I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.

The Flada Blog ^ | May 23, 2007 | Ed Snyder

[Equality 7-2521]

I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.

by Ed Snyder May 23rd, 2007

My brother has told me several times that, as a libertarian, I should be far more sympathetic to the ideas of liberalism than to those of conservatism. I believe his rationale is that libertarians generally agree with liberals about more issues than they do with conservatives. Of course, I’ve never debated that point because I agree with it. It’s just that some of the conservative issues always seemed to rank higher on my “personal issues” list than those of liberals. After almost 7 years of a so-called neocon in the Executive and 12 years of conservatives controlling Congress, my opinions have changed.

It’s not that I don’t still find conservative issues regarding liberty more important, it’s just that I don’t find very many real conservatives holding office. The whole feigned outrage with the most conservative member of Congress after the last debate drives this home. It brings the lying hypocrisy of the neocons right out into the light for the whole world to see. It shows their “big tent” to be a reverse TARDIS–that is, it looks much bigger on the outside than it really is on the inside. Read the rest of this entry »

[Dead Corpse]

It’s been clear to me for about 20 years that Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than they do with Conservatives.

You mean like gun Rights, property Rights, Constitutional government, and free markets?

(sarc)Yeah, nothing in common with todays conservatives at all.(/sarc)

Your blanket statement shows how little you've learned in those 20 years...

[Sloth]

I believe his rationale is that libertarians generally agree with liberals about more issues than they do with conservatives. Of course, I’ve never debated that point because I agree with it.

Bull. Libertarians are about freedom, property rights & personal responsibility. Leftists hate those things.

[jack_napier]

Actually, dogmatic libertarians are prone to insisting on being given the liberty to behave badly in public, while at the same time insisting that others have no right to complain about or curtail that behavior when it impinges upon them. The problem is that libertarianism seems only to recognize individuals, while ignoring the fact that people tend to live in groups -- and living among others imposes certain duties upon us which may run counter to our individual desires.
This sounds far too black and white to be realistic. I sincerely doubt that you'll find many people who insist you have no right to complain or curtail bad behaviors that affect you. I do, however, think there is great differing on deciding where that line should be drawn. Personally, I believe very much that a man should have the right to define and defend his status, his property, his way of life and his family. But I say that I lean libertarian because giving government the authority to curb bad behavior is a bad idea for one of the same reasons socialism is a bad idea; the government is not good at much anything and its' power is generally abusable. Anti-libertarian conservatives can argue all they want about the need and right of the gov't to regulate behaviors for the good of the group, but they will be very sad indeed when liberals turn that very justification against them.

[JamesP81]

Attrition. Yeah, right. Is that how it is on your planet? Problems just take care of themselves?

I don't think attrition is the answer. The answer is for the church to teach morals to the community, just as the Forefathers intended. However, he's right about reducing the reach of government.

However, much of what the small l libertarians advocate is absolutely correct. Things like education spending, public smoking bans, disaster relief spending, social programs, etc, ad nauseam: all of it falls outside the powers granted the federal government by the Constitution. These programs, especially social security, should be phased out. So should the drug war, frankly, or at least it should be scaled back. We're getting too much police-state type antics in relation to it and that constitutes a bigger threat than potheads sitting on their couch smokin' it up.

[Dead Corpse]

Yeah, well, that's the stuff libertarians tend to focus on most -- prostitution, drugs, and so on.

Not at all. It 's just the stuff that detractors tend to get stuck on stupid over.

As a libertarian, my biggest "focus" has always been on property Rights, RKBA, free speech, and capitalism/laissez-faire.

Where "conservatives" and "libertarians" fall out is over the Nanny State in any form.

[ClearCase_guy]

I typed "more in common with Liberals" and you read "nothing in common with todays conservatives".

And then you insult me. Libertarians are such lovable people. I can't imagine why I try to avoid them.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

So should the drug war, frankly, or at least it should be scaled back.

You're just the kind of misguided person I was talking about on another thread. A libertarian or a so-called conservative promoting a pro-drug agenda on a conservative site. Drugs are not family values! Go find a libertarian site where you can smoke yourself into a stupor.

[Dead Corpse]

There is almost nothing in common with todays liberals/socialists. Libertarians are diametrically opposed on almost every policy.

You'd know this if you have done any real study over those 20 years instead of just slinging insults. And yes, comparing a libertarian to a socialist is an insult.

[r9etb]

I'm not sure what you mean by behaving badly, but libertarians, contrary to your assertion, have no issue with laws that prevent coercive behavior, but if one's actions are offensive--without being coercive--that is where we part company with conservatives (and liberals).

Laws concerning drugs and prostitution are two good examples. Libertarians claim to hate 'em, because they impinge on individual freedom of choice.

In essence, the libertarian position denies that the community at large has any right to define community rules; and that communities must instead allow any behavior which does not actively result in injury to those not involved. The net result is that the "public morals" of the community end up being defined by its most deviant members. This is an observable effect -- just look at the ghetto areas of any city where prostitution and the drug culture thrive, and see if you want to live there.

Others note that freedom includes having some control over the conditions in which one lives. In that view, there is a public interest in curtailing these activities, because they invariably have a coarsening effect on the community at large -- not necessarily directly injurious, but perhaps like the difference between Bedford Falls and Potterville in It's a Wonderful Life. This, too, is an observable phenomenon.

At root, the question comes down to finding a workable standard for "coercive behavior." For purposes of this discussion, I think it probably boils down to whether or not a given behavior imposes unacceptable costs on others. And there's really a pretty simple test to spot it: if somebody defends some type of behavior on the basis of, "if you don't like it, you can move," then that's a good place to start looking for unacceptable costs.

[Teacher317]

It is “liberal” to advocate for a small central government with limited and narrowly-defined powers? That was the definition of the terms about 200 years ago, but it certainly is not the modern meaning of the word.

[Teacher317]

And how sad is it that so many “conservatives” seem eager and happy to distance themselves from that kind of philosophy.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Excellent post!

[ClearCase_guy]

There is almost nothing in common with todays liberals/socialists.

I don't know how to measure "almost nothing" so I will just say that there is certainly "some things" in common.

I have read about and spoken with Libertarians for many years and I find their views on foreign policy, national defense, immigration, and family law to have more in common with Liberals than with Conservatives. You want to emphasize RKBA and property rights. Fine. But there are many Libertarians out there who want to emphasize drugs and prostitution. By basic point is that there seems to be very minimal ground upon which I see eye-to-eye with Libertarians.

I'm not trying to say that Libertarians are the same as socialists. That would be foolish. There are very great differences between those two camps. By the same token, there is no way that I can consider Libertarians to be brothers-in-arms with Conservatives. There are very great differences between those two camps.

[Dead Corpse]

Community rules? Yeah... can't have people thinking they are Free Individuals now can we. The Founders were big on Commune style living right?

You Nanny State types always have a problems with the whole "personal responsibility" side of the Freedom thing...

[Ditto]

The libertarians and liberals share a desire to unrestrict personal behavior, but the liberals then want socialism to provide a cure for the consequences.

Well put.

[JamesP81]

Anti-libertarian conservatives can argue all they want about the need and right of the gov't to regulate behaviors for the good of the group, but they will be very sad indeed when liberals turn that very justification against them.

No, actually, I think they won't. I think they are so uninformed about government and politics in general that when that day comes, and it surely will if we don't change, they're all going to have a 'what happend?' attitude and not even realize they were in part responsible.

[M203M4]

I will go as far as agreeing that the WOD should be ended. As for legalization, I am certainly not going to push for it. I agree with arresting nuisance users, and devolving to state and local governments most enforcement powers. The federal government monstrosities that the WOD has spawned need to be obliterated, along with warrantless searches, police fishing roadblocks, billion dollar donations to foreign countries to combat drug proliferation, etc. I'm fine with stopping drugs from coming across the border too - that is not an unconstitutional use of (federal especially) government power, unlike the other items listed above.

Wholesale pro-drug culture is something I reject as a conservative libertarian - the fact that druggies would die and fill up the gutters is not my concern; I care about not allowing them to drag the rest of us down with them. That is the balance, in part because of the nanny-state, and in part because the self-destructive tendencies of human nature have a nasty habit of violating that "self" part. But none of that is an excuse for the nanny-state, police-state bullsh*t that serves as the mascot for the WOD.

[tacticalogic]

And there's really a pretty simple test to spot it: if somebody defends some type of behavior on the basis of, "if you don't like it, you can move," then that's a good place to start looking for unacceptable costs.

That's pretty much what the "public moralists" will tell you if you don't like them meddling in your affairs.

[Moby Grape]

Working OUTSIDE the GOP gets DEMOCRATS elected...that BULL*HIT about there being no difference is just that: B.S.

Libertarians are NOT going to get elected in numbers to control ANYTHING...so they are the dems best friend by getting a few less republicans elected.

And they call this being “principled”.

[JamesP81]

Drugs are not family values!

No, they're not family values. In fact, it's outright evil and immoral to use them, IMO. But I think that the govt's current regime of enforcement is an even larger evil. Furthermore, government's place is to prevent the infringement of a person's liberties and natural rights. It's the church's job to teach the people what is right and wrong. On a related note, that's why this seeker-sensitive type church movement is bad; it waters down the Truth to make it more acceptable to the public.

Go find a libertarian site where you can smoke yourself into a stupor.

I don't think it's necessary to accuse me of being a pot smoker lacking any evidence. I don't think anybody should do it. I just think that the collateral damage caused by the drug war is so high that what we're getting is not justifying what we're sacrificing for it.