the regulation is not likely to be enforced, or the fines are small compared to the economic benefits of non-compliance, or even if caught the government enforcement program is so under-funded that the corporation can easily beat any court case against them by providing a better-funded defense team and/or dragging the case out through appeals. When a government enforement is underfunded, corporations treat the activities of regulators about as seriously as they treat a small public citizen group with a petition drive.
In many cases, the government is the ONLY group large enough, with sufficient resources and power to stand up to wealthy private interests and corporate anti-competitive price-fixing and collusion. There is no other solution.
on October 17, 2006 on 10:39 pm
WHERE DID THIS GOV’T IS EVIL IDEA COME FROM?
Where did this idea come from that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”, as our government was originally designed to be, is an EVIL thing?
You want less waste and corruption? Then, vote to empower and reformers to pass laws that provide stricter oversight. Underfund that oversight and you get more corruption and a government that is capable of upholding the laws that its citizens wanted passed EVEN LESS effectively.
But, reform takes time and cost money. Rome wasn’t built in a day, neither were corrupt corporate-political ties. Cutting all government spending, rather than simply wasteful government is no solution to government inefficiency. Who is to say that gov’t spending cutbacks across the board won’t simply result in cutting out all the good un-corrupt parts of a gov’t program – the parts that real people benefitted from, rather than just wealthy special interests? Putting your faith in corrupt self-interested CEOs to fix society over corrupt self-interested politicians is no solution. Passing laws to ensure that disreputable people are ousted from either position is how to clean up the waste and corruption, not eliminating all attempts at oversight.
Is the local city council less corrupt than the federal government, because they have a smaller budget? No. Either one can trample on your rights. But, if you want to appeal their restriction of your freedoms, you have a much BETTER chance in most cases of winning your appeal in federal court than against corruption of a federal official than you do trying to fight a corrupt city hall. Smaller gov’t doest NOT equal more efficient or less corrupt government.
Think bureaucracy is exclusive to government? Nonsense. Bureaucracy exists in every big institution with muliple parties and different interests. My private HMO is at least as bureaucratic in their operations as the state DMV, maybe more so. Again, reform is what is needed to improve efficiency, NOT simply cutting government to the point of total ineffectiveness. Medicare administrative costs are only 3%, far less than ANY private medical insurance you can find anywhere. Government does many things efficiently.
Taxation is NOT theft, when you elect those who tax you. We are not ruled by a king. Taxation (at least in democracies) is how ALL modern capitalist countries pool their resources to fund projects that are in the national interest or in most people’s interests, but would otherwise go unfunded (e.g. military, ports, roads, garbage collection, health inspectors, science research, etc.) Governments everywhere are ALWAYS the funders of last resort, when no private interests are capable or willing to fund such things sufficiently on their own.
Can any libertarians point to ANY federal government programs that they really dislike and that clearly provide no overall benefits to society?
Or, is it really ALL just about wanting to pay less in taxes – while you enjoy your high American standard of living – driving your gov’t-inspected car down the federal hwy to go buy food inspected by gov’t health inspectors and are protected by police and military.
The first income tax in America was enacted by Lincoln to pay for the Civil War. Any libertarian who preaches tax cuts yet supports the war, I have no respect for. War is ALWAYS the largest government expense, which is one reason why it should always be a last resort.
Before the income tax, imported goods were very expensive and customs agencies (who were our main tax collectors) were very corrupt and run by corrupt political appointees. At least our customs people & IRS auditors today are not so easily bought off today. That’s why the income tax became permanent with the passage of a Constitutional amendment to clean up that corruption!
It was ALSO to increase government revenue, because since the start of the 20th century, American have had military operations overseas almost continuously.
So, anyone that votes for the Iraq War, but thinks taxes should be slashed is the worst kind of hypocrite! The result is simply to pass on huge debt to future generations.
on October 17, 2006 on 11:47 pm
‘Libertarian Democrats’ are better known as “scocial libertarians” or “civil libertarians”.
The political wing of the ACLU supports mostly Democratic candidates, because they are “civil libertarians”.
The difference between “civil libertarians” and cluelessly naive rightwing “laissez faire libertarians” is that CIVIL LIBERTARIANS believe in good government as a force for social change and government-guaranteed protections of liberties and equal access to a clear government appeals process when rights are violated. Civil Libertarians also believe that it is not just the rights of individuals that need to be protected, but also the rights of communities to enforce public standards and for people to freely participate in elections and decision-making in their community. That is why the word CIVIL (i.e. government) is included in the term.
Laissez Faire Libertarians acknowlege no such legitimate role for government. They do not believe in a government elected by citizens as a check against attempts by wealthy private special interests to take away people’s rights. Laissez Faire Libertarians believe that the private sector is incorruptable and can do no wrong (despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite the fact that private firms are formed for one reason alone – for their own enrichment, NOT for the enrichment of society in general, nor for increasing freedoms of their potential competitors, nor anyone else.)
What happens when what is best for GM (i.e. their maximum possible profit) is NOT necessarily what is best for the USA in general? Monopolizing the American auto industry or removing all tailpipe emission standards would certainly increase GM profit, but would these be better for the USA? The needs of the private industry is not always the same as the needs of the public citizenry.
Civil libertarians recognize that curtailment of certain individual rights (including economic rights) is sometimes necessary to increase the freedom of everyone in general.
Does an individual have the right to pollute a stream on his property that flows past a town that uses it for drinking water? Whose rights are more important?
The laissez faire libertarian believes rights to private property are sacred. Civil libertarians recognize that no man is an island, we all live in a community, and that community has certain collective rights too.
The question for civil libertarians is how best to maximize both the rights of the individual and the overall rights of society in general.
The laissez faire libertarians believe only in upholding individual rights, the needs of society be damned.
Civil implies government – i.e. society organized COLLECTIVELY to uphold and enforce its individual and community rights – as in “civil defense” or “civil rights”. “Civil” is the root of “civilization”. Civilization began when wandering hunter gatherers all settled in one place and then needed rules so that they could all get along and needed to appoint responsible people to enforce those rules and to plan for the future of the community and look out for the common interests of everyone.
Government officials often become corrupted, because “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. But, the same is true for powerful private interests. Either can take away your rights. The important thing is not to have too much power consolidated in too few hands and to have effective checks to absolute power by individuals or society.
Slavery wasn’t invented by governments. It was private interests that created the slave trade. It was abolished by government. That abolition only came about when individuals working collectively stood up for a societal right to prevent enslavement of anyone OVER the individual’s right to own slaves.
on October 18, 2006 on 1:29 am
To the last two liberal commentators: I have a feeling that were I to engage in a point-by-point war of attrition, you would win by “virtue” of having a much larger sheer volume of time to spend spewing nonsense. However, what you have demonstrated without any shred of doubt through your large and useless diatribe is that you have no idea what the libertarian philosophy is. I want to reiterate this point because it is so ridiculously and plainly clear–you do not understand the principles of libertarianism. If you don’t understand the libertarian response to slavery, if you don’t understand the libertarian response to water pollution, if you don’t understand the libertarian response to corruption in the private sector, if you do not understand the difference between libertarianism and federalism . . . all of these things you demonstrate your utter and complete ignorance as to what the libertarian philosophy is, and I have no interest in being your tutor much as I suspect based on your ranting that you have no interest in learning, likely believing that you already know libertarianism when you actually have no idea..
on October 18, 2006 on 6:34 pm
Bullshit, hktelemacher !
The FACT IS you can’t DEFEND your utopian nonsense against real world examples of low tax countries in the Third World.
You can’t defend your pie-in-the-sky nonsense against ANY substantial criticism.
The burden of proof is on YOU, not me.
You don’t NEED to “educate me”, you sanctimonious nitwit. I am widely read on libertarian ideology. But, you couldn’t even address ONE of my criticisms! Not one!
I addressed most of the points you raised directly.
Ad hominem attacks are ALWAYS the surest sign that the debater has LOST THE DEBATE and has no defense. You have no real response, so you accuse me of being ignorant.
Please… kindly instruct me… so I can see the error of my ways! LOL
>if you don’t understand the libertarian response to corruption in the private sector,if you do not understand the difference between libertarianism and federalismIf you don’t understand the libertarian response to slavery, if you don’t understand the libertarian response to water pollution
on October 18, 2006 on 7:00 pm
>if you don’t understand the libertarian response to water pollution,if you don’t understand the libertarian response to corruption in the private sector,if you do not understand the difference between libertarianism and federalism
on October 18, 2006 on 7:03 pm
“if you don’t understand the libertarian response to water pollution”
I addressed it directly. No evidence that voluntary programs and self-policing work. Nor, is the problem ever solved when the prosecuter representing the public interest is under-funded and can’t effectively compete with private interest polluters. And, it REALLY doesn’t work if the prosecuter is being paid (even indirectly) by those that he is regulating.
“if you don’t understand the libertarian response to corruption in the private sector,”
I addressed that directly too. Your response to my criticism? … NONE! Small underfunded government regulators + powerful private special interests = more corruption. Please, visit any capitalist Third World country with a small government & low tax base and you will be instantly dispelled of your “cutting gov’t spending means less corruption” myth.
“if you do not understand the difference between libertarianism and federalism”
I addressed that too. I showed how libertarian theories of governance fail even at the small scale. Nothing built up from such a flawed foundation can possibly suceed at the large scale!
It is YOU, hktelemacher, who has no interest in learning!
You just want to preach your theories to the choir and ignore all evidence from the real world to the contrary.
The problem with you & most libertarians is they don’t want to learn from the mistakes of others. There is plenty of empirical evidence from all over the world that proves libertarian ideology and policies are fundamentally flawed and when I point these things out to you, YOU CLAIM that I don’t understand your theory.
No, hktelemacher, you and other libertarians don’t understand REALITY. I’m talking reality, you’re talking theory – theory that is fundamentally flawed & with very evidence to support it.
Like most libertarians, I susupect that you have no real experience in government in America or anywhere else in the world. If you did have experience with any regulatory agency as an employee, lobbyist, or observer, you would see how rampant corruption is in the private sector! And, how that private sector corruption dominates small gov’ts in the Third World even more effectively than large gov’ts.
Monopolization of power whether in the private sector or the public sector is the problem. Liberals see this, libertarians don’t!
You guys want “free lunches” – i.e. all the benefits from a big gov’t (like good roads & not dropping dead from tainted foods or rampant epidemics as in the Third World), but without having to pay for it!
on October 18, 2006 on 7:25 pm
You misunderstood my post.
I said nothing about the “libertarian view of slavery”. The point on slavery at the end of my post was it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that invented the slave trade. And, it was government that ended it! The private sector NEVER would have addressed the issue by themselves. The private sector view in both the North & the South was laissez faire with regard to slavery and slave owners.
Sorry, my point went over your head!
Government does do some good in the world. And, by extension there are many, many, many other examples (e.g. taking lead out of gasoline) that the private sector never in a million years would have ended on their own.
Strict government regulation and even outright bans are often necessary. Sorry, the free market will never address public interests, only private interests & monopoly interests, if left to it’s own devices.
Libertarian theories are mostly just feel-good bumper sticker solutions to complex issues.
Sorry, all evidence shows the opposite of what libertarians preach, Cutting government oversight of the financial sector or the environment, etc. leads to MORE Enrons & Love Canal & Bhopals, NOT LESS.
All “evidence” for often-repeated libertarian successes for things like school vouchers are spurious at best. There is NO EVIDENCE anywhere of any for-profit schools providing basic education more efficiently than public schools (i.e. same or better education with LOWER COST PER STUDENT). Yet you and others still repeat such garbage.
Somethings the government can simply do better. Medicare administrative costs are just 3%. No private health care company can match that. Their profit margin is larger than that.
Liberals are ALL FOR reforming and streamlining of government programs to make them function better. Liberals are 110% supportive upholding civil liberties too! But, the libertarian mantra that GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM or CAN DO NO RIGHT is just absurd.
WASTE AND CORRUPTION IS THE PROBLEM. Cutting government across the board might reduce waste and corruption in an absolute sense – just as I said above there is less total corruption in a city government than a federal government. But is the percentage of waste & corruption versus benefits for tax dollars spent LESS in a smaller government? No. Not necessarily.
And that is where your ideology FAILS. Simply cutting, doesn’t improve efficiency. Intelligent reform is what is needed – reform that upholds basic constitutional rights and community standards and applies those standards efficiently (less waste) & impartially (less corruption).
There are no magic bullets. “Government” in general is not the problem. Nor, is it, by itself, the solution. Bad government is the problem. Working to create “good government” – by first removing the unbalancing influence of for-profit corporations on our politics – is the solution.
When libertarians realize that reform & upholding rights takes hard work, that there are no magic bullets, then they can join with liberals to create a better America. Until then, forget it, we don’t want you in our party. As progressives we want people who understand the problem and are willing to work to make our country better, NOT clueless people who don’t care about anything but their own tax cuts or their god-given right to smoke pot.
on October 18, 2006 on 8:44 pm
Well said, schroedinger:
“No, hktelemacher, you and other libertarians don’t understand REALITY. I’m talking reality, you’re talking theory – theory that is fundamentally flawed & with very evidence to support it…. Like most libertarians, I suspect that you have no real experience in government in America or anywhere else in the world. If you did have experience with any regulatory agency as an employee, lobbyist, or observer, you would see how rampant corruption is in the private sector! And, how that private sector corruption dominates small gov’ts in the Third World even more effectively than large gov’ts… Monopolization of power whether in the private sector or the public sector is the problem. Liberals see this, libertarians don’t! ”
You hit the nail on the head. Privatization is sometimes a good idea, sometimes not. But, libertarians all believe that the pivate sector can do no wrong and government can do no right.
Some liberals are skeptical of any attempts to privatize. Others, like Clinton & the DLC, are not. Clinton privatized or deregulated many government functions and industries. Some plans worked, some didn’t. Libertarians refuse to learn from history. They just spin wild utopian theories.
Hktelemacher’s response is typical of most libertarians I’ve argued with. Don’t expect anything more. They have no defense against any of your arguments above.
They can’t explain why low-tax small government developing countries don’t develop.
They can’t explain how cutting the SEC will create fewer Enrons.
They can never respond to yout “tragedy of the commons” argument either, etc.
They think they have all the answers, because they just preach to the choir. But, someone comes along with real substantive detailed argument challenging the fundamentals of their ideology they always claim that YOU simply don’t understand their theories. Well, you said it, THEY don’t understand reality and can’t support their theories with hard facts.
I’ve argued with many libertarians. Libertarians often remind me of Trotskyists trying to explain why “real socialism has never been tried” & “if only the Soviet Union had organized differently, according to Trotsky’s theories, than all would have been utopia.” yadda yadda yadda. The Objectivist libertarians are just as devoted to their religion as diehard Trotskyists are too. LOL
There’s THEORY and then there’s REALITY. Libertarians are short on reality.
Liberalism, on the other hand, has a looooong history of sucesses to point to:
Federal Reserve, interstate highway system, the 5-day work week, employer-sponsored health care, public education (vs. illiteracy in the 19th century), Medicare, ending senior citizen poverty with Social Security, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, women’s rights, worker safety, Civil Rights Act, etc.
What has libertarianism done for anyone, but offer promises that don’t deliver. Reagan’s voodoo economics cut taxes, but then left us with a huge deficit and a recession the early 90s. No quick fixes. Libertarianism creates wealth for the wealthy. Liberalism leads to higher standards of living everywhere. The evidence is clear.
on October 18, 2006 on 11:38 pm
[...] Apparently I hit a nerve in a couple of liberals upset with my response to Kos. As I indicated in my first response their advantage in such an exchange is their seemingly endless supply of available time. Comparatively, my available time to engage is such banter is much more limited. Nonetheless most of their stuff is pretty easily shot down so I’ll take a stab at a couple of points then maybe leave the rest to commentators. [...]
on October 19, 2006 on 4:52 pm
The State is evil because it is institutionalized violence. I don’t see how one can refute that except to justify it as preferable to non-institutionalized violence.
As far as corporations, liberals seem not to get the point that CORPORATIONS ARE CREATED BY AND SUPPORTED BY THE STATE. If you want to disempower corporations, join with libertarians in rolling back the state. It is through government that corporations are chartered. It is government tax policies that subsidize the inherent costs of centralized production and distribution. It is government that writes regulations that favor corporations (yes, indeed, regulations are cartelizing forces that increase big business hegemony via political means).
If it were not for government, there would be no corporations as we know it. Period. The point is so fundamental that it boggles my mind liberals and progressives fight it. If you want a regulated society you are BY DEFINITION introducing the kind of central planning and special interest politics that promotes centralized business and centralized government.
Liberals seem to love corporations, as long as they do things liberals like.
on December 9, 2006 on 4:06 pm
All this talk of “libertarian Democrats.”
Democrats may want to link up with us libertarians, but we libertarians have little if any interest whatsoever of linking up with Democrats.
Put aside for a moment our huge disagreements on economic issues.
Democrats are even bad these days on civil liberties. Who is pushing all the smoking bans all over the US? Democrats. Who is it that’s calling for a return to the Military Draft? Democrats. Who was it that got our libertarian petitions kicked off the ballots all over the US like MT, MO, and NV in 2006? Democrats. Who is it that protests and disrupts speeches by libertarians on college campuses all over the US? Democrats. Who is it that wants to take our guns away? Democrats.
Who is it that supports anti-libertarian affirmative action laws? Who is it that supports seat belt laws? Who is it that wants to force little kids riding bicycles to weat helmets? Answer to all the above: Democrats
When was the last time you even heard a Democrat supporting legalization of marijuana?
There are virtually no areas of agreement between Democrats and libertarians. Maybe Pro-Choice on abortion and Gay Rights. But even there Dems want government funding and “special rights for Gays”(which we libertarians oppose).
Further, how many libertarians ever win election as Democrats? Virtually none. How many libertarians win as Republicans? Hundreds like former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Ron Paul now a Republican Congressman from Texas.
“libertarian Democrat”? A stupid idea if there ever was one.
Eric Dondero at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
on January 11, 2007 on 3:51 pm
Very amazing site! I wish I could do something as nice as you did…mary
on April 21, 2007 on 9:02 pm
Much of the hktelemacher response and comments on that response seem to me to be knee-jerk reaction to anything associated with big government Democrats. There may be a way to support libertarian Democrats (or libertarian Republicans, for that matter) without fearing betrayal after they are elected. Have the Libertarian Party place the preferred major party candidates on the ballot under the Libertarian party listing, in addition to having them run under the Democratic or Republican label. The votes are tabulated not just be candidate name but by part affiliation. That demonstrates to the candidate the degree to which his or her victory came from libertarians. When I was a youth in New York, there were a dozen minor parties in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. The Liberty Party repeatedly helped elect liberal Republican Jacob Javits tor the House and later the Senate using that technique, and he stayed liberal until his defeat after the state had turned conservative. (I don’t recall that the NY Liberal Party ever nominated someone who wouldn’t already have a place on the ballot under another party label.
Regarding corporations, it is inane to believe that multinational corporations will lose their power if government loses its power. Just the opposite is more likely. The cartels that Teddy Roosevelt battled in earned his “trust buster” sobriquet, were created during an era of laissez-faire small government. While I believe that business should be given every opportunity to self-regulate, the incentive to do so is larger when the there is a threat that government will step in and screw things up if they don’t.
on July 12, 2007 on 10:53 am
Didn’t the last Libertarian-Democrat alliance evolve into the Slaveocracy Democratic Party of 1860? Geez, I guess Republicans can’t kill enough of you guys. You just keep breeding.
LINCOLN! LINCOLN! LINCOLN! GO LINCOLN!
on November 10, 2007 on 12:24 am
The discussion concerning Libertarian Democrats has been very enlightening to me, particularly since I have stumbled into libertarianism from the far left. I have worked as an activist for twenty years and, having thrown myself into the fray, time and again, have experianced roadblocks due to governmental corruption. I am talking about politics in the most “liberal ” state- California. The corruption started under Repugs- but Dems knew how to finese it to LOOK fair-but instead buried it’s stench behind the closed doors of beuaracracy.
I still feel somewhat Schitzoid – wanting the most personal liberty as an individual, but terribly distrusting of ” the private sector” as being a solution to our nation’s needs.
Your discourse has kept me looking deeper into these issues. I fear though that the “hold that line” menatlity will keep us in deadlock and prevent any real results in changing our government from happening.