Rise of the Libertarians

[handy]

ANYTHING PEACEFUL

Rise of the Libertarians

10 reasons why Slate, Salon and the progressive media are afraid

FEBRUARY 07, 2014 by MAX BORDERS

A lot of people are messing with libertarianism. We get it. If you see an alternative worldview gaining currency as your own is starting to lose out: attack, attack, attack. Strategically, it’s probably smart.

When Jane Mayer wrote that sloppy hit piece for The New Yorker against the Brothers Koch a few years back, it was way more strategic than personal: These are the folks who give money to organizations that don’t agree with you about lots of things. If you want to weaken those groups, villainize the funders by any means necessary to make their donations toxic.
Well played. The bigger problem for progressives, however, is that libertarianism has grown far larger than any billionaire's money. So you have to do still more to kill the movement. At the very least that means using heaping helpings of intellectual dishonesty. Can you swiftboat a movement?

In a recent New York Times piece profiling Rand Paul, Sam Tanenhaus and Jim Rutenberg write that libertarians are a bunch of “antitax activists and war protestors, John Birch Society members, and a smatter of truthers who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks.” Why would the Times not instead describe folks like Times columnist Tyler Cowen, Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, or investor Peter Thiel? That’s not part of the narrative.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter: Progressives are afraid. Just when they seized the ring, their power is ebbing. Outlets have to make libertarian voodoo dolls so they act as pricks. But why is libertarianism gaining so much traction? What is the true source of the prog media’s fear?

1. Libertarianism is the new “center.” At the risk of raising the hackles of the hyperanalytical, consider this: Most people think of Ds as being on the left and Rs as being on the right. Remember: It’s about popular perceptions. And when we think in terms of those perceptions, most people think of Rs as being fiscally and socially conservative and Ds as being fiscally and socially liberal. The old center was once about being either squishy in both departments, or about being fiscally liberal and socially conservative. But a new “center” is emerging. As people become disaffected with all the bad economic policies of the Obama administration and all of the preachy moralisms of the Republican status quo, most are gravitating to a position that looks decidedly more libertarian—that is, fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

2. Progressivism is the status quo. Stranger still, leftish progressivism has been part of the status quo for so long, what at one time seemed forward-thinking now seems positively quaint. I can see Rachel Maddow standing out by the Hoover Dam begging us to go back to the ineffectual make-work programs of the 1930s. The world isn’t really about “things” anymore. In other words, in the peer-to-peer age, you really want to try to solve the world’s problems with the blunt instrument of government power? Dirigisme? How gauche. Government has been flogging that old mule for centuries now: Taxes, subsidies, and mandates. Lather, rinse, repeat. Is that all you got? It sort of inverts the terms “liberal” and “conservative” when you think about it. Progressives don’t want change; they want the same old things that don’t work. And when people listen to libertarians, they learn why. (Hint: libertarians actually understand economics.)

3. Libertarianism is a powerful vision. If the technocrat’s dream was a man standing on the moon, the libertarian’s dream is of a peaceful, prosperous city-state (perhaps on the sea) built after bright, creative, and conscientious people. That’s because ours is a philosophy of peaceful cooperation, real community, and lateral relationships. Indeed, it is only through cooperation, community, and lateral relationships that free people get things done. Technocrats look around at the world and feel that society—and especially the economy—is like a rocket they have to launch and keep fixing in flight. But you have to have the right people at mission control, they believe. You have to have the right technicians designing this thing. But society is not like a rocket at all. It’s like a coral reef, which rises up from the ocean floor thanks to billions of interactions none of which anyone planned. Ordinary people are starting to grok that.

4. Partisan politics is dying. The kids today are growing up (a) in an era of high-tech decentralization, and (b) in an era where electoral politics is being exposed as one big charade. They’re becoming increasingly disaffected with the back-biting, name-calling, cronyism, and bureaucratic bungling that is the nature of this particular beast we call politics. And politics is the primary means for both conservatives and progressives. While partisans sit around and pontificate, young people are exercising their freedom and making the world a better place through massive open-source networks. This is the essence of opt-out culture. Millennials, having grown up on the Web, are not really into centralization, and thus not into politics. It’s much easier for them to imagine a world in which you choose from thousands of “apps” (emergent communities) than a world in which every couple of years you wait in line for ages to send your prayers up to get one of two crummy apps—only to have them both suck. Libertarianism is the antidote to this failed democratic operating system (DOS).

5. Libertarianism is not conservatism. It’s easier to pick on conservatism. It appears quaint, less cosmopolitan. It’s a worldview that seems headed over a demographic cliff. Zealous concern for so-called “family values” falls flat for younger people who have become far more tolerant of different sorts of family arrangements, lifestyles, and social norms. While libertarians tend to be far more socially tolerant, libertarianism is adaptable because it’s primarily a political doctrine—which is to say it makes room for all sorts of personal moralities. You can be a family-values conservative and still be libertarian. You might not choose alternative lifestyles for yourself, but you’re unwilling to have others thrown into jail for choosing those lifestyles. And this libertarian tolerance is a welcome shelter from the false dichotomy propped up by the puritans of political correctness and by Fox News viewers looking to flare up the culture wars.

6. Progressivism’s cracks have finally been exposed. Progressives will urge that Obama is not the change they hoped for. But the Affordable Care Act should have been progressivism’s shining moment. Of course, it was anything but. First the president lies to the population, then joins his party in forcing Americans to swallow the bitter pill of Obamacare. He then unleashes the technocrats and gives contracts to his crony buddies to create a $500 million non-functioning Web site (and that’s just the start of the crony bonanza). The president then assures everyone that the wasted resources, high premiums, and diminished options are for the greater good. People start to get wise to it. Progressivism's cracks are exposed. Add the failure of Cash for Clunkers, the failure of Solyndra, all the bailouts of banking cartels, and the “rescue” of the auto manufacturers and unions. The list goes on and on. The more progressive technocrats try to do, the more they botch it. Of course, something similar can be said about all the faith-based initiatives of the Republican years: you know, like the creation of the TSA, the War in Iraq, “stimulus” packages, and all manner of pork barrel projects. Progressive purists will try to argue that all of this has been a series of pragmatic patches to a failing system. For America to truly be great, they say, Republicans must not be so “obstructionist.” But President Obama, with his pen and his phone, has seized dictatorial power. Apparently, the ends justify the means. This is the foundation of progressive ideology. And it’s failing.

7. Libertarianism is real communitarianism. Libertarianism actually provides a superstructure for community. The problem with communitarianism is that it never shed its dependence on centralization and state power. Real community is built from the bottom up by people with overlapping interests, concerns, and needs. It is not the product of the imaginings of communitarian philosophers like Michael Sandel, nor of the grand designs of urban planners. Community comes from the unobstructed encounters of neighbors on street corners, of hipsters peacocking at coffee shops, of bitcoiners gathering in Satoshi Square, and of people drawn together out of common cause or mutual aid. Community bubbles up from a free people. And you can’t get any more libertarian than that.

8. Libertarians really don’t like crony capitalism. For all the lip service progressives pay to the “problem” of income inequality, they consistently back the most illiberal and inegalitarian policies. Is there anything fair about showering taxpayer resources upon this energy company or that—and making their CEOs’ wealth more secure in the process? Is there anything equitable about shoring up the U.S. banking cartel with permanent legislation like Dodd-Frank? And what chosen “one-percenters” are benefitting from the crony-infested Obamacare legislation, which rains goodies down on drug-makers, healthcare providers, and insurance companies in equal measure? On the other hand, while libertarians don’t mind the sort of inequality that comes from people successfully creating happy customers, wealth, and jobs, we really—no really—don’t like collusion between business interests and government power.

9. Libertarianism is pluralism. Between the theocrats and the technocrats lies a group of people who want to have—and want you to have—elbow room. While there are certainly judgmental libertarians out there, they’re usually being judgmental about “jokers to the left of me, clowns to the right” (theocrats and technocrats). Otherwise, we’re pretty tolerant people. And it’s in that toleration that real diversity can flourish.

10. Libertarianism is inevitable. In “50 Ways to Leave Leviathan,” Jeffrey Tucker and I showed that the old rules are becoming obsolete. People are connecting and cooperating across national boundaries. They’re practicing what James C. Scott calls “Irish Democracy,” which is another term for people simply turning their backs, on a massive scale, on an imposed order. Together, whatever our moralistic stripes, we are simultaneously creating a new order while rendering the old order obsolete. And now we’re aided by technology. This is not a libertarian ideology, but a libertarian reality carved out by people who simply refuse to be controlled by peers who purport to be superiors.

Read more: https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/deta...#ixzz2tPqWDZXZ

[geomancer]

Back in the 1970s, I used to eat at the Top Dog in Berkeley. There were numerous Libertarian screeds glued to the wall and I read them with interest while I waited for my meal. At some point I came upon a rant decrying national parks and the very idea of public lands in general. Lost me for good then and there.

So, tell me now, what is the latest Libertarian line on this?

Richard

ps: In the early 1960s I lived with some Marxist antiwar activist friends - one of them strongly opposed the idea of Nature reserves because "the workers need jobs!" The other two were city boys indifferent to the natural world. Not for me.

Rise of the Libertarians

10 reasons why Slate, Salon and the progressive media are afraid

https://www.fee.org/the_freeman/deta...#ixzz2tPqWDZXZ

[Jim Wilson]

I have been, on and off, attracted to libertarian thought throughout my life. My favorite libertarian, though, is Henry David Thoreau rather than 20th century libertarians. My favorite 20th century libertarian author is Ursula K. LeGuin, specifically her novel 'The Dispossessed', which I think is the best presentation in the form of fiction.

Contemporary libertarianism has a number of inconsistencies which tend to sabotage the movement. I would pick Austrian economic theory as the number one difficulty. Its axiomatic approach makes it difficult to reconcile with historical data which are inconsistent with its view. To pick just one example, according to Austrian theory the welfare state should have caused economic ruin long ago. Yet just those countries with the most pervasive welfare state (Norway, Denmark, Sweden) have very advanced economies and stability at the social level.

The tendency to view taxation as a form of expropriation (or theft) is also a weakness. There are other ways of looking at taxation which make more sense; such as taxation as a fee for services both past and present.

The hyper-individualism of libertarian theory is also, to my mind, a serious weakness. It is also extremely ironic since corporate associations are now considered persons or 'individuals' when, according to orthodox libertarian theory, they should not have such status. Yet the Koch brothers, who are defended in the post, have taken advantage of this legal fiction of corporate pesonhood to further their agenda. It is difficult for me to accept that the Koch brothers are serious libertarians when much of their activity is grounded in this oppressive legal abstraction that traditional libertarian theory would reject.

The tendency to view government as an entirely negative feature is an additional weakness Government offers many benefits. And while I think libertarians are right to point out the dangers of an overextended government, when that critique is based on the idea that government is inherently and necessarily a negative, it weakens the legitimate critiques.

What I admire about libertarians is their strong commitment to a sphere of individual autonomy and action. Republicans do not believe in the existence of any such sphere. Democrats tend to view that sphere as negotiable and are weak defenders of it; but Democrats do have a strong sense of the sphere of free speech and association, which puts them far ahead of the Republicans.

I also admire the libertarian tendency towards a more limited foreign policy for the U.S., towards a policy of disengagement and a modified isolationism. I think this is one of their strongest positions.

I think libertarians have much to contribute to the political debate today. But I also think they have serious weaknesses which they need to address.

Jim

[Valley Oak]

Libertarianism is fundamentally and logically flawed. It would be more of a living nightmare than the 8 catastrophic years of baby bush in the White House, which ruined this country.

If you want to see the United States finish going down the tubes permanently, then please push forward with this crazy notion of "libertarianism" or whatever it is.

What we need in the United States is more democracy, more freedom, and a social-democracy. The libertarian lie is that their "ideology" (if you can even call it that), will give us more of the things that we need. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the many gargantuan holes in libertarianism is its wrong-headed focus on states' rights, placing the nexus of their vision of democracy and public administration (or total lack thereof) on state governance, eclipsing and destroying federal authority. This is called a confederacy and it is a non-starter. We fought a bloody civil war (the issue was slavery) and the states'-rights, pro-slavery South lost!

Why are we continuing a foregone conclusion? Because, tragically, many Americans mistakenly associate (among many other libertarian logical fallacies) democracy with states'-rights and all but abolishing the federal government.

This argumentation would allow the citizens of any state to "democratically" vote for a return of slavery if that is what they choose to do. This is not only morally wrong for obvious reasons but is it Constitutionally and legally wrong as well. IT IS ILLEGAL and this fact exposes one of the BIGGEST of the libertarian lies. And there are many, many more.

Take the issue of same-sex marriage, for example. According to Libertarian hocus pocus, ONLY the citizens of a given state are "legally" and "morally" allowed to decide this issue, NOT the federal government. (Incidentally, it is not a coincidence that this erroneous dynamic would also apply to slavery and women's right to choose, etc).

This premise is not only wrong but it is also illegal. The federal Constitution guarantees, in the 14th Amendment (one of the 3 civil war amendments), that EVERYONE will have equal protection under the law. Libertarian "theory" contradicts this Constitutional right.

If it was up to libertarians, they would bring back the original constitution, which was the Articles of Confederation. Libertarians and confederates today argue that this is the only true constitution--another colossal lie. Don't believe it.

Under a confederacy, each state could have laws to publicly execute homosexuals, adulterers, establish a theocracy (christian sharia law), bring back slavery, etc, and the ONLY consideration or advice that the monstrous libertarians would offer is for you to move out of that state with laws that you don't agree with. But if you move to a state with barbaric laws, such as publicly executing gays, and if YOU are gay, then you are taking your life into your own hands.

I'm glad we settled this issue over a century and a half ago with an unfortunate and deadly civil war that confederates started, the North finished, and contemporary Southerners keep whining about because they are sore losers (e.g. Sherman's March, etc). Libertarians are nothing more than modern day confederates and they are l-o-s-e-r-s. They were losers then and they are losers today. But the worst losers of all would be you and me and more than 310 million Americans if we fall for the long series of gross lies, deception, and Stone Age mentality of the reconstituted confederate ideology, better known today as Libertarianism.

If you want to keep your freedoms and your rights, then fight the Libertarian Lie. Libertarianism is neither freedom nor empowerment; it is barbarism, tyranny, and despair.

[Valley Oak]

Jim, this was an exceptionally well written post. Knowledgable, critical, and well reasoned. Although I don't completely agree with all of your observations they were, nonetheless, eloquent and insightful.

Thank you

I have been, on and off, attracted to libertarian thought throughout my life. My favorite libertarian, though, is Henry David Thoreau rather than 20th century libertarians. My favorite 20th century libertarian author is Ursula K. LeGuin, specifically her novel 'The Dispossessed', which I think is the best presentation in the form of fiction...

Jim

[Jim Wilson]

Thanks, Edward. That's kind of you to say so. I appreciate it.

Best wishes,

Jim

[Valley Oak]

Where are all of the supposed supporters of Libertarianism??? Why aren't they piling up on this thread with their negative 2 cents worth? Apparently this "ideology" is not as popular as some would have you believe. Where is "someguy?" Are there no other Libertarians here on the Wacco List? I guess not because the Wacco community is a relatively enlightened community and they don't fall for lies as easily as most Americans do, certainly not as easily as followers of Libertarianism, which is a neo-fascist "ideology."

[spam1]

I was going to let this pass... it is similar to the situation where you look over the fence and see your neighbor eating dog poo out of his yard...by the time he's reached that point, there's no way you are going reason with him. Maybe I should still, but here goes nonetheless:

Many (maybe most) people who identify as having libertarian values don't believe in eliminating the federal government, but rather that most governing should be done at the local level, and then at the state level, and only in instances where local and state governance is unable (not unwilling) to address issues, or unwilling to support constitutionally guaranteed rights, does the federal government get involved.

Most view the key role of government to protect the liberty of citizens to make their own (mostly) informed choices. Your suggestion (in another forum) that the Feds should prohibit snake handling is abhorrent to most libertarians...who are you or the Feds to judge what free people do.

Most are strict constitutionalists, and none would say "if the majority votes for slavery, then that's the law". All would point to the constitution's protection of liberty clearly spelled out by the 14th amendment. Tyranny over a minority from the will of the Majority -is- a socialist idea, not a libertarian view.

Libertarians don't believe in State's rights (well some do, just as some Socialists believe in confiscation of all goods from all people), but believe in individual rights -and- responsibilities. You sir, seem to believe if we can pass enough laws to control everyone's behavior to your desires, then we would have a utopia. There is no difference between you and Kim Jung Un except you lack the power he has to impose your views on others.

However, some with libertarian leanings take things to the logical absurdity (toll roads for every street is a commonly cited example), just as some socialists do (100% income tax on anyone who makes more than 100 or 200, or 500 thousand dollars).

You, sir, are a most dangerous sophist, painting a picture that was never true, signing someone else's name it and pointing to the picture to decry how terrible it is.

Your last comment [edit: in another post "I feel very safe and happy with Obama's paternal eyes and ears watching
over us for our own good. How could anyone not appreciate this? I would be worried if it was McCain or Romney doing it though!"] is most telling: You trust Obama's goodness and like him to have power to do as he sees fit. I trust that power will corrupt, and no one should be allowed the excesses we have seen under either Bush or Obama

[Jim Wilson]

A general response: Libertarian thought covers a range of views that most people are not aware of. In the U.S. at this time, the most visible group consists of those libertarians who derive their views from Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and others who are aligned, more or less, with this branch of libertarian thought. It is strongly rooted in a particular interpretation of economics (Austrian theory). The original post for this thread is from a group which is strongly associated with this branch.

But there is an older, and to my mind more profound, libertarian tradition; both in the U.S. and in Europe. In my post above I mentioned Henry David Thoreau and I think of him as the greatest of the libertarian thinkers that the U.S. has produced. His essay 'Civil Disobedience' has had a profound influence on world history and the view put forth in that essay is a libertarian view. This is the tradition that is carried on by writers such as Ursula K. LeGuinn and others. It is a profoundly moral tradition; that is to say rather than grounded in economic theory it is grounded in a view of human interaction and human autonomy and how that should play out in the social sphere. It is also a view which tends to incorporate a larger understanding of interaction so that it includes the natural sphere; this is part of Thoreau's legacy. In contrast, modern, economics-based, libertarians tend to ignore the importance of the natural sphere in their theory and in practice.

These days I hesitate to say to people that I think of myself as a libertarian because the meaning of that word has become strongly associated with the modern, economics-based, understanding. Yet, at another level, I am reluctant to let go of the word because I can't think of a better one.

In Europe the libertarian tradition emerged as an interpretation of socialism, but took a different turn. My favorite of the European libertarians is the Russian thinker Kropotkin who wrote a significant treatise on evolutionary theory caled "Mutual Aid". In its own way I think "Mutual Aid" is as significant as Darwin's "Origin of the Species" and is a balance to the idea that competition is the only factor leading to survival selection. That is to say, Kropotkin argues that the ability to offer assistance to others is a factor that favors survival selection and strengthens a particular specie's chances of continuing. Again, this is a good example of how the natural sphere is incorporated into classical libertarian theory.

I'd like to conclude by suggesting to people that there is more to libertarian theory and views than is found among modern libertarians today; especially among those who are activey involved with politics such as those associated with the libertarian party. Thoreau, LeGuinn, Kropotkin, and even Chinese Taoists such as Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, are good resources for a type of libertarian thought which, from my perspective, is more expansive, less aligned with conservative ideologies, and offers more profound insights into the human condition.

Best wishes,

Jim

[Valley Oak]

I would like to add support, to your once again excellent post, that the European version of "Libertarian" is, in some important ways, different than what Libertarian means in the US. In Spain, for example, the term, "Libertarian," is used interchangeably with the term, "anarchism." Hence, the reference you made to Kropotkin is very accurate. I lived in Europe (Spain and Denmark) for 10 years.

...My favorite of the European libertarians is the Russian thinker Kropotkin who wrote a significant treatise on evolutionary theory called "Mutual Aid"...That is to say, Kropotkin argues that the ability to offer assistance to others is a factor that favors survival selection and strengthens a particular specie's chances of continuing...Thoreau, LeGuinn, Kropotkin, and even Chinese Taoists such as Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, are good resources for a type of libertarian thought which, from my perspective, is more expansive, less aligned with conservative ideologies, and offers more profound insights into the human condition.

Best wishes,

Jim

[Valley Oak]

The following article was published by The Huffington Post on March 6th, 2014:

Prominent LGBT organization GetEQUAL has issued a travel alert for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Mississippi.

Mississippi legislators are currently attempting to pass Senate Bill 2681, titled the "Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act," a bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community based on "religious freedom." The bill is similar to controversial legislation in Arizona recently vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.

A portion of the travel alert reads...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ef=mostpopular

[jbox]

The following article was published by The Huffington Post on March 6th, 2014:

Prominent LGBT organization GetEQUAL has issued a travel alert for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Mississippi.

Mississippi legislators are currently attempting to pass Senate Bill 2681, titled the "Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act," a bill that would allow businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community based on "religious freedom." The bill is similar to controversial legislation in Arizona recently vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.

A portion of the travel alert reads...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ef=mostpopular

And this has what exactly to do with Libertarians Edward? It is big government types who want the suffocating embrace of laws and restrictions of personal liberty (like you Edward?) who might like to legislate this sort of nonsense, folks who feel more secure with Big Brother watching over us.

[Hotspring 44]

Without a “big” (strong) enough federal government there would be no way to effectively maintain “liberty” for the majority of folks (citizens).
The goal is to have a reality of “liberty” without one class of people trumping someone else “liberty” in doing so; and that in practice is not as simple as it sounds.

It seems that everyone has some sort of discriminatory, prejudicial feelings towards some class or another which can and does at times with some people get out of hand and can get to the point of doing real substantial harm to the life/s of others whereas without the fear of federal government intervening on locally supported and fundamentally unconstitutional laws in those local areas, the locals would, do and have, made their own “constitutional” guidelines that are not the same as and oftentimes conflict with the American constitution and the Bill of Rights...

• 4.1 First Amendment
• 4.2 Second Amendment
• 4.3 Third Amendment
• 4.4 Fourth Amendment
• 4.5 Fifth Amendment
• 4.6 Sixth Amendment
• 4.7 Seventh Amendment
• 4.8 Eighth Amendment
• 4.9 Ninth Amendment
• 4.10 Tenth Amendment
• List of amendments to the United States Constitution

...the Libertarians insist on being realized on an equal basis, (the Libertarians loosely call that “liberty”).

The reality is that there is major discrimination and the form of “liberty” the Libertarians seem to me to be espousing (at least in part) is the “liberty” to selectively deny based on local or States Rights some or all of the following: reasonably healthy air, drinking water, basic service from private service providers, etc.

IMHO, Libertarians (in general) are as much as any other faction in the political spectrum; NIMBY. They just don't want federal regulations that they don't like there in their back yard, so to speak.

There is a hypocrisy level that is right up there with the so called “enlightened far left” and the “religious right” that goes something like; "I'm tolerant", so tolerant of differences so long as I don't have to pay any taxes for something that I don't like regardless of the commons, democracy, votes, majority consensus, Civil Rights etc.

There is always going to be localized areas where, the powers that be, if left to their own, will do things like pass bad laws that basically entrap particular classes of people to losing their “liberty” in one way or another, the very same liberty that the Libertarians claim is supposed to be for everyone... ...equally?

So the bottom-line to me that separates the wheat from the chaff would be how or if in actual practice it actually functions.
I don't believe the libertarians (or anyone else for that matter) have an actual way to succeed in guaranteeing a reasonable level of “liberty” for all with respect to civil rights without also having a strong federal government to actualize it on an equal basis for everyone.
Libertarians give well worded, opinionated, lip service to the idea of “liberty” as they see it, as if locals in every area will somehow respect different peoples rights even when those (different) people's existence as they actually are thoroughly disgust those locals.

I get the impression that the individual Libertarian, him or herself probably respects the differences but it also seems to me that the Libertarians would also “tolerate” too much discrimination against others because of some sort of sense of government laws (regulations) which they opine are somehow too intrusive to the “liberty” of a business to choose who is worthy of being their customers based on whatever they want to base it on and they simply call that “free market”. That in essence would facilitate the denial or degraded level of service for life's basic needs, (food, water, travel, housing, police, law, hospital, etc.) based on a whole plethora of whatever (discriminatory and prejudicial) reason/s weather that person who is being discriminated against is in actuality that way or not, (real or imagined)

The reality is that in practice there would be an increased level of outright discrimination particularly in the deep South as has historically been without certain federal regulations (laws)... ...Libertarians seem to shun federal involvement and in some ways remind me of when the federal government would not enforce equal opportunity: Brown Vs board of education and Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States. Libertarians I think would just not want to get involved on the federal level until the harm level goes to an extreme high level (and may not even then) which would throw our Civil Rights backward 51 years, that is unacceptable to me.

[Gus diZerega]

When I was a young man in college I was a libertarian. As an undergraduate I organized bringing von Mises to speak at the University of Kansas. By my senior year I had read almost all of Mises' work , the same for Hayek, Rothbard, and many others associated with libertarian ideology or with Austrian economics, its favored school of economics. My MA thesis attempted to apply Mises' approach to economics to politics.

Then bit by bit I began studying issues libertarians had written little about, such as conservation (as it was called back then). Protecting nature had been my last hold-out before I had become a libertarian by making a leap of faith that somehow it could be saved in a pure market society. Now I was returning to the issue. Increasingly I also pondered why I had been so moved by the testimony of Black protesters regarding civil rights despite the libertarian and conservative arguments I believed about the inviolability of property rights. I also got interested in questions of authority in work- an area where libertarian ideology is nearly always all talk and no action. And I was denounced for thinking about these issues beyond boiler plate responses.

Gradually, to quote from Monty Python, "I got bettah."

I discovered that despite all their talk of rationality they ignored serious discussions of the issues they claimed to understand. Further, they tried to frame every issue as if it was a rehash of the battles over central planning Mises and Hayek had legitimately won. The ideology was stuck in a time warp, and I think it still is. Hence Max Borders argues that Obama's health care act should be a Progressive's dream without mentioning no Progressives liked it and nearly all of us favored universal coverage. In fact the act was designed by the conservative and 'free market' heritage Foundation, back when it had a brain to somewhat tame its id. But Borders' simplistic approach cannot deal with this.

The main issues from the 80s to now are particularly intractable to simple minded market analysis. Ecology is an especially tough nut to handle from a libertarian perspective (though market processes can play a very positive role in conservation - but that is another post). Ecosystems cannot be protected by market means alone. Pollution requires at a minimum a redefinition of property rights that can only be done by government. Overfishing of the oceans is not amenable to a libertarian solution. Global warming is 100% incapable of a libertarian solution and so the Kochs and their allies have proven willing to sacrifice a planet to preserve their ideological purity. We in northern CA saw for ourselves what the 'miracle of the market' would do to the redwood forests and watersheds owned by Pacific Lumber.

Libertarians ignore all this and usually speak only in dichotomies- freedom OR coercion, the 'state' OR 'the market,' 'individualism' OR 'collectivism.' In other words, intellectual twaddle. Sometimes they are on the right side, especially regarding civil liberties, but about as often they are on the wrong side, and their approach to solving our problems would make a great many of them far worse.

When the libertarian oriented movie "Thrive" came out I was asked to contribute an essay critical of libertarianism to a book of essays produced by the Praxis Peace Institute located in Sonoma. My piece is the only one by a former libertarian, and I take the ideology apart from within, using their most revered principles and scholars to show they literally do not understand the meaning of the words they use. Many libertarians have told me they are writing a counter critique. Promises promises. It's a short essay, I sent out many copies well over a year ago, and the book itself has been out for over a year. The silence is eloquent given their love of engaging in public debate. The essay is a below-the-water-line torpedo to libertarian orthodoxy and sunk ships don't float.

European style libertarians, such as Kropotkin, a wonderful man, are far less impacted by my criticism than is the American capitalist form. But even they have not solved some of the problems that we seem to need democratic government to handle. The issue is restoring and improving American democracy, not chasing off after a bankrupt ideology that strenuously avoids confronting the issues of our time.

In case a libertarian feels up to the effort and is reading this post, check out my essay "Turning the Tables: the pathologies and unrealized promise of libertarianism." It is in Georgia Kelly, ed., Uncivil Liberties: Deconstructing Libertarianism. The book is not expensive and I have a few copies I'll sell at a discount.

[rossmen]

kropotkin was an anarchist, not a libertarian. to simplify the difference, libertarians want government authority, to enforce property law and national borders. anarchists believe we can cooperate and peacefully thrive without this. this is a question of human nature. as a practical anarchist, i can participate in the present reality while believing we can do better, we can appreciate our humanity without authoritarian rule. what choice brings this closer?

When I was a young man in college I was a libertarian. As an undergraduate I organized bringing von Mises to speak at the University of Kansas. By my senior year I had read almost all of Mises' work , the same for Hayek, Rothbard, and many others associated with libertarian ideology or with Austrian economics, its favored school of economics. My MA thesis attempted to apply Mises' approach to economics to politics.

Then bit by bit I began studying issues libertarians had written little about, such as conservation (as it was called back then). Protecting nature had been my last hold-out before I had become a libertarian by making a leap of faith that somehow it could be saved in a pure market society. Now I was returning to the issue. Increasingly I also pondered why I had been so moved by the testimony of Black protesters regarding civil rights despite the libertarian and conservative arguments I believed about the inviolability of property rights. I also got interested in questions of authority in work- an area where libertarian ideology is nearly always all talk and no action. And I was denounced for thinking about these issues beyond boiler plate responses.

Gradually, to quote from Monty Python, "I got bettah."

I discovered that despite all their talk of rationality they ignored serious discussions of the issues they claimed to understand. Further, they tried to frame every issue as if it was a rehash of the battles over central planning Mises and Hayek had legitimately won. The ideology was stuck in a time warp, and I think it still is. Hence Max Borders argues that Obama's health care act should be a Progressive's dream without mentioning no Progressives liked it and nearly all of us favored universal coverage. In fact the act was designed by the conservative and 'free market' heritage Foundation, back when it had a brain to somewhat tame its id. But Borders' simplistic approach cannot deal with this.

The main issues from the 80s to now are particularly intractable to simple minded market analysis. Ecology is an especially tough nut to handle from a libertarian perspective (though market processes can play a very positive role in conservation - but that is another post). Ecosystems cannot be protected by market means alone. Pollution requires at a minimum a redefinition of property rights that can only be done by government. Overfishing of the oceans is not amenable to a libertarian solution. Global warming is 100% incapable of a libertarian solution and so the Kochs and their allies have proven willing to sacrifice a planet to preserve their ideological purity. We in northern CA saw for ourselves what the 'miracle of the market' would do to the redwood forests and watersheds owned by Pacific Lumber.

Libertarians ignore all this and usually speak only in dichotomies- freedom OR coercion, the 'state' OR 'the market,' 'individualism' OR 'collectivism.' In other words, intellectual twaddle. Sometimes they are on the right side, especially regarding civil liberties, but about as often they are on the wrong side, and their approach to solving our problems would make a great many of them far worse.

When the libertarian oriented movie "Thrive" came out I was asked to contribute an essay critical of libertarianism to a book of essays produced by the Praxis Peace Institute located in Sonoma. My piece is the only one by a former libertarian, and I take the ideology apart from within, using their most revered principles and scholars to show they literally do not understand the meaning of the words they use. Many libertarians have told me they are writing a counter critique. Promises promises. It's a short essay, I sent out many copies well over a year ago, and the book itself has been out for over a year. The silence is eloquent given their love of engaging in public debate. The essay is a below-the-water-line torpedo to libertarian orthodoxy and sunk ships don't float.

European style libertarians, such as Kropotkin, a wonderful man, are far less impacted by my criticism than is the American capitalist form. But even they have not solved some of the problems that we seem to need democratic government to handle. The issue is restoring and improving American democracy, not chasing off after a bankrupt ideology that strenuously avoids confronting the issues of our time.

In case a libertarian feels up to the effort and is reading this post, check out my essay "Turning the Tables: the pathologies and unrealized promise of libertarianism." It is in Georgia Kelly, ed., Uncivil Liberties: Deconstructing Libertarianism. The book is not expensive and I have a few copies I'll sell at a discount.

[Gus diZerega]

Kropotkin was an anarchist. More than a few right wing libertarians called themselves "anarcho-capitalists" and held that competitive private security firms and courts could take over the job of the police. Murray Rothbard was one and used that term constantly. So, as I remember, did Milton Friedman's son, David. As I remember from talking with him, Max Borders is or comes close to that position. Peter Boettke at George Mason Univ was one for many years and may still be. In his youth Charles Koch was one. In my first years in college I was a follower of Rothbard and the term was used throughout the libertarian movement of the 60s. The less inflammatory term was "autarchist," which meant the same thing.

In Europe the term "libertarian" was used for some anarchists of a more left wing persuasion, such as Kropotkin. In this country there are those who call themselves "left libertarians" who think the market alone can order society once the worst aspects of the capitalist alliance between business and government has been abolished. In this respect they are quite different from the left libertarian/anarchists of Europe who generally dislike private property and the market.

There is a major difference in the meanings of many basic political terms in Europe as compared to the US, so using them interchangeably is often a source of confusion. This point also includes "left," "right," "liberal," and "conservative."

Finally we get so-called libertarians who are basically Republicans who smoke pot.

To my mind trying to figure out who is the 'real' libertarian or 'real' anarchist is a lot like trying to figure out who the 'real Christian' is. A waste of time. Just be sure you make the context and the content of the term clear.

kropotkin was an anarchist, not a libertarian. to simplify the difference, libertarians want government authority, to enforce property law and national borders. anarchists believe we can cooperate and peacefully thrive without this. this is a question of human nature. as a practical anarchist, i can participate in the present reality while believing we can do better, we can appreciate our humanity without authoritarian rule. what choice brings this closer?