« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Liberal Mask Slipping Watch, Libertarian Edition.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  May 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Mind you, Matt Welch is not surprised that it has; otherwise, his fairly comprehensive evisceration of this Salon article whining about the maturity level of libertarianism would have been a good deal more, ah, exercised.  I imagine that being editor-in-chief for Reason generally means that one gets used fairly quickly to the pander-then-minimize cycle that libertarians get from both Democrats and Republicans – I say this as a Republican, mind you.  I’m not even apologetic about it: my only regret is that we pander too little and minimize too much.  Why?  Because of paragraphs like this:

The “worldview” of libertarianism suggested, back in the early 1970s, that if you got the government out of the business of setting all airline ticket prices and composing all in-flight menus, then just maybe Americans who were not rich could soon enjoy air travel. At the time, people with much more imagination and pull than Gabriel Winant has now dismissed the idea as unrealistic, out-of-touch fantasia. They were wrong then, they continue to be wrong now about a thousand similar things, and history does not judge them harsh enough.

The differences between libertarians, liberals, and conservatives can be handily seen with this paragraph.  When asked whether the government should be involved in something, the libertarian will default to “No;” the liberal, to “Yes;” and the conservative to “I don’t think so.”  What a lot of conservatives forget is that their answer and the libertarian answer is not quite the same; once a conservative is convinced that government intervention is acceptable or even laudable he will enthusiastically support it*.  And what a lot of libertarians forget is that while “No” and “Probably not” are not quite the same, “No” and “Yes” will never be the same; even in places where the results would be the same the process is significantly different**.  In other words: to a libertarian, a conservative is an ultimately unreliable ally (and vice versa).  But a liberal’s just going to be somebody who’s only right by accident.

What?  What do liberals forget?  That conservatives and libertarians have triple-digit IQs, of course; and that they can read.  Hence, absurdities like the Salon article that sparked Matt’s ire.

Moe Lane

*The interstate highway system.  The US military as a mechanism for enforcing American foreign policy positions. A federal banking system.   Sure, they’re not particularly controversial now (and online protestations to the contrary, they’re not particularly controversial).  But at the time…

**Let’s take, say, same-sex marriage.  A libertarian thinks that two people should be able to enter into whatever contracts that they like; a liberal thinks that it’s not fair that two people in love shouldn’t be allowed to marry.  Same goal, right? …up until the point where the liberal cheerfully introduces a law making it illegal for private organizations to refuse services to same-sex couples on moral grounds, and the libertarian starts blinking.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Leopard1996

    Being someone with more libertarian leanings, that is the main reason that 90% of the time given two choices between a true liberal democrat that rubber stamped almost everything that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid wanted, as opposed to a republican who may say that they don’t want SSM as a national standard but for other than that, they would let me have the right to achieve my goals without the Gov coming in on the back end and taking it for the “greater good” I will go with the republican.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    I think the conservative defaults more to “Is the premise sound?”

    “I don’t think so” is like accepting the premise but not the solution.

    Such as: Convince me that the premise of the conservative default is to “I don’t think so” but I’m not buying it without a bit of expansion on why it’s “I don’t think so” and not “is the premise sound”?

    ;-)

  • redneck_hippie

    it is “is this allowable under the constitution and, if so, what part of the constitution covers it?”

    But not everybody thinks like a constitutional conservative.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    of the sound premise. First you have to identify if it’s really a problem and then, if it is a problem, at what level of government should it be dealt with. If it’s not a problem to start with, the constitutionality of it would be a moot point.

    Not questioning the premise first is what has gotten into the shape we’re in now.

    Sorry, I’m still a Fredhead.

  • philbo

    Of the three sides presented, only two liberal and libertarian are well-defined.

    Liberals want: government control of everything so we can have “social justice” and equal distribution of wealth..

    Libertarians believe that freedom is defined by the absence of government, that capitalism is what happens when you leave people alone.

    Conservativism used to be well-defined but in the hands of the GOP country club elite, has been turned into mush. These GOP elites, who are nothing more than masked big government liberals. claim ownership of the label “conservative” as they morph the term to fit whatever sellout they are currently selling. I’m the biggest advocate of [insert conservative issue] but” is the dominant RINO phrase just before they sign the next landmark liberal legislation. Then they argue that it would have been even worse had they not been involved.

    Conservatives are constitutionalists who understand the main thing that libertarians refuse to accept: freedom is not the absence of government. Freedom is not the natural state of existence. Freedom is a state of existence that is created when virtuous people create sensible laws based on a shared morality and then OBEY THOSE LAWS BY PERSONAL CHOICE.

    It’s like Thomas Paine pointed out, government is evil by definition because the size of government is inversely proportional to personal freedom. But men are not angels so we concede to a need for government. We defend our freedoms by being virtuous people, by taking responsibility for our own behavior and by being involved in defending our freedoms.

  • redneck_hippie

    and I am a FredHead too. Above comment was encompassing the part of the argument that should take place when opposition succeeds in setting the agenda.

    You have it right that the first part of the argument has not been taking place on our side, to face the truth that government isn’t the proper arena to solve every inconvenience we face in life.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and that is that while the public accommodations portion of the civil rights act was most probably not constitutional, I would have been for amending same to make it so, and, all in all am glad the court allowed it to stand as I think the positives of shocking the South and the nation into getting past ou original sin outweighs the negatives. More on all that in detail later. Was glad Paul said as much in the kerfuffle…

  • the_invisible_hand

    For liberals or progressives (they keep changing labels since their toxic ideology taints whatever label they use), society is valued highly, but the conception is of groups. They talk of the “black vote” the “female vote” and now the “latino vote”, etc. These are monolithic groups that make up society and have certain needs that must be met. Also in society are groups that need to be punished to help the less well off groups. We all know who they are. Most of us are in one of those groups. But liberals carve the world up into groups and value some over others. The conception is monolithic groups and the value is spread unequally. Some are just supposed to pay for the good of the others. This of course grows from their fundamental principle of equality. Liberals believe equality is the paramount principle. Any action towards equality is justified, constitutional or not. And since they see groups of have nots, then any punitive action to the have mores will be justified. Hence their governance tactics.

    For conservatives, society is conceived as individuals with certain inalienablle rights that cannot be ignored or violated. The value is on protecting individuals while acknowledging the capability for evil in men. This evil can only be contrained and controlled within a societal framework. Man needs society for its own good. As such, the conservative philosophy’s bedrock principle will be order. Order is what protects individuals from the evil within and without. Cultural and societal traditions preserve order. They must therefore be promoted and preserved. Any action to preserve order and be justifed including any punitive measures against anyone or anything endangering the order of society. This comes in part from Burke and his predictions of what would happen in the French Revolution when all that preserved society was washed away and nothing was there to replace it. Order is the guiding principle for conservatives who view society as a collection of individuals and value ordered society for the preservation of man.

    Libertarians might reject that there is a society at all, but even if they admit there can be a society it must always be subjagated to the individual. The reason they might reject society is that they don’t want to constrain any individual or they might question if an individual has a choice in picking a society. Certainly they would conceive of society very loosely for it can’t constrain and they would not value society very highly because the individual is primary in their concern. The foundation of libertarianism is ownership. Total self-ownership to be exact. It isn’t freedom because theoretically one could sell himself into slavery as a sovereign total owner. No, total ownership is the foundation. This informs all governing policy. Where liberals and conservatives are willing to infringe upon individuals in certain contexts, a libertarian must reject involuntary force on an individual. Of course most libertarians will at least admit the limit of an individual to force his will on others, but he will extend no extra sovereign powers on the state. The state can only be as powerful as the individual and can’t have any greater power, even to protect itself or the society.

    Libertarians, then, will sacrifice their society to protect individual civil liberties or discard religion and values for greater individual freedom regardless of cost.

    Liberals will sacrifice their society for equality of races, class, gender, etc. Given the option between a functioning society with inequality or no society with everyone equally destitute the liberal will select destitution.

    Conservatives will not sacrifice society, but will give up some liberties and aceept some inequality to preserve an ordered society because they understand inequality is natural and that individuals can not be complete self owners (for most this idea will be based on a religious notion that God created man and is the only real owner in the grand scheme).

    I don’t know many people that fit entirely in one or the other. Most at least go back and forth b/w two of the positions and some agree with all three in varying contexts.

    I move in and out of the libertarian/conservative wings. But I do think all three are valuable to think about in moderation. But liberals and libertarians probably always need to be in the minority position gently tugging at the mainstream to correct problems in a piecemeal fashion.

  • saintgeorgegentile

    Having no allegiance to any religious faith I used to look at matters thus: The Democrats were after my wallet, the Republicans wanted my soul. The choice was easy until the Republicans started acting like Democrats on the financial front. What my voter’s registration card says (R) most strongly indicates the way I’ll probably vote but sometimes I have to hold my nose against the stench of the candidate (you listening McCain, you fraud!)

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    nt

  • skorrent1

    Not arguing the premise. The opposite or alternative to “The government should enforce segregation” is not “The government should enforce integration”, especially in the marketplace. Allowing freedom of association might have been a little lumpy, but would have avoided (postponed?) a great accumulation of Federal power.

    The first major benefit I could imagine would have been the breakup of government schooling, starting in the south.

  • Doc Holliday

    “conservatives are constitutionalists who understand the main thing that libertarians refuse to accept: freedom is not the absence of government.”

    This is shows a basic lack of understanding of libertarian views.

  • aesthete

    Moe’s post generally sums up the various views of the world. Liberals tend to believe that politicians are generally capable of making decisions for their subjects; conservatives and libertarians at least give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have half a mind to resolve their own problems. Many libertarians are unhinged nutters (i.e., the Ron Paul types), but the ones willing to associate with the Republican party are capable of more than a critique of government in general, and tend to be a little less reflexive in opposition to all things government (Milton Friedman, Hayek, Tyler Cowen, and the good folks at Cato being but a few).

  • aesthete

    I would add that conservatives are much more circumspect in attempting change, even if all of those things mentioned (premise, level of government, etc.) are met. For example, though many conservatives oppose the entitlements state, I would say that most would not drop it cold turkey, as would libertarians, but would look at a gradualist, cautious scaling back of those programs. Though sometimes it leads to conservatives’ dragging their feet on some initiatives where action is needed, this caution promotes rational discussion and examination and is, on net, one of the best aspects of conservatism, (and one reason why I don’t self-identify as a pure libertarian).

  • aesthete

    Similarly, your definition of conservatism can apply to any ideology mentioned here. The difference is in the systems of shared morality endorsed by each:

    Libertarians (pretty much extreme classical liberals) believe that shared morality should be something like, “do whatever you want, until you hurt someone else (and by “hurt”, I don’t mean your feelings or pride).”

    Honestly, it’s a bit difficult to define conservatives’ view of shared morality, but I’ll spring for a broad definition: “shared morality should be informed by the traditions, past, institutions and shared cultural heritage of our nation: the men from our past weren’t drooling savages, and their experience with the problems and good qualities and general governance of our country are fundamentally sound.” (This definition applies less to the US, which has some classical liberal influence.)

  • philbo

    I was referring to the consensus that existed at our nation’s Founding. It was that time’s shared sense of American morality that made it possible for our unique culture and the freedom that comes from it to exist. Those who don’t grasp intellectual concept of freedom being granted by God can’t be trusted to lead our culture. Man, and governments, don’t grant freedom and so have no right to take it away from us.

    Ours isn’t the only way to secure individual liberty but all ways require a shared ethos that “this is the way we do things around here” as the primary law that keeps government growth at bay. Truly free societies can’t co-exist with big government.

    In a moral society, we all share the same sense of what is right and wrong and choose to do the right thing even when no one is looking. That is what makes moral societies free societies. It’s the cynicism of doing what you can think you can get away with that creates a need for government. As Thomas Paine said, power given to the government always curtails individual liberty. Lack of morality is what breeds government.

  • zuckey6

    Liberals and Socaists seek to control evderthing peopleby Government decree(Obamacare, Cap and Trade,etc.).

  • zuckey6

    Would Candidus be a modern day conservative?

  • aesthete
  • itrytobenice

    the Republicans wanted my soul.

    I get so sick of this stupid line of crap. Nobody wants your ignorant soul. And other than muslim extremists, no one is trying to set up a theocracy.

    Get out from under the bed.

  • Tbone

    if you have no religion.

    PS. You don’t have much of a future either.

  • vinick

    you’re a funny guy

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    I understand that we need government, that some government programs do more good than harm, and that there are even some projects that are important and so big that only government can do them.

    But my first inclination is always to be SUSPICIOUS of government, and to always look to decentralize and privatize as much as possible.

    And I have the exact same view in regards social issues as I do fiscal issues. I am suspicious of government involvement and whenever possible I want to leave it up to private persons or to smaller levels of government.

  • dajeeps

    I’m sorry, but I kind of choked on the idea of conservatives being constitutionalists. Conservatives, at least until lately, have had very little objection to the employment of authoritarianism to do a range of things on their laundry list of pet issues that are not provided for in article 2 section 8.

    The 10th amendment should mean something. If it doesn’t, that’s what the Feds need to address, not pet issues themselves. No, it doesn’t get to cherry pick between which manners it poaches the hens, and it that regard, many conservatives are as guilty of unconstitutional behavior as the authoritarian-worshiping liberals.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • skorrent1

    Let’s have a few examples of conservative “employment of authoritarianism to do a range of things on their laundry list of pet issues”. If you can, try to avoid instances of conservative reaction to new laws or, even worse, judicial rulings that overturned long-established tradition. These are especially onerous when they come from a higher level of government, but must be reacted to by action by government.

    Also, if you can, try to avoid issues arising from the usual desire of the libertarian to “Get high and get laid”. I’ll grant the traditional conservatives’ opposition to relaxing the existing laws governing sex and drugs. There must be something else that interests the libertarian mind.

  • Leopard1996

    Like making sure a missile or airplane doesn’t get summarily shoved up my backside, maintaining the roads that facilitate interstate commerce, providing for property protection in the form of Police, Fire Department, etc, but that is where it ends.

    After that I am starting to see more and more that many government programs allow for the outsourcing of personal responsibility. For example, welfare, allowed many in the population to say well since I am paying higher taxes for that, I don’t have to do the good work of maybe giving to the poor, or building houses with Habitat for Humanity. Social Security is another one where people outsourced the responsibility for their retirement to the government, and now for someone like me I am paying into something, I will never see on the back end, because I will probably be in the ground before I am eligible, or I will be told that I made too much because I properly planned for retirement, therefore I will not get back what I put in which pretty much changed the contract from whence they used to take my 7.25% of my check in the first place.

  • Leopard1996

    And what I would like to see more of is showing an alternative option in a positive fashion than just the negative of, “I oppose government intervention”. Make the attempt to show the positive alternative of what would happen if the government wasn’t involved with what they are involved in.

    I mean I know what the alternatives are, because I studied and looked at these things, but for the common American that gets their information from the alphabet networks and seminar douche bags like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, not so much.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    On Brown, Bork argues we would have been better off if the court had merely reversed Plessy and said that the facts show that forced separation can’t be equal, rather than the grounds that blacks cant get a good education unless they are sitting next to a black person!

    more later