Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarianism Lives
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | EDWARD H. CRANE and ROGER PILON

Posted on 05/28/2002 7:39:35 AM PDT by TroutStalker

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Political fashions come and go, but political principles endure. President Clinton noted some six years ago that the era of big government was over. Yet today, conservatives who should know better see a new fashion. George Will, high on his Hamiltonian horse in the Washington Post last month, seemed delighted that minimal-government conservatism was dead. And on these pages recently, Francis Fukuyama declared1 the libertarianism that followed the Thatcher-Reagan revolution to be in retreat. We're all Keynesians now, apparently.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: libertarianism; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-182 next last
To: rebelsoldier
No. Libertarians recognize the futility of one sized fits all government solutions, which inevitably get enforced at the end of a Gun. Even the noble republican finds to the delight of our Marxists friends that the ends justify the means. Libertarians recognize the “real solutions” provided by the politicos “real world compromises” are not only pathetically ineffective, but also tend to be corrupted for the benefit of the politically connected classes at the expense of everyone else. And since they recognize the sheer stupidity of one-sized-fits-all solutions, they prefer the least of all evils –which is where each person can determine his or her own ultimate ends on a consensual basis, not by the prerogatives of some indifferent bureaucrat or self-serving politician pandering to save his political hide. Things are only as unrealistic as you believe them to be. Go on back and lick your master’s hand so that he won’t yank your leash too hard and remind you who’s in charge.
121 posted on 06/03/2002 11:17:44 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: rebelsoldier
The only thing juvenile going on here is a blind reliance on an idealized utopian belief that ever-growing governments wont trample the rights of citizens. (these chains are for our own good…) As for theoretical hacks, 99% of government programs are theoretical solutions that provide near total failure when measured against their own stated objectives.

And for some reason political viability and actual measurable effectiveness seem to be systematically disconnected in politics and government, hence don’t hold that up as some morally superior measure of libertarianism as and ideology. If anything, such unaccountability totally discredits the system you defend, as no sane person would dare put their own money in to 90% of the government garbage if they were freely given a choice.

Wake up from the matrix. Its there to see if you’re looking.

122 posted on 06/03/2002 11:45:35 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Libertarian....Maybe it should really be written as Liberaltarian...A wolf in sheep's clothing is STILL a wolf.....
123 posted on 06/03/2002 12:22:29 PM PDT by texson66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Hi, TS....
The article says:
They didn't use that word, of course, nor did they call themselves (classical) liberals or democrats. But they stood for basic libertarian principles: the equal right of all to pursue happiness, free from arbitrary interference, and government dedicated to securing that right.

My reading has led me to understand the founders' as having seen themselves as Whigs. This is why conservatives such as Hayek and Kirk use that term about themselves. The Whigish aversion to political systems corrupted by Arbitrary Application of Power or Arbitrary Power in general coulpled with the four generation long colonial practice of participatory self-government for the remote colonies gave them the model to which they continually refered.

I see many, from such reasonable libertarian sources as Cato, refering to these Whiggish traditions as libertarian and leaving out the Levelers, Diggers and Shays Rebellion crowd in telling the historical roots of Libertarianism. Fine, but if that is done, they shouldn't claim it exclusively.

Respect for government's limits is hardly hostility to government in all its manifestations.

If that is really the case for libertarianism in general, then why is hostility to government so central to the libertarian view outside Cato? Don't get me wrong, traditional conservatives see government as negative force, by and large, and only the State as ordained by that Enduring Moral Order to which most of us subscribe. But isn't being defined by the negative the same shortcoming to which conservatives are subjected?

Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty cited our true origination as along the Whig path of slow, organic, process and differentiated it from the Rationalist Totalitarian Democracy pattern. How often do we see libertarian writers falling into the camp of the rationalist, the enlightenment, and the ideologue? Perhaps too often, IMHO.

It matters little to me as to how many of our branches of conservatism claim the mantle of the founders tradition, just so long as that mantle is lifted from the dust, preserved and laid upon our shouders proudly as we stand and proclaim a path to constitutional restoration.

Names aren't nearly as important as action.

124 posted on 06/03/2002 12:26:35 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pghliberty
To exercise political power you must gain political office and that requires overwhelming political support which Libertarians do not have chiefly because they are a repository of disaffected, disgruntled, and disillusioned conservatives, liberals, and everything in between with bizzare and anti-cultural political platforms and beliefs that unfortunately obscure their stated goal of limited government. Besides, Libertarian's stated bedrock principle of small, unintrusive government is immediately violated and betrayed as soon as they cry for government involvement in legalizing what is now illegal and mandating what is now out of the perview of government. It's just that Libertarians see their wants, desires, and expectations being addressed by government as unintrusive, which of course it is not. Finally, the expectation that once a government is created it leaders will immediately forego and abandon hard won political power, wealth, influence, and perks is incredibly naive. Unfortunately, the changes Libertarians and many others such as myself require in government cannot be made via the political process at all, but only through far more radical means such as an armed revolution and a supplantation of the bureaucratic monstrosity that wields unrelinquished power over us. No political party now can ever hope to break this government up without first erasing that government and starting all over again.
125 posted on 06/03/2002 8:12:48 PM PDT by rebelsoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: rebelsoldier
It appears as if we agree on the state of things relative to the weakness of the LP. Libertarian philosophy has nothing to offer on the playing field of politics and government, and hence is confronted with the dilemma of showing up at a gunfight with, well… bare hands. Not a big vote getter in a system that grows more purely democratic (selling goodies to voting blocks and contributors) and less constitutional by the year. That said, the libertarian party is a contradiction of terms and cannot expect tons of success in politics. I doubt armed revolution would be necessary. I believe if change is to happen, it’ll likely be broader and via pop-culture given that most people who are libertarian minded are not activists and tend to view all politics with disdain. Nutty as it may sound, entertainment conveys many messages – why not libertarian??

Separately, I find a bit philosophically incoherent your assertions about libertarian cris for government involvement on “legalizing” and “mandating” things. What is being asked by libs is that the busy-bodies of government butt-out re legalization of things, weather it be drugs, marriage, or smoking on private property. Likewise, I don’t know of any initiatives where libs “cry for govt. involvement” to mandate “what is now out of the purview of government.” Perhaps you can clarify with specifics?

You do touch on an esoteric dilemma of the very corruptible nature of politics, questioning if libertarian politicians would invariably become part of the problem they propose to solve. However, this in itself is self-canceling as once one “succumbs to the perks” they no longer are libertarian by definition. If voters would commit once and for all to libertarian ideology, rather than the current “my team vs. your team” approach, perhaps this would be less of an issue. But likely this expects too much from most voters, who tend to be fairly politically illiterate and easily bought and sold with the pretty packaging of perks offered-up by politicians. In any event, the LP is a long way from facing any such dilemma and if elected in growing numbers would do much more good than damage in the meantime!!

As for my ideas on liberty, I’d simply like to allow for an “opt out clause” whereby those addicted to government in their lives could continue to play ball, but those not wanting it could simply be truly free people and say, “thanks, but no thanks”.

But opt out now, and prepare to go to jail! Ahh, freedom.

126 posted on 06/04/2002 6:40:39 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: texson66
Actually, you misunderstand libertarian ideology, and rather dramatically.

Freedom comes in all shapes and sizes. I happen to be a conservative Christian libertarian. I figure if my God gives me a choice on whether I want to walk with him, my fellow man should be at least as gracious.

What I may frown on for moral or religious reasons does not give me carte blanche to form a cartel of like minded individuals to force our collective will on others. Do you support such authoritarian behavior?

127 posted on 06/04/2002 6:46:41 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Kevie, Kevie, Kevie, when you try to use big words like that you just look sillier than usual.
128 posted on 06/04/2002 6:46:43 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: pghliberty
You do touch on an esoteric dilemma of the very corruptible nature of politics, questioning if libertarian politicians would invariably become part of the problem they propose to solve.

I daresay that if libertarians were elected, in fifty years they would be as corrupt as the current crew. Well, we will have had fifty years of restored freedom, and having to fight the same battles again and again is the way of life.

129 posted on 06/04/2002 6:52:32 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Respect for government's limits is hardly hostility to government in all its manifestations.

>>>If that is really the case for libertarianism in general, then why is hostility to government so central to the libertarian view outside Cato?<<<

I think this may be for two reasons.

The term libertarian covers tons of ground, from Catoists to Anarchists (in the original meaning vs. the more recently co-opted molitov throwing Marxist meaning). I think most libertarians would agree, however, that if you were going to err, best to err on the side of little to no government. .

The other reason is that Cato is becoming less and less purely libertarian. They are adopting more of a paleo-conservative approach on foreign policy initiatives (defending interventionism lately), but are still fairly true on economic matters. Part of this may be that they are becoming victims of their own success. This phenomenon is not new – many respected organizations, philanthropic or otherwise, lose sight of their original mission and become more concerned with self-preservation and the success of their own members, or get hijacked outright by lefties. This explains much of the old money, “leftie” non-profits out there.

130 posted on 06/04/2002 7:00:31 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I have to say you've made your point. If HUD and Education were not increased, Bush's budget could have been less than last year. This would have been something to cheer about from a fiscal point of view. Unfortunately, Bush kept is campaign promise to bloat the federal Education department. I was really hoping that was going to be a "read my lips" kind of campaign promise, but unfortunately for the taxpayer in this instance Bush is a man of his word.

However, I have to point out the Depts. of Education and Housing and Urban Development are two of the most bloated and worthless agencies. The Education Department proposed budget will be $54 billion and HUD's will be $32 billion in 2003. I don't have to tell you the damage these agencies do. Heck, Reagan ran on a platform to eliminate Education. Sadly, he wasn't able to do it, but Bush younger seems to have given in to the left wing education union.

While Bush is a significant improvement over Clinton and Gore, let me remind you that they set quite a low bar. Let us rally behind a modest 4% increase in federal spending as an improvement.

131 posted on 06/04/2002 7:10:42 AM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
This is why the LP has attempted to be philosophy based rather than a "team" like the democrats or republicans. What does "republican" mean any more? Caving in to Big Steel and Agriculture (so much for free trade...)? Flip flopping on environmental baloney? Bailing on privatizing even 1% of social security? Claiming victory by giving democrats "only" half of what they want? The team name has supplanted much of the real ideology.

To be libertarian by definition requires a base philosophical set of rules. Evaluated on the aforementioned total departures from “platform” (although such a term implies more stability than clearly deserved), if republicans had similar (any??) standards, George Bush, by definition, would no longer be republican.

Instead, and alas, “Hoorah!” for the Republican Team.

In any event, to use your own terms, even just 50 years of something libertarian is better than the near total abdication of professed ideology exhibited by republicans at the moment.

132 posted on 06/04/2002 7:15:09 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: pghliberty
``This is why the LP has attempted to be philosophy based rather than a "team" like the democrats or republicans.''

When you are in a philosophy club, why should you admit members who don't necessarily agree with your beliefs? This is why the LP is for so-called "pure" libertarians, and has moved in the extremist direction. If you don't agree 100% then you aren't really welcome. The LP is now the OP, or Objectivist Party.

133 posted on 06/04/2002 7:22:21 AM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Hey goofy, care to address what the article says for a change instead of your tired old screed.
134 posted on 06/04/2002 7:33:02 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
The article is from the Cato Institute, not the LP. Try to keep up for a change.
135 posted on 06/04/2002 7:34:58 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
These listed principles are hardly arguable. Many conservatives embrace these as well.

LMAO

136 posted on 06/04/2002 7:36:16 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pghliberty
Thanks for your insight into Cato which I don't follow as carefully as you do, I'm sure. I, perhaps, have an additional thought, however. You commented:
The other reason is that Cato is becoming less and less purely libertarian.

This prompts the counterpoint that perhaps they are "becoming less and less purely" ideological, in a rationalist or dogmatic sense. My stongest aversion to libertarianism is its central core of rationalist ideology...that reliance that most libertarians find so freeing, I find confining and limiting. Perhaps, more sure of their following and real-world applicability, they are adopting those conservative precepts of Prudence and Politics as the Art of the Possible?

Americans are naturally adverse to iconclastic ideology, and we do see Cato getting more play in the public media.

137 posted on 06/04/2002 7:37:13 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Extremist? Far from it.

Libertarian Party members share a zeal for reducing government - unlike the republicans they actually mean it (darned “extremists” that they are…). They don't consider 4% growth “victory for the cause”.

Furthermore, to expect 4% reduction or even zero% is extremist or exclusory? Why then is not 4% growth extremist in the other direction? What exactly are you promoting? Protection for the Republican team, for team’s sake only? Or I guess words just don't mean anything more to them?

Republicans, more and more like the democrats, throw around dismissive tar-labels like “extremist”, worried that they’ll be seen for what they are – an emperor without any clothes. Must be getting chilly.

138 posted on 06/04/2002 7:41:00 AM PDT by pghliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
And some people wonder why libertarian threads dissolve into anti-WOsD threads. Only THREE posts and there you are, kevin, with your fear and loathing of freedom and self-control and self-responsibility...

You missed a good thread the other day where it was suggested that libertarians turn every thread into a drug discussion. I laughed my ass off. I went back and showed who introduced the drug question into a totally different topic. The score was ,,,all Kevvie boy and his merry band of morons, and zero from any libertarian types. They were silent for the first time I can remember.

139 posted on 06/04/2002 7:41:35 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
If you don't agree 100% then you aren't really welcome. The LP is now the OP, or Objectivist Party.

I see you have introduced your hatred for the LP and the attendant generalizations and mischaracterizations into yet another thread where the LP is not the topic. You remind me of Kevvie boy on the drug issue.

140 posted on 06/04/2002 7:44:42 AM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-182 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson