History and libertarianism, yummy!

I am impressed with Timothy Sandefur’s post at Positive Liberty and highly recommend it to anyone reading Cato Unbound’s ponderings of whether libertarians should join the ranks of Democrats temporarily or to seek a more permanent relationship.

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 alluring that is or that libertarians might not find that awfully tempting as a practical matter.

Even so, the post is a great read if for no other reason than I believe it gives an insightful shorthand analysis of how classic liberal thought developed into our two current major political parties.

Regarding the Cato Unbound post itself regarding corporate power, I admit I have long been a skeptic of corporations as they exist in the United States.  Not just because they have leveraged our expansive government power to our benefit, but because in form they are creatures of the state itself.  It has been pointed out that in the absence of government laws entities like corporations could be formed privately.  Ok.  Then as libertarians shouldn’t we be taking a critical look at whether laws governing the creation, life and structure of corporations are really compatible with our concepts of limited government?  If the government wasn’t so involved in defining and structuring business entities–C corps, S corps, all the different structures for limited liability entitles–is this how such entities would exist within markets?  I readily admit I haven’t thought the argument all the way through–it’s certainly not a simple issue and I would welcome comments on it–but I honestly expected to see a little more skepticism from the libertarian crowd.

I have also been perusing some of the trackbacks through Cato Unbound for this topic and have found some of the “Republican libertarian” sites just as useless as Bruce Reed’s responsive essay.  Here are some tidbits:

Right Wing News says:

On civil liberties, Republicans are more concerned about them than Democrats, but sometimes that doesn’t show because both parties have different priorities.Republicans get worried about serial killers and rapists.  Democrats get worried about people protesting abortion.

Are you goddamn kidding me?  Look, I’m no Democrat poster-boy, but this could quite be the most ridiculous thing I’ve read, well, at least this week.  Having principles on civil liberties means that the process is important, and that because of the principle of believing in the process sometimes you have to defend people you personally rather wouldn’t.  Because once you decide that you can subvert the process because of your judgement regarding the individual, then the process itself becomes meaningless.  I can’t even believe I have to type these words out; that this isn’t self-evident.  There is more to that paragraph that I could spend several additional paragraphs trashing or pointing out how outright hypocritical it is, but I just don’t have the energy right now.  If the author had merely contented himself by saying “Hey, Democrats sure as hell don’t have a spotless civil liberties record,” ok, I can buy that, but just the partisan tripe that actually ended up on the page . . . ugh.

But, philosophically at least, conservatives and Libertarians are on the same page with regard to the size and power of the government and spending even if, in practice, it doesn’t always work out that way.

It is clear that this author has been asleep since at least 2000, and possibly since 1988.

Here’s a little gem:

Conservatives and libertarians share a distrust of people in power. You can roll your eyes and snort all you want, but how skeptical would libertarians be if Penn Gillette were president? Not very. George W. Bush seems to deeply believe things conservatives believe and wish to promote, and he’s rewarded with loyalty. At its root, though, conservatism bristles when smart people proceed as though they have a unique grasp on the world’s problems and are uniquely qualified to solve them. See, e.g. the Clinton administration. Libertarians are the same way, though since nobody who deeply believes their principles will ever be elected to anything, they’re immune from being counted on for their unflagging support at the polls.

I see, so as long as the party in power cares about expanding government power, restricting personal freedom, and adopting invasive imperialist foreign policy in a way that you agree with, why, it’s ok not to be distrustful of that person.  But the prime chuckler in that paragraph is to bolster Bush and then rip Clinton as if the same critique doesn’t apply to Bush.  When Bush proceeds as though he has a unique grasp on the world’s problems and is uniquely qualified to solve them, that’s ok, ’cause he cares deeply.  If Clinton does it, he’s an arrogant jerkface.  Holy pot-calling-kettle.  And, by the way, if Penn Gillette were to be cut any slack by libertarians, it would be because of he distrusts power enough to strip it away from government.  If Penn Gillette became President and suddenly started expanding government power, you think Libertarians would cut him slack?  Holy crap, they’d roast him on a stick, with the pre-President Penn Gillette volunteering to light the fire!

Both are pro-business, to one extent or another, though I’ve never considered that a fundamental philsophical position any more than being pro-aviation or anti-tax. It springs from deeper roots: Libertarians believe an actor’s willingness and ability to satisfy a need or want should be rewarded by cash; conservatives, I think, see business as part of the infrastructure of the country — approach it from a more macro level, in other words. Still, if they get there via different routes, they do share the interest.

This isn’t an argument that libertarians and conservatives share an interest, it’s a place where we (”we” being libertarians) diverge nearly completely from both parties.  Libertarians rightly scoff at the arguments for the minimum wage, but by and large just as equally scoff at the ridiculous anti-market immigration stance, or anti-free trade stance conservatives have to offer.  They are all offensive to market principles.

By the way, libertarians believe that two parties should be free to come to terms of employment, not that someone is deserving of “cash.”  Ugh.

I’ll give this guy credit though, he nails one thing right on the head:

In fairness, I can imagine the Cato people casting about for someone to write a persuasive essay on why libertarians should vote Republican and coming up empty.

That’s a little unfair to quote out of context, as this author himself then purports to embark on such an exercise (unconvincingly to me), but the quote itself–not shabby at all.

Man, I just find both sides of the partisan aisle stretching so far to dupe people into giving them just a few votes for what is sure to be a very contested election cycle . . . I thought Republicans proved in 2000 and 2004 that the best way to go is to appeal to and motivate your base.  If you want any form of libertarian support, then go out and do it.  I don’t need Bruce Reed’s promises, or Republicans who think they have a lot in common with libertarians because they mistakenly believe libertarians can’t remember anything the Republican Party has done since 1988.  I want to see it.  I want to see smaller government.  I want to see competitive Congressional districts.  Prove it.  you prove it, I’ll show up.  Otherwise you’re just as well hoping you don’t need me, or anyone like me, and that you can count on the Gullible Dupe vote.