Libertarianism III: It's All About Me and My Needs

Sand in the Gears ^ | 11/15/02 | Tony Woodlief

[hscott]

As a reformed libertarian (9/11 made the difference for me) I think this guy's analysis is totally correct.

[Sparta]

Most LIBERALtarians don't think because they are stoned much of the time. (BTW: Harry Browne's anti-American rantings after 9/11 did it for me.)

[weikel]

I lean strongly libertarian but can't say I disagree with most of these criticisms of some of the more hardcore Lew Rockwell types.

[hscott]

I voted for Browne in 2000 but regret it now. First, Browne pulled some really sleazy stuff in the campaign. And second I am completely behind Bush now.

To say that Libertarians are stoned all the time is just cheap invective. Whether they are stoned or not, you have to refute their arguments.

[weikel]

I would bet everything I own( not too much right now 21 year old college student) that most libertarians aren't potheads and that most potheads aren't libertarians.

[Reagan Man]

Where the Libertarian (and libertarian) mind resides!

[rellimpank]

--exactly, except it was Howard Stern as a candidate that completely divorced me from the Libs. Three thousand of the South Dakota group apparently didn't even succeed in getting sufficiently unstoned to realize that their candidate had withdrawn from the senatorial race, thus putting Tim Johnson back in the Senate--

[Reagan Man]

You'd be wrong!

Save you money.

[f.Christian]

"He may have lost his post as Senate Majority Leader and cost his fellow Democrats control of the Senate, but at least one advisor to soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is calling last week's Democrat election debacle a... victory."

[weikel]

Most potheads are Dems or hippy greens( some are Republicans) in 99.99% sure most potheads are not libertarians. The part of the bet im less sure of is the "most libertarians aren't potheads" part.

[TopQuark]

Whether they are stoned or not, you have to refute their arguments. Most of the arguments I've seen have strong underlying similarity with liberals in that they proceed along the lines, "First, let's abstract away from two thirds of relaity. Next, let me explain the followin..." The two thirds are different than the liberals use, but that much they have in common. To give an instance, they are very big on property rights but do not even bother to explicate who will enforce those rights. When they talk about economics, it's like 19th century: everything about private goods and not a word about public ones. Again, it's not that they offer some different solutions --- those things just don't exist.

In the end, they do look oftentimes like angry fools.

[Sam Cree]

"we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty" Ronald Reagan, 1981

As the artlicle states, individual liberty is the basis of "libertarian" philosophy. It's also the basis of our country.

However, these people who call themselves "(L)libertarains" and who blame us for 9/11 really anger me.

[Cachelot]

-- until they become converted to the correct point of view

Sounds like islamists. Which is probably why there isn't a nazi, jihadist or other kook that the losertarians don't like.

Scum calls to scum.

[hscott]

When I became a libertarian about 20 years ago, one of the basic principles was that legitimate functions of government include courts and the legal system and national defense. That's why I was stunned when libertarians attacked the US after 9/11. They sounded exactly like leftwingers. Some other libertarians agreed with me but most stuck with their non-intervention policy. I realized that, for libertarians, the appeal of this philosophy was greater than the appeal of the USA. I didn't feel that way but I hadn't really realized it until 9/11. So now I guess I am a conservative although I think is is better to avoid these dumb labels and just debate the issues.

[Reagan Man]

>>>As the artlicle states, individual liberty is the basis of "libertarian" philosophy. It's also the basis of our country.

While individual liberty is the basis for America and the conservative philosophy, its quite different for the libertarian philosophy. A libertarian is someone who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. That's a formula for chaos and anarchy.

[x]

He makes some excellent criticisms of libertarians, particularly of the Rockwell-Rothbard fringe. But he does leave the door open to an imperial neo-conservatism that many would find equally objectionable.

The question about maintaining the power of the libertarian state is an important one that's too rarely asked. It's not something Mencken would have asked about, though. And Jefferson would have said that it was up to people themselves to maintain their liberties, not to government.

[billybudd]

Good article, on the mark. I also lean libertarian but am unsatisfied with libertarianism. I think this guy is dead-on in talking about education as the most important thing libertarians should be studying and improving.

There are two ways of implementing a radical agenda: impose it from the top, or cultivate it through education. It is impossible for libertarians to embrace the former, both philosophically and practically. It is possible for socialists to impose an agenda because the interests they serve are short-term and narrow (special interest groups).

However, libertarianism's benefits are long-term and diffuse, preventing the establishment of a stable political structure capable of implementing its ideas by force. So, education is the key.

So, the question becomes, what exactly do you teach? Well, another problem with libertarians is that, ironically, they look to the government for solutions. I mean that they think in terms of issues and policies as a means of political action. This is the wrong approach.

Libertarians need to start thinking in terms of individual action as political action, in other words, things that people can do in their everyday lives to make the world freer. Sure, government policies should be commented on and ballot measures introduced, but spending too much energy on these things is a waste of time, because ultimately they will not change the culture.

[elbucko]

....maintaining the power of the libertarian state....

Isn't that an oxymoron?

[=Intervention=]

The article writer is simply brilliant!

[weikel]

You have to distinguish between the minarchist and the anarcho capitalist.