Robert Wright, a prolific writer of books and articles and the such, and Will Wilkinson, who works at the Cato Institute, had a discussion of libertarianism (and a couple other topics) at bloggingheads.tv that I thought was interesting and which I recommend to all of you. It's pretty long (about an hour and fifteen minutes) but it's more interesting than anything on TV, so give it a look if you've got time.
This is probaby the sort of thing that I should just e-mail to Tom and leave it at that, but I figure why not share it with the rest of you?
This is probaby the sort of thing that I should just e-mail to Tom and leave it at that, but I figure why not share it with the rest of you?
Labels: Brian, libertarianism, role of government
Why No One Should Ever Be Afraid of Libertarians
28 Comments Published by tet on Thursday, October 18 at 8:00 AM.
This is the best example that I have ever seen, I think, of a demonstration of why no matter what your political beliefs are, libertarians are less dangerous than you are.
Adolf and Me
If you all don't read this guy already, you really, really should do so. He's got a Mohawk and a flaming sword.
Tom
Adolf and Me
If you all don't read this guy already, you really, really should do so. He's got a Mohawk and a flaming sword.
Tom
Labels: libertarianism, Tet, Vox Day
Reply to "The Midnight Ride of Ron Paul?"
28 Comments Published by tet on Thursday, October 4 at 12:00 PM.
I think that Americans in the next decade are going to have an opportunity to witness something that hasn't happened since 1856--the death of a political party. A century hence, the history downloads are going to be speaking of the old GOP in parallel with the Whigs and noting that in both cases, their end occurred before extreme social upheavals.
A lot is made of the theory that the Democratic Party is made up of a coalition of disparate groups united mainly by their own enlightened self-interest and a dislike of their opponents. What many pundits continue to ignore, however, is that the Republican Party is equally fractionated, and the glue holding those groups together is dissolving.
Let's do a bit of a history lesson. For the first three-quarters of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was a minority party, even when they had a member in the Oval Office. The power that those of you who are younger than 35 are familiar with is a relatively recent event.
The party of Lincoln during the first half of that century was populated almost exclusively by northerners. The scars of Republican carpetbagging in the Deep South put a lock on the offices there for the opposition. Most of the GOP members were "owners" of one kind or another--they owned the steel mills, the prosperous farms, the businesses, and the banks. Their bastion of strength was the Northeast, where families like the Rockefellers and the Bushes fiercely protected their wealth.
Internationally, the party was isolationist, opposing not only the two world wars, but also adventurism in general. The big exception to this was the Communists of the Soviet Union. Since the power in the party was in the hands of capitalists, those who executed them whenever they got the chance were natural blood enemies.
Now, it's easy to explain why the Republicans were a minority during these years. There are always a lot more workers than plant owners. There's only enough prosperity, even in boom times, to support a few multi-billionaire families. Having to write off an entire section of a nation year after year is never a winning proposition.
Enter Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The economics that they espoused ran contrary to the vast majority of thinkers at the time in that it theorized that government was not the solution to problems in the marketplace, but the root cause of many of them. This stood in opposition to the interests of the eastern capitalists, since many of them were dependent on the Cold War buildup of the military-industrial complex that was making them richer every day. A new kind of Republican began to gain influence--the Libertarian. These outlaws expanded the economic theories of the "Big Three" above to social questions. In 1964, they managed to get Barry Goldwater nominated to oppose LBJ. He lost the main election by a landslide, relegating that group to the wings for a while. In many ways, this was not a bad thing, since it allowed visionaries like Karl Hess (who wrote Barry's speeches) to mature in their thinking.
We entered the mid-1970s with the two sides sparring, but not having much to fight over. The party was in disarray from the scandals of their last elected President, Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan, the governor of California during the hippy years, served as the torch-bearer for the libertarian wing and Nelson Rockefeller did the same for the eastern capitalists. Reagan mounted a respectible challenge for the 1976 nomination, but the monied interests kept the incument, Jerry Ford as their candidate.
During the years of the Carter administration, though, there was a sea change in the South. Even though the president was from their section of the country, many many voters there felt betrayed by the Democratic Party on social issues. The late 70s was a heyday of progressive thought, with social experimentation occuring in areas such as women's roles in the family, gay rights and affirmative action in education and employment. Sex was casual and often, especially among the young, since there were few impediments to it--diseases were easily cured by antibiotics and pregnancies were either avoided by birth control or ended with abortion.
There was a large segment of social conservatives, however, who felt that progressive thought had gone way too far. Many of these were evangelicals from the southern states and the west. When the Republicans nominated Reagan in 1980, they attracted both the social conservatives (who became known as "Reagan Democrats,") and the Libertarians. In exchange for one of the monied class, George H. W. Bush, becoming Vice-President, the eastern capitalists agreed to support the ticket.
For the first time since the stock market crash of 1929, the Republican Party had managed to put together a winning combo. The Congress was still in the hands of the opposing party, but the wide-ranging influences of the three groups would often provide synergies which would allow bills to pass through Capitol Hill that would have failed under Nixon or Ford.
In the late 1980s, because of the success of the coalition, especially in the foreign policies that were considered to be responsible for the ending of the Warsaw Pact, the GOP attracted a new group of ex-Marxists and student radicals. The Neo-conservatives saw in the collapse of Marxist states and Fukuyama's End of History an opportunity for the birth of a new opportunity for a Wilsonian expansion of democracy to the world.
They were all thrown a curve by a new, rising force in the early 1990s, however, Nativist Populism. An unknown and eccentric millionaire, Ross Perot, appealed to these new sentiments in the American people and managed to divert enough votes away from the Republican candidate to get Bill Clinton elected. However, two years later, the Republicans showed enough power to take control of Congress for the first time since Harry Truman. This control would last a full decade, almost to the present day.
Ok, so much for history. Now, let's discuss the present state of affairs and see how it is perceived by each of the four members of the GOP coalition:
Neo-conservatives--The Iraq War has not been as easy as they thought it was going to be. For the most part, the members of this group are not blaming flaws in their own Wilsonian theories, but on outside agencies like Iran. While the lesser candidates of the Democratic Party are loud in their criticism of the war, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has already stated that she is opposed to an immediate pull-out from Iraq and a continued presence in the country. In addition, Clinton's husband showed a great deal of ambition on the world stage by promoting democracy in Yugoslavia along the lines of neo-con theories. It is rumored that neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are already briefing Hillary regarding the situation in the war zone in the belief that she will win.
Social conservatives--There are three major issues in play with this group. First and foremost, there's abortion. No matter what any pundits say, this group absolutely will not vote for someone who is even perceived as soft on this issue. They will stay home or vote for an available third party. The second issue is "family and tradition." While this is most strongly exhibited by the call for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it also causes this group to look closely at the past history of a candidate to determine the liklihood of their supporting legislation in this direction. Scandal after scandal within the GOP's members in Congress has also eroded any confidence that the social conservatives might have had in there being a difference between the two parties. The third is immigration. Since most of the social conservatives and evangelicals are Reagan Democrats, they are concentrated in southern states and the West. These states are closer to the Mexican border and therefore have been exposed to a larger influx of illegal immigrants. The Republican party has not shown much ambition whatsoever in ending the wave by enforcement and has extended the olive branch to the new, potential citizens in the last few months.
Libertarians--To a libertarian, there is no signficant difference between the Republicans and Democrats at the moment except the issue of abortion. Neither party is particularly interested in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes for all Americans and reducing the amount of foreign involvement, especially where money is concerned. The GOP has been more intrusive on individual rights with the Patriot Act than any Democrat has ever dreamed of being. The only candidate of either party that looks attractive to a Libertarian is Ron Paul.
The Capitalist Class--These guys are going to go for whoever is going to do them the most good. They don't have large numbers, but they have a great deal of money. The best way to tell who they're backing is to look at the rate at which candidates are collecting campaign contributions. The Republican congressional campaign financing in the past year has been so unsuccessful that they laid off their phone solicitors, so the party is doing very poorly on the grassroots level. The power of each individual capitalist these days, however, is so great financially, that the race on this level could shift back and forth at a moment's notice. The capitalists, however, are consistenly in favor of free-trade and would like a new, low-salaried working class in the country.
The situation we see, therefore, is one in which the four parts of the Republican coalition no longer have a common interest and in some cases are in direct opposition. The Libertarians see no real reason to vote for any candidate of either party. The social conservatives simply will not vote for Giuliani and have questionable support for any candidate except Ron Paul. The Neo-cons like Giuliani for his support of the war, but are very nervous about his stability long-term. All of the candidates have spoken about protectionism and are in favor of reducing immigration so the capitalists are shaking in their boots.
So, I think that the candidate next year will probably be Rudy. What I expect to happen, then, is this--there's going to be a third party in the election, promoted by the social conservatives. It might nominate Paul, or its candidate could be someone else like Dobson or one of the other evangelical leaders. This will draw enough votes away from the mainstream of the Republican party to create an election landslide for the Democrats that will put a veto-proof majority in Congress.
The rancor afterwards will make the dislike of Nader in 2000 look like a love-fest. The social conservatives will have already left. The libertarians, encouraged by the support for Paul, will work to merge with the Buchananite nativists to bring about a reduced government state. The GOP will find itself with only the remnant of the Eastern capitalists that didn't go over to Hillary and the Neo-cons.
...And then we lose the war in Iraq. The Neo-cons are eliminated--laughed out of town riding a rail. The end of history has not only not occurred, but we're stuck in the middle of a rather unpleasant chapter. What's left of the party is exactly where it was in 1960--a minority, dreaming of its halcyon days.
The funny thing about all this? Ron Paul, if the party got behind him, could draw in all of the voters of the party except for the Neo-cons. He's not going to come close this election, but watch closely. If he even gets close to putting up a floor fight, the neo-cons are going to sharpen their pitchforks. He is the only candidate with even a minor chance of beating Hillary in 2008 for all of the reasons that I have explained above.
And one, final note: Here's the best example of why Rudy will never win the Presidency of the United States and a salute to New York City in general, courtesty of The Onion (hat-tip to Vox.)
A Challenge for Al-Qaeda!
Tom
A lot is made of the theory that the Democratic Party is made up of a coalition of disparate groups united mainly by their own enlightened self-interest and a dislike of their opponents. What many pundits continue to ignore, however, is that the Republican Party is equally fractionated, and the glue holding those groups together is dissolving.
Let's do a bit of a history lesson. For the first three-quarters of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was a minority party, even when they had a member in the Oval Office. The power that those of you who are younger than 35 are familiar with is a relatively recent event.
The party of Lincoln during the first half of that century was populated almost exclusively by northerners. The scars of Republican carpetbagging in the Deep South put a lock on the offices there for the opposition. Most of the GOP members were "owners" of one kind or another--they owned the steel mills, the prosperous farms, the businesses, and the banks. Their bastion of strength was the Northeast, where families like the Rockefellers and the Bushes fiercely protected their wealth.
Internationally, the party was isolationist, opposing not only the two world wars, but also adventurism in general. The big exception to this was the Communists of the Soviet Union. Since the power in the party was in the hands of capitalists, those who executed them whenever they got the chance were natural blood enemies.
Now, it's easy to explain why the Republicans were a minority during these years. There are always a lot more workers than plant owners. There's only enough prosperity, even in boom times, to support a few multi-billionaire families. Having to write off an entire section of a nation year after year is never a winning proposition.
Enter Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The economics that they espoused ran contrary to the vast majority of thinkers at the time in that it theorized that government was not the solution to problems in the marketplace, but the root cause of many of them. This stood in opposition to the interests of the eastern capitalists, since many of them were dependent on the Cold War buildup of the military-industrial complex that was making them richer every day. A new kind of Republican began to gain influence--the Libertarian. These outlaws expanded the economic theories of the "Big Three" above to social questions. In 1964, they managed to get Barry Goldwater nominated to oppose LBJ. He lost the main election by a landslide, relegating that group to the wings for a while. In many ways, this was not a bad thing, since it allowed visionaries like Karl Hess (who wrote Barry's speeches) to mature in their thinking.
We entered the mid-1970s with the two sides sparring, but not having much to fight over. The party was in disarray from the scandals of their last elected President, Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan, the governor of California during the hippy years, served as the torch-bearer for the libertarian wing and Nelson Rockefeller did the same for the eastern capitalists. Reagan mounted a respectible challenge for the 1976 nomination, but the monied interests kept the incument, Jerry Ford as their candidate.
During the years of the Carter administration, though, there was a sea change in the South. Even though the president was from their section of the country, many many voters there felt betrayed by the Democratic Party on social issues. The late 70s was a heyday of progressive thought, with social experimentation occuring in areas such as women's roles in the family, gay rights and affirmative action in education and employment. Sex was casual and often, especially among the young, since there were few impediments to it--diseases were easily cured by antibiotics and pregnancies were either avoided by birth control or ended with abortion.
There was a large segment of social conservatives, however, who felt that progressive thought had gone way too far. Many of these were evangelicals from the southern states and the west. When the Republicans nominated Reagan in 1980, they attracted both the social conservatives (who became known as "Reagan Democrats,") and the Libertarians. In exchange for one of the monied class, George H. W. Bush, becoming Vice-President, the eastern capitalists agreed to support the ticket.
For the first time since the stock market crash of 1929, the Republican Party had managed to put together a winning combo. The Congress was still in the hands of the opposing party, but the wide-ranging influences of the three groups would often provide synergies which would allow bills to pass through Capitol Hill that would have failed under Nixon or Ford.
In the late 1980s, because of the success of the coalition, especially in the foreign policies that were considered to be responsible for the ending of the Warsaw Pact, the GOP attracted a new group of ex-Marxists and student radicals. The Neo-conservatives saw in the collapse of Marxist states and Fukuyama's End of History an opportunity for the birth of a new opportunity for a Wilsonian expansion of democracy to the world.
They were all thrown a curve by a new, rising force in the early 1990s, however, Nativist Populism. An unknown and eccentric millionaire, Ross Perot, appealed to these new sentiments in the American people and managed to divert enough votes away from the Republican candidate to get Bill Clinton elected. However, two years later, the Republicans showed enough power to take control of Congress for the first time since Harry Truman. This control would last a full decade, almost to the present day.
Ok, so much for history. Now, let's discuss the present state of affairs and see how it is perceived by each of the four members of the GOP coalition:
Neo-conservatives--The Iraq War has not been as easy as they thought it was going to be. For the most part, the members of this group are not blaming flaws in their own Wilsonian theories, but on outside agencies like Iran. While the lesser candidates of the Democratic Party are loud in their criticism of the war, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, has already stated that she is opposed to an immediate pull-out from Iraq and a continued presence in the country. In addition, Clinton's husband showed a great deal of ambition on the world stage by promoting democracy in Yugoslavia along the lines of neo-con theories. It is rumored that neo-conservatives within the Bush administration are already briefing Hillary regarding the situation in the war zone in the belief that she will win.
Social conservatives--There are three major issues in play with this group. First and foremost, there's abortion. No matter what any pundits say, this group absolutely will not vote for someone who is even perceived as soft on this issue. They will stay home or vote for an available third party. The second issue is "family and tradition." While this is most strongly exhibited by the call for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, it also causes this group to look closely at the past history of a candidate to determine the liklihood of their supporting legislation in this direction. Scandal after scandal within the GOP's members in Congress has also eroded any confidence that the social conservatives might have had in there being a difference between the two parties. The third is immigration. Since most of the social conservatives and evangelicals are Reagan Democrats, they are concentrated in southern states and the West. These states are closer to the Mexican border and therefore have been exposed to a larger influx of illegal immigrants. The Republican party has not shown much ambition whatsoever in ending the wave by enforcement and has extended the olive branch to the new, potential citizens in the last few months.
Libertarians--To a libertarian, there is no signficant difference between the Republicans and Democrats at the moment except the issue of abortion. Neither party is particularly interested in reducing the size of government, lowering taxes for all Americans and reducing the amount of foreign involvement, especially where money is concerned. The GOP has been more intrusive on individual rights with the Patriot Act than any Democrat has ever dreamed of being. The only candidate of either party that looks attractive to a Libertarian is Ron Paul.
The Capitalist Class--These guys are going to go for whoever is going to do them the most good. They don't have large numbers, but they have a great deal of money. The best way to tell who they're backing is to look at the rate at which candidates are collecting campaign contributions. The Republican congressional campaign financing in the past year has been so unsuccessful that they laid off their phone solicitors, so the party is doing very poorly on the grassroots level. The power of each individual capitalist these days, however, is so great financially, that the race on this level could shift back and forth at a moment's notice. The capitalists, however, are consistenly in favor of free-trade and would like a new, low-salaried working class in the country.
The situation we see, therefore, is one in which the four parts of the Republican coalition no longer have a common interest and in some cases are in direct opposition. The Libertarians see no real reason to vote for any candidate of either party. The social conservatives simply will not vote for Giuliani and have questionable support for any candidate except Ron Paul. The Neo-cons like Giuliani for his support of the war, but are very nervous about his stability long-term. All of the candidates have spoken about protectionism and are in favor of reducing immigration so the capitalists are shaking in their boots.
So, I think that the candidate next year will probably be Rudy. What I expect to happen, then, is this--there's going to be a third party in the election, promoted by the social conservatives. It might nominate Paul, or its candidate could be someone else like Dobson or one of the other evangelical leaders. This will draw enough votes away from the mainstream of the Republican party to create an election landslide for the Democrats that will put a veto-proof majority in Congress.
The rancor afterwards will make the dislike of Nader in 2000 look like a love-fest. The social conservatives will have already left. The libertarians, encouraged by the support for Paul, will work to merge with the Buchananite nativists to bring about a reduced government state. The GOP will find itself with only the remnant of the Eastern capitalists that didn't go over to Hillary and the Neo-cons.
...And then we lose the war in Iraq. The Neo-cons are eliminated--laughed out of town riding a rail. The end of history has not only not occurred, but we're stuck in the middle of a rather unpleasant chapter. What's left of the party is exactly where it was in 1960--a minority, dreaming of its halcyon days.
The funny thing about all this? Ron Paul, if the party got behind him, could draw in all of the voters of the party except for the Neo-cons. He's not going to come close this election, but watch closely. If he even gets close to putting up a floor fight, the neo-cons are going to sharpen their pitchforks. He is the only candidate with even a minor chance of beating Hillary in 2008 for all of the reasons that I have explained above.
And one, final note: Here's the best example of why Rudy will never win the Presidency of the United States and a salute to New York City in general, courtesty of The Onion (hat-tip to Vox.)
A Challenge for Al-Qaeda!
Tom
Labels: future, libertarianism, politics, Tet
I wanted to clue all of you readers in on something that happened today that I think is probably the best illustration so far to me of exactly why the GOP is headed for a defeat of historic proportions next year.
It was my lunch hour and I was returning from the Espresso Royale in the Illini Union. I saw one of my computer expert friends and we stopped behind the building to discuss Ken Burns's The War, which is currently running on PBS. While we were talking in quite an animated fashion, a pair of young men bearing Rudy Giuliani bumper stickers came by, calling out, "Help defeat Hillary--anybody but Hillary!"
One stopped and offered me a bumper sticker. I declined, saying that "my politics run a lot more along the lines of Ron Paul. I think Rudy's a bit weird in some ways."
Now, what did these two young men (I assume they're members of the local chapter of the Young Republicans) do when I said this? Keep in mind that they are dealing with someone who has expressed interest in voting for a Republican for President in 2008. Did they say to me, "Well, we think that Rudy is a better choice. If you listen to our arguments on these issues, I'm sure you'll agree and come over to our way of thinking"? Did they say to me, "Well, we disagree with you, but certainly hope that you'll support the Republican nominee in November of next year"?
HELL NO TO BOTH FUCKING QUESTIONS!
Here's what the two young representatives of the Grand Old Party did--They laughed at me. They not only laughed at me loudly, they made fun of me in public and then walked away chuckling and congratulating each other on their cleverness.
Now, I could give a rat's ass about what anyone thinks of me. However, what happened is not just the work of two students who are probably not smart enough to do anything useful with their lives outside of politics. What they did is a symptom of the malaise that riddles the Republican Party. The GOP has decided that the Libertarians and the evangelicals who have kept them in office since the days of Ronald Reagan are no longer necessary for them to win an election. It's not just them laughing at an old weird guy, either. During one of the televised debates, the other candidates detectably laughed at Paul himself following some of his remarks.
Now, there is no way that I would vote for Hillary, I'd sooner cut off my left leg. However, it would not surprise me that some other weird old guy, when faced with these two punks, wouldn't say to himself, "I'll show them! I'll vote for Hillary just to fuck 'em over!"
The defeat next year is going to be biblical in scope.
Oh, and I will take back this column if the Young Republicans find these two miscreants and get them to wear a sign over the lunch hour that says, "I will not make fun of other Republicans." Monday would be good, but I'll give them until Tuesday and then consider sending a copy of this to the DI.
Tom
It was my lunch hour and I was returning from the Espresso Royale in the Illini Union. I saw one of my computer expert friends and we stopped behind the building to discuss Ken Burns's The War, which is currently running on PBS. While we were talking in quite an animated fashion, a pair of young men bearing Rudy Giuliani bumper stickers came by, calling out, "Help defeat Hillary--anybody but Hillary!"
One stopped and offered me a bumper sticker. I declined, saying that "my politics run a lot more along the lines of Ron Paul. I think Rudy's a bit weird in some ways."
Now, what did these two young men (I assume they're members of the local chapter of the Young Republicans) do when I said this? Keep in mind that they are dealing with someone who has expressed interest in voting for a Republican for President in 2008. Did they say to me, "Well, we think that Rudy is a better choice. If you listen to our arguments on these issues, I'm sure you'll agree and come over to our way of thinking"? Did they say to me, "Well, we disagree with you, but certainly hope that you'll support the Republican nominee in November of next year"?
HELL NO TO BOTH FUCKING QUESTIONS!
Here's what the two young representatives of the Grand Old Party did--They laughed at me. They not only laughed at me loudly, they made fun of me in public and then walked away chuckling and congratulating each other on their cleverness.
Now, I could give a rat's ass about what anyone thinks of me. However, what happened is not just the work of two students who are probably not smart enough to do anything useful with their lives outside of politics. What they did is a symptom of the malaise that riddles the Republican Party. The GOP has decided that the Libertarians and the evangelicals who have kept them in office since the days of Ronald Reagan are no longer necessary for them to win an election. It's not just them laughing at an old weird guy, either. During one of the televised debates, the other candidates detectably laughed at Paul himself following some of his remarks.
Now, there is no way that I would vote for Hillary, I'd sooner cut off my left leg. However, it would not surprise me that some other weird old guy, when faced with these two punks, wouldn't say to himself, "I'll show them! I'll vote for Hillary just to fuck 'em over!"
The defeat next year is going to be biblical in scope.
Oh, and I will take back this column if the Young Republicans find these two miscreants and get them to wear a sign over the lunch hour that says, "I will not make fun of other Republicans." Monday would be good, but I'll give them until Tuesday and then consider sending a copy of this to the DI.
Tom
Labels: idiots, libertarianism, politics, Republicans, Tet
"Liberalism is a lifelong disease which will devastate your ability to think clearly about the government."
9 Comments Published by Lally on Monday, September 10 at 11:22 AM.
The title of this post is the last line of Justin Doran's Monday column in the Daily Illini.
Well, golly! Where do I begin?
I will attempt quite wholeheartedly not to use information I know about Justin that I've gathered casually in conversation or on his bookshelf, but let's be clear about one thing: Justin is a die-hard Obama fan. And good for him! Obama would make an excellent president. But if one thing is true about Obama, it is certainly his belief in the power of government to a) change (itself) b) change (the lives of others for the better).
But the substance of the article is, it seems to me, that (in particular young) liberals are like well meaning mentally handicapped children, lumbering around weighed down by lofty ideals about the common good and big government, unable to actually change anything for the better. They crawl to College Democrats meetings, suckle on the pacifier of pacifism, and daydream themselves to sleep wearing Save Darfur pajamas.
He paints a tantalizing picture, no doubt. But while all the active mega-conservatives and vaguely-libertarians on campus bake cookie for Alan Keyes, raffle off semi-automatic weapons and make a mockery of tolerance, democrats at least throw in a little social justice with their dishonorable political campaigning.
Justin says liberalism promotes a "parasitic reliance" on the government. I don't think that's true. Certainly some policies breed parasitic reliance, but liberalism breeds a demand for accountability in the government to do what is RIGHT with the money it collects whether or not it agrees on the whole with the tax rates, or tax policy.
Fiscal libertarians would have you believe that we can help the neediest in this country by leaving worse enough alone. They believe that rich people will set up private charities! That somehow, if we get rid of government, all that money we don't pay in taxes we will put directly in the pockets of the homeless. And this is in the BEST case for libertarianism. In the average case, the financially fittest survive.
Though Justin portrays a vague truth that big government liberals are shamelessly idealistic and possibly naive, I think the same is true of minarchist libertarians. A belief in the altruism of the individual while promoting selfishness in policy? That seems a little far fetched.
Well, golly! Where do I begin?
I will attempt quite wholeheartedly not to use information I know about Justin that I've gathered casually in conversation or on his bookshelf, but let's be clear about one thing: Justin is a die-hard Obama fan. And good for him! Obama would make an excellent president. But if one thing is true about Obama, it is certainly his belief in the power of government to a) change (itself) b) change (the lives of others for the better).
But the substance of the article is, it seems to me, that (in particular young) liberals are like well meaning mentally handicapped children, lumbering around weighed down by lofty ideals about the common good and big government, unable to actually change anything for the better. They crawl to College Democrats meetings, suckle on the pacifier of pacifism, and daydream themselves to sleep wearing Save Darfur pajamas.
He paints a tantalizing picture, no doubt. But while all the active mega-conservatives and vaguely-libertarians on campus bake cookie for Alan Keyes, raffle off semi-automatic weapons and make a mockery of tolerance, democrats at least throw in a little social justice with their dishonorable political campaigning.
Justin says liberalism promotes a "parasitic reliance" on the government. I don't think that's true. Certainly some policies breed parasitic reliance, but liberalism breeds a demand for accountability in the government to do what is RIGHT with the money it collects whether or not it agrees on the whole with the tax rates, or tax policy.
Fiscal libertarians would have you believe that we can help the neediest in this country by leaving worse enough alone. They believe that rich people will set up private charities! That somehow, if we get rid of government, all that money we don't pay in taxes we will put directly in the pockets of the homeless. And this is in the BEST case for libertarianism. In the average case, the financially fittest survive.
Though Justin portrays a vague truth that big government liberals are shamelessly idealistic and possibly naive, I think the same is true of minarchist libertarians. A belief in the altruism of the individual while promoting selfishness in policy? That seems a little far fetched.
Labels: DI, Lally, liberalism, libertarianism
Kitten and I are getting ready to pack for the Heinlein Centennial in Kansas City this coming weekend, so my commentary on others' posts for the next week will be scattered, if any.
Anyone who has any questions for the conference attendees should email them to me at tcgtrf@gmail.com and I will try to answer them as I log in, God and ATT willing.
I plan to write some articles and/or do some interviews while I'm there to post under the title Dispatches from Yesterday's Future. kitten's going to be speaking on a lot of panels on alternative relationships, line marriage and sexual polyamory in Heinlein's works.
I'll probably be hanging with the rocket scientists and the libertarians. Oh yeah, and the libertarian rocket scientists with beautiful daughters who want to marry me.....
See ya later.
Tom
Anyone who has any questions for the conference attendees should email them to me at tcgtrf@gmail.com and I will try to answer them as I log in, God and ATT willing.
I plan to write some articles and/or do some interviews while I'm there to post under the title Dispatches from Yesterday's Future. kitten's going to be speaking on a lot of panels on alternative relationships, line marriage and sexual polyamory in Heinlein's works.
I'll probably be hanging with the rocket scientists and the libertarians. Oh yeah, and the libertarian rocket scientists with beautiful daughters who want to marry me.....
See ya later.
Tom
Labels: future, Heinlein, libertarianism, Tet
I expect that quite a number of our regular readers enjoy webcomics. I want to introduce you to a pair of them sponsored by Big Head Press.
The first one, Roswell, Texas, is written by L. Neil Smith, an award-winning science-fiction author and the man responsible for The Probability Broach, which won the Prometheus Award for best Libertarian science-fiction story. (That parallel-universe novel is available in graphic novel form from Big Head Press, and looks to be worth the price.) Roswell is also set in a parallel--one in which Santa Ana was killed during the Battle of the Alamo. Smith has embedded a lot of historical characters (including Walt Disney, John Wayne and Bette Page) in a milieu that includes time-travelling physics-babes from Mars arriving in Texas in 1947. Scott Bieser collaborates with Smith on the comic.
The second one expands on a theme near and dear to those of us who read Stranger in a Strange Land during our college years. La Muse is the story of a pair of alien sisters, one oh-so-human and the other with deity-like powers. The latter decides to fix the world and have a few laughs along the way. It's sexy, tongue-in-cheek, and lovingly drawn at two pages per week. I have a feeling that the two creators of the comic, Adi Tantimedh and Hugo Petrus, will be famous very, very soon.
Tom
The first one, Roswell, Texas, is written by L. Neil Smith, an award-winning science-fiction author and the man responsible for The Probability Broach, which won the Prometheus Award for best Libertarian science-fiction story. (That parallel-universe novel is available in graphic novel form from Big Head Press, and looks to be worth the price.) Roswell is also set in a parallel--one in which Santa Ana was killed during the Battle of the Alamo. Smith has embedded a lot of historical characters (including Walt Disney, John Wayne and Bette Page) in a milieu that includes time-travelling physics-babes from Mars arriving in Texas in 1947. Scott Bieser collaborates with Smith on the comic.
The second one expands on a theme near and dear to those of us who read Stranger in a Strange Land during our college years. La Muse is the story of a pair of alien sisters, one oh-so-human and the other with deity-like powers. The latter decides to fix the world and have a few laughs along the way. It's sexy, tongue-in-cheek, and lovingly drawn at two pages per week. I have a feeling that the two creators of the comic, Adi Tantimedh and Hugo Petrus, will be famous very, very soon.
Tom
Labels: cool webcomics, libertarianism, Tet
Elderwife, especially note the good things he has to say about War Tax Refusers.
Tom
Tom
Labels: antiwar, libertarianism, politics, Tet
The University of Illinois is in the process of establishing The Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government. This will promote the study of how the free market, in cooperation with a state founded in liberty, can bring upward mobility to the poor and a star-spanning future to humanity.
It's about time that libertarianism got a voice on our campus. It's no secret that 40% of the Nobel Prizes in Economics have gone to scholars of the Austrian School. With the establishment of this Fund, the first-rate economists it will attract and the ongoing debate it will promote with the campus community, the University can be assured of a leadership position in the 21st.
Sic itur ad astra!!!
Tom
It's about time that libertarianism got a voice on our campus. It's no secret that 40% of the Nobel Prizes in Economics have gone to scholars of the Austrian School. With the establishment of this Fund, the first-rate economists it will attract and the ongoing debate it will promote with the campus community, the University can be assured of a leadership position in the 21st.
Sic itur ad astra!!!
Tom
Labels: economics, libertarianism, Tet, Woo-hoo
