Posted on 10/09/2009 8:18:11 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?
I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.
Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.
Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.
Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans than they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "[I[f it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T[he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."
I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.
Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.
It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.
Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.
If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.
I may feel bad, but at least now I don't feel alone.
I hope he doesn't need a World War.
The article’s a little whiny and self-pitying. I prefer to wear my libertarianism the way HL Mencken wore his—with humor and gusto.
In other words, you have to see it not as a tragedy, but as a farce.
A rational person thinks, and doesn’t dwell on navel-gazing and “feelings.”
Sadomasochistic.
Cowardly.
Your article didn’t cover the “if it feels goooood do it” social platform of libertarianism. Drugs, prostitution: legalize them, (even though millions of additional lives will be ruined). How do libertarians feel about abortion and homosexuality? “It’s MY body and I can do with it what I want”. Libertarians fail to see that their social policies that are doomed to fail, will only lead to what they fear most: more government.
God has no place in a libertarians self centered mind. I’ll stick with being a constitutionalist conservative.
Well they can but their universe will be rather small and they won't effect much, other than increasing the bacteria in their innie from their own spittle.
bump
Pretty true.
Huh? I’m a born-again Christian libertarian and I’m ardently opposed to abortion, it’s my main issue. I read the Bible every day and put God first in my life.
And you misunderstand why libertarians believe in the liberation or abolition of laws on prostitution, drugs, and various other social ills. It’s not because we want to do drugs and hire hookers (though some do, and they tend to be phony libertarians who couldn’t tell the difference between public choice theory and comparative advantage). It’s because such laws don’t work. Banning drugs doesn’t get rid of drugs—because it does not get rid of the demand for drugs, it simply forces drugs to be sold on the black market at dramatically higher prices. Making drugs illegal *creates* the violent crime surrounding it. Legal commodities don’t have such problems because the producers are forced to compete in the free market, whereas black markets are dominated by violence. Read up on the economics of informal markets (grey markets and black markets).
It took me years to come around to this way of thinking, because I had it so ingrained in me that drug legalization was all about doing drugs. It wasn’t until I studied economics that I understood what the fuss was about. We all learned about the failure of prohibition in school. We are living in another era of prohibition, and it’s failing too.
After reading this link, I hope they feel like they need to re-examine their belief system:
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
parsy, who thinks LICE (Libertarians Infiltrating Conservative Entities) is why the GOP has morphed into brain-dead, knuckle-dragging gov’t nihilists, who....oh, don’t even get me started
Your article didn’t cover the “if it feels goooood do it” social platform of libertarianism. Drugs, prostitution: legalize them, (even though millions of additional lives will be ruined). How do libertarians feel about abortion and homosexuality? “It’s MY body and I can do with it what I want”. Libertarians fail to see that their social policies that are doomed to fail, will only lead to what they fear most: more government.
God has no place in a libertarians self centered mind. I’ll stick with being a constitutionalist conservative.
This deserves repeating. Thanks, Seattle Conservative, you have done a good job of summarizing Libertarianism.
I live just up the road from you, Alaska, actually quite a ways up the road from you. We have got a lot of hippy Libertarian types up here. Almost to a man, they are what you describe. Almost every one I’ve met are atheists or agnostics, and proud of it.
The people who want to turn America into a “Queer Nation” (their term, not mine), must love your naivety. If the day comes that they do succeed in their mission, they will have the Libertarians to thank for it. Primarily the Democrats, of course, but Libertarians a close second.
Not all that likely to happen, as there probably won't be no country.
You confuse libertine with libertarian.
Drugs, prostitution: legalize them, (even though millions of additional lives will be ruined).
And who are you to determine if another's life has been "ruined"?
The matter of whether's one life has been "ruined" is ultimately between the individual and his (or her) Creator.
Laws are pointless unless there exists, within the body of people whose conduct is governed by such laws, an underlying support for voluntary compliance with them. In the cases of prohibitions on prostitution, or on the manufacture, distribution, and consumption of various controlled substances, unless the population at large actually supports them (and I mean, sincerely), then the laws are pointless, if they are dependent on voluntary compliance.
In other words, there are two ways of effecting social change (e.g., getting people to not engage in prostitution or imbibe dangerous substances): one, you could pass laws and just use force (i.e., police action) or the threat thereof to literally scare people into compliance, with the drawback that such a method flies in the face of individual freedom and liberty; or two, you could restore a moral, religious spirit within the people affected by convincing them that your position is correct and in their self-interest, with the drawback that this method requires significantly more energy and time expended than the former.
“It’s MY body and I can do with it what I want”.
You're right.
It means no slavery or involuntary servitude (income and payroll taxes count as such), and it means no Obamacare!
Each of us has the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, contingent upon the acceptance of the consequences of our actions (personal responsibility).
God has no place in a libertarians self centered mind.
Jefferson's Declaration--and mind you, it is part of the body of valid U.S. law--speaks quite plainly about the rights of the individual. And...frankly, if individual rights aren't "self-centered," then I don't know what is.
Take a look at post 14. It’s a good one, and one that I agree with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.