Archive for the ‘Libertarians’ Category

On “The American View,” Ron Paul hems and haws a bit about whether homosexuality is a “sin.” Sigh ….

Read Full Post »

My super hero name would have something to do with protecting inanimate objects from being banned. I am protector of all things loose, digusting, and uncared for. So when I read about a V-Chip for a cell phone, it looked like I was going to have to get back in to fighting shape.

Here’s a bit from Slash Dot on a V-Chip for everything.

“The Senate Commerce Committee has stepped in and approved a legislation asking the Federal Communications Commission to ‘oversee the development of a super V-chip that could screen content on everything from cell phones to the Internet.’ Since the content viewed by children is no longer restricted to TV or radio Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., the sponsor of the Child Safe Viewing Act, feels that the new law is necessary. ‘The bill requires the FCC to review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, TV makers are required to embed the V-chip within televisions to allow parents to block content according to a rating system.'”

I read about this early this week from a daily trade e-newsletter I subscribe to. I meant to post it early, just to gage what the consensus is. When are we protecting youth and when we are going to far? What is too far?

Read Full Post »

Note – Elyzabethe is on vacation for the next few days and will be spending that time sipping 40s out of brown paper bags and sitting on various porches in Ohio. What else is there to do in Ohio?

Last week Professor of Law and Economics at the University of Pennsylvania Law School published an essay about the rise and fall of unions in the Think Tank Town portion of the WaPo online. In short, he observes that unions were a creature of the “corporatist-regulated” economy and were declining precisely because we are moving away from that type of economy and towards more unregulated markets.

Unions still bargain for a fair wage, but antitrust or industrial regulation no longer provides for above-competitive prices to pay those above-market wages. The unraveling of the coherent corporatist theory, a theory combining corporate, labor and antitrust elements, leaves unions alone. Unions are a corporatist institution; they do not prosper in a competitive economy. If my analysis is correct, then no change in labor law or labor market policies, absent changes in overall industrial policy, will allow unions to become the mass movement they were in 1945.

One of the weak points of the essay, in my opinion, is the rather passive construction of Wachter’s analysis. He does point out that without government intervention, most specifically the National Labor Relations Act, unions would not have flourished as they did. But rather than point to a number of agents which precipitated a change away from unions, he rather lamely suggests that people simply decided that free competition in the marketplace was best for society and an incidental element of that change resulted in the decline of unions.

As Eric Nilsson points out at the Heterodox Economist, an “agentless” process did not undermine unions. “U.S. businesses did.” I agree with Nilsson that the effect of this passive construction of Wachter’s argument implies that the whole process was inevitable and even desirable.

Wachter’s overall point that unions may not ever rise to the level of prominence as they once did might be true. But there are huge historical and political forces being glossed over here.

Perhaps the single most powerful political force in U.S. politics from the 1940s through the next four decades was anti-communism. And the push against communism cannot be understood without the context of the Great Depression and World War II.

Without progressive labor laws, entitlement programs, and the ensuing creation of the middle class, we would never have made it out of the Great Depression. Without large corporations, it would be have been insanely difficult to mobilize a war economy to fight World War II. These two factors working together created a huge middle class and entitlement programs which have had the effect of tempering the boom and busts of the normal economic cycle.

After the memory of the Great Depression began to fade and after the war was over, anti-communism began to seep into the public consciousness. The Soviet Union became the Other, the bad guys, the barbarians at the gate trying to infiltrate our way of life. All of our public policies slowly began to be seen in that light. Which opened the door for big business to fight back against the unions and label them as bad for America because of the theory of unions was antithetical to the American way of life.

To say that people simply saw the wisdom in unregulated markets is to make it sound like we all got together, weighed the theoretical models and chose one. The choice of unregulated markets cannot be divorced from the anti-communism that affected everything in our national discourse for at least forty years.

Read Full Post »

I was kind of excited when I saw this headline in The Washington Times today:

Libertarian ranks on rise; party lures ‘disillusioned’

I would be more excited if the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee was not the only person quoted in the article or predicting this alleged rise.

Read Full Post »

Keep reading — this post is not as self-indulgent as the title may lead you to believe, I swear!

One of my favorite libertarian button/bumper-sticker slogans is, “Libertarians: Pro-Choice on everything.” Libertarians, as a whole, like choice. Know who else likes choice? Feminists. In fact, “choice” forms the basis for a lot rhetoric for both groups. So, you know … why do so many people seem to feel that libertarian philosophy and feminist philosophy are completely incompatible?

On Friday night, I was told by a libertarian friend that feminism is, at best, too laden with misconceptions and connotations to be useful as a word/movement and, at worst, a bunch of stupid whiny women who think women are superior to men and want special rights because of it.

On Saturday, I was told (or read a blog comment , rather) that while feminist libertarians might very well exist, we should probably give up on the term “libertarian” because it is too laden with negative connotations.

Besides thinking that if one more person tries to tell me how I should or should not define myself I may punch them in the face (or at least write a very angry blog post about it!), my mind has also been reeling the past two days with the parallels between these two statements and the arguments surrounding them.

Tonie Nathan
Tonie Nathan, co-founder of the Association of Libertarian Feminists, is the first woman to have recieved an electoral vote in a U.S. presidential election.

In the argument Friday, one of my friends argued that, basically, feminism was a stupid word, in that nobody could identify with it anymore because it had been too tainted by 1960s feminists. I can at least stomach the argument that feminism, as a word/movement, cannot be reclaimed from all of the negative stereotypes associated with it, although I disagree with this sentiment. But I was also told, by my libertarian friend, that not only was the word feminism stupid, but the concept of feminism and people who call themselves feminists are stupid. Feminists hate stay-at-home moms, I was told. Feminists want all women to be 80s-style-shoulder-padded-career-women, I was told. Feminists all think that women are somehow inherently better people than men, and that women should now take their rightful place running things because girls rule and boys drool, or something like that. Feminists need to stop whining so much about pay equity, because all they really want is for the government to step in and fix everything for them. It was every straw-feminist myth, one right after another. Have you ever really read any modern feminist writers? I asked. No, my friend said. But she had “talked to some feminists,” and she knew what it was all about.

The libertarian argument at Pandagon started in response to a “libertarian bingo card” that Amanda Marcotte posted (that had originally been made/posted by sabotabby at punkassblog), with descriptions of common libertarian stereotypes on every square. The card itself I found amusing (especially “Take the World’s Smallest Political Quiz!”). But the comments thread really kind of annoyed me. Libertarians are all misogynist white males, people said. Libertarians are just all rich and selfish and don’t want to share their money, people said. Libertarians always vote for Bush and conservative Republicans. Libertarians reap the benefits of things like public roads and local policemen but don’t want to pay for them. Libertarians are all gun-toting nutjobs who can’t hold coherent or logical conversations. A lot of the commenters were frantically arguing against wildly inaccurate versions of libertarian political philosophy based on a conversation they’d had with some guy at the gun store or something they’d read some libertarian commenter say on a blog somewhere. I’m not talking about all the commenters (or Amanda or sabotabby), obviously, but it seemed most had never read any classical liberal writing or any modern libertarian writers. But it didn’t matter. They just knew what it was all about.

In both cases, people were vehemently arguing against things they really knew fuck about. And it kind of pissed me off.

As I was reading Jessica Valenti’s fabulous new book, Full Frontal Feminism, yesterday, this one passage in particular made me sort of have an aha! moment. Jessica was railing against several states’ efforts to ban the sale of vibrators and other sex toys. Did you click on the link I just used to explain these bans?. It’s from libertarian magazine Reason. You see, you see the intersection of interests here? Neither feminists nor libertarians want the government to ban vibrators! Now that’s some common ground, right? And it doesn’t stop there!

Okay, okay, what I’m about to launch into is mostly an exercise in pointing out the obvious, and it’s not as if I didn’t think about any of this stuff at all until yesterday, but the whole sex toy business made me start trying to compile all the places where libertarian convictions and feminist convictions intersect. So here goes … (please note that while I refer to “libertarians” and “feminists” as some sort of homogenous groups, I realize that within each groups, people have various opinions; however, I’m just trying to talk about the most common positions).

Keep your laws off my body: one of feminism’s major causes is reproductive rights, the right of women to determine whether and when to be bear children, which includes (but is of course not limited too) having legal abortions. Libertarians, in general, are also pro-choice, believing the government doesn’t have the right to intrude and tell anyone what they can and can’t do with their body. So, see, here is a major point of agreement right here. (Conversely, I don’t know that feminists in general have any sort of consensus on things like markets in human organs, which tends to be a libertarian issue, but using the feminist logic that women should be trusted to make decisions concerning their own bodies, it would seem reasonable that feminists should also support the idea that all people should be trusted to make decisions concerning their own kidneys, and therefore support organ markets and the like. So, see, there! Two birds with one stone!).

Keep your religion out of my government: One of feminist’s major complaints is about the sorry-state of sex education in this country. Instead of learning about condoms, contraception, and STDs, teenagers are taught abstinence-only curriculum that espouse sexist ideals about purity and are often wrapped up in religious values. Libertarians are also not big fans of faith-based and abstinence only education in public schools, believing that religion has no place in taxpayer-funded public curriculum. Libertarians also aren’t big fans of religion trying to replace science in public-school curriculums, and rail against “intelligent design” and the like. Realizing it’s the same anti-sex fundies pushing ID and abstinence-only sex ed, most feminists aren’t too fond of anti-science curriculum either. Religious fundamentalism = common enemy for feminists and libertarians.

Fight for the right to buy dildos: As I mentioned above, both feminists and libertarians are against ridiculous attempts by state anti-sex conservatives to legislate morality by banning private businesses from selling things such as sex toys. Plus, in Jessica’s book she insists that feminists are better in bed. And, uh, according to a facebook group I just saw today, libertarians make better lovers. So, you know ….

Prostitution should be safe, legal, and rare: Or at least safe and legal. Feminists recognize that strippers, prostitutes, porn workers, etc., are not somehow less human because they work in the “sex industry,” and shouldn’t be treated with any less dignity and rights. While feminists will argue whether these industries will always ultimately hurt women, believe they empower women, or just realize that sometimes they’re the best option women have under their particular circumstances, feminists want to make sure that women working in the “sex industry” are able to do so safely, and without unnecessary punishment or harassment. Again, libertarians are against the government trying to legislate morality, and intruding on private business, so tend to oppose government attempts to shut down strip clubs and the like. And libertarians believe that it is the black market that makes things such as prostitution so dangerous, but that if it were legal, it could be monitored and therefore safer for all parties involved.

Sexuality should not be a basis for denying rights: Feminists support gays’ right to marry just like any hetero couple. So do libertarians, for the most part. Some libertarians will argue that the government should stay out of marriage all together, that it should be up to religions. Which is fine. I don’t think anyone’s really arguing that the government should mandate that the Baptist church marry gays in a Baptist ceremony. But a justice of the peace, without any religion involved, can marry hetero couples and gays should enjoy the same civil right; I think most libertarians agree. Plus, both libertarians and feminists think Bill O’Reilley’s “Roving-Lesbian-Gang” theory is ridiculous.

So there … for starters, that should give feminists and libertarians enough common ground, right? I think the most important thing is that underlying both philosophies is the rhetoric of choice. Feminists believe in choice. Libertarians believe in choice. Both believe that people – men and women – should be trusted to make their own choices; that we do not need legislators to tell us what to do or buy or think, who to marry, when to have kids, etc. And, sure, there will always be things that most feminists and most libertarians will disagree on. Health care is the big one that comes to mind. A lot of feminists (although by far not all) believe in “universal” health care (and child care), which is anathema to most libertarians. So, yeah, that’s a point of contention. But health care is in no way CENTRAL to either belief, and in light of all the areas where libertarians and feminists agree, I don’t think this disagreement over health care should be the basis to claim that there is no common ground.

P.S. I’ve been talking as if you have to be one or the other, but just for the sake of hashing out group identities. There are plenty of people out there now, I know, who are down with both libertarianism and feminism already.

P.P.S. Apparently, there is an Association of Libertarian Feminists. Who desperately need a Web site not created in 1996. But still worth checking out.

P.P.P.S. I would probably be remiss to not point out that there is (and has for some time been) a fair amount of academic discussion of all this, some of which is synthesized here.

Read Full Post »

According to Mother Jones open-source politics issue, the median political blog reader is a 43-year-old man with a household income of $80,000 and 75 percent of political blog readers are male.

Seventy-five percent of the total political blogosphere audience is male? Because a good portion of the blogs I frequent are feminist blogs written by women and full of women readers and commenters, I guess I was just sort of surprised by these statistics (do you think they are counting feminist blogs as “political blogs?” or what about “mom blogs” that are partially about parenting but also about social issues and politics?).

I was also sort of surprised by the median age … most blog readers and writers I know are in their 20s. Interesting but not exactly suprising? 98 percent of Daily Kos readers and 87 percent of YouTube users are white.

Blogads has its own stats, which are roughly similar on the gender and age thing. Their stats are also broken down by political blog readers of various partisan persuasions. Of the Democrats who read political blogs, 66 percent were male; of Republicans, 81 percent were male; of Libertarians, 88 percent.

So ….

1. Why aren’t women reading political blogs?

2. OR, are women reading political blogs, but just not the sort that are being lumped into this “political blog” category? (I noticed that in the categories Blogads uses to lump blogs together into “hives” for ad sales, Feministing and Pandagon are both listed under “women’s issues” or something like that, although Pandagon is also listed under “liberal blogs”).

3. Why are libertarian blogs in particular so predominantly male?

Read Full Post »

Let’s talk about Paternalism for a moment.  This has been on my mind for a couple of days, triggered by a TV commercial regarding Ohio’s seatbelt law.  Now, most people agree that wearing seatbelts in cars is good and people want to be safe while they are driving, but look at the big picture here.  Why is there a law requiring it?  The government is trying to make all of our decisions for us because obviously we aren’t smart enough to make them for ourselves.

And this is happening everywhere.  With drug laws, laws regarding suicide, smoking, alcohol, pornography, and the reasons are all the same; the government is “trying to keep us safe.”  Safe from what?  From ourselves?  I think most people would agree that we are more capable than the government of making decisions about our personal safety.

I think it’s time for our teenage nation to stand up and fight for the right to decide for ourselves what is safe and what isn’t.  Maybe we’ll get hurt, maybe we’ll make mistakes, but dammit, they’ll be our mistakes!

Read Full Post »

I’ve been having a lot of frustrating conversations about libertarianism this week. First — and I suppose this isn’t really a conversation, per se, but whatever — a commenter told me:

You have to understand libertarian mind set. They feel like nothing should be changed by force. Abortion is changing the outcome of an event by force.

Um, nice try, but ….. ? Libertarians don’t feel like things should be a matter of government force, sure. But unless George Bush is going around personally reaching up your vagina and swatting at your unborn child with a knife, then the issue really has nothing to do with government force. The government isn’t mandating anybody get an abortion. Most libertarians I’ve ever met are pro-choice. There are some libertarian arguments against abortion (if you believe a fetus has natural rights, for instance) or against Roe v. Wade (if you believe it should be a state issue instead of a federal one), but “changing the outcome of an event by force” has nothing to do with it.

I don’t mean to sound like I have any right to say what is a “proper” libertarian position and what is not. I’m actually a pretty terrible libertarian; for all accounts and purposes I should describe myself as a libertarian-leaning democrat or a democratic leaning libertarian or something like that, but that’s a lot to say. Regardless, though, I can tell you when something most definitely IS NOT a libertarian position, including most of what people have been trying to argue with me are “true” libertarian positions this week.

A person I was talking to a few days ago tried to tell me that banning smoking and trans fat is good because to not do so would infringe on a person’s choice not to pay someone’s health care costs if they smoke or eat trans fats, and therefore banning these things was somehow a “true” libertarian position, or something like that. I couldn’t quite wrap my mind around in what universe this made any sense.

He then brought up traffic lights.

I swear to god, to hear people talk sometimes you’d think all libertarians really did was go around talking about traffic lights. Don’t libertarians think we should get rid of all traffic lights then? No! No, we don’t! I’m not even going to elaborate further, just please no one ever again talk to me about libertarians and traffic lights.

A friend I was IM-ing with about this said he’d been asked about whether or not libertarians think the state should intervene if a parent is constantly beating their child and locking it in a closet. My professor asked me if a libertarian would think the government should intervene if a corporation was dumping horrible toxic chemicals into the public water supply.

Answer to both: yes, of course, OBVIOUSLY.

When I mumbled something to the arguee about the “public good” and the harm principle, he had an “Aha!” moment, like he’d caught me. “Ahhhh, I see, there’s a loophole, is there?” Sure, there’s a loophole, if that’s what you want to call it. I’d probably call it, you know, one of the basic tenets of classical liberalism, but whatever. Libertarians do think that the government should be able to intervene when a private actor is harming someone in a manner that deprives them of their life, liberty or property. It’s a crazy little loophole dating back to, oh, Thomas Jefferson.

This ties into something else I was IMing about (which Julian has already written about over at his blog) but the fact that people have started referring to matters of civil liberties and individual rights as “libertarian” positions, which is somewhat frightening. These aren’t libertarian positions, they’re American positions. They’re democratic positions. They’re positions this damn country was founded on, yo.

** because I have too much time on my hands right now, what with this 3-week break I have between the end of last semester and starting my summer internship, and no cable.

ADDENDUM: So I have my iTunes on completely random right now, and I was typing this, “Against the Law,” by Billy Bragg & Wilco came on. Ha!

Read Full Post »

He’s all about “personal liberty,” but on his Web site, just a few paragraphs under “Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital,” it makes a point to note that he is anti-choice on abortion. Leading advocate for freedom and personal liberty, except where women are concerned?

And for some reason, in all the Ron Paul frenzy lately, I haven’t really seen anyone bringing this up ….

Read Full Post »

Ilyka’s got this great post at Pandagon about the preponderance of “experts” on the Internet who pop up in the wake of things like the Virginia Tech shootings or the Supreme Court abortion decision recently to tell you that THEY KNOW exactly why things happened or why things are good or bad or etc. etc. etc. Mostly an enjoyable post all around …. except — and I’m going to nitpick here — for this sentence:

It’s been made especially plain throughout April that the most insulting thing you can tell a fundie, a men’s rights activist, a libertarian, a pro-life absolutist, or a bigot, is simply “You don’t know.”

Awwwww, man. Really? You’re gonna lump us with the fundies and the bigots and the men’s rights activists?

I see this crop up from time to time on blogs like Pandagon (which is, like, one of my favorite blogs in the whole wide blogosphere, so I mean no disdain), or in a recent City Paper article about the madman shooter from the fall at Virginia Tech, or in reviews of action movies that use the word “libertarian” to describe crazies who blow up a lot of stuff ….

I know a lot of smart and well-reasoned and not-crazy libertarians, including: me, Raee, my ex-boyfriend/roommate, my ex-boyfriend/roomate’s ex-roomate’s boyfriend, a Christian hippie we use to do theater with, Raee’s brother, and my dad, not to mention all the friends and other people I’ve met at specifically libertarian-oriented events and all the “professional libertarians” I know.

And most of these people — like, 98% — are very intelligent, thoughtful, rational, open-minded human beings who have never honestly advocated anarchy or completely abolishing income taxes or whatever it is that people think libertarians do. They do not live in mountain-side huts hoarding guns and plotting the overthrow of the government. They are not just apologetic Republicans who want to be able to smoke pot. And they don’t go around talking about Ayn Rand all the time (another thing you hear about libertarians ALL THE FUCKING TIME from non-libertarians). (Now would not be the time to bring up that I went to an Ayn Rand Super-Double-Objectivist Monster Truck birthday party a few months ago).

In fact, I have only once met any of Those Sort of libertarians in person, ever, at a Reason Magazine happy hour, although they are the sorts you frequently find commenting on Reason’s blog (which is why I generally don’t bother with the comments section there — smart writers, stupid smarmy commenters) or at Protein Wisdom and such.

So I’m not saying that Those Sorts of libertarians don’t exist. But liberals have hippies, okay? And feminists have Maureen Dowd, remember? So sometimes libertarians have crazy apologetic-Republican-smarmy-douchebags, sure. But mostly not. I swear.

Read Full Post »

Salon interview today about Ex-Republican Bob Barr, who formally joined the Libertarian National Committee as a regional representative in Dec. 2006. According to the interview, two weeks ago, Barr and several others founded a civil-liberties-protection group, the American Freedom Agenda, and last week, Barr (who apparently was once an anti-drug crusader in Congress) announced he’s going to join the Marijuana Policy Project as a lobbyist. Barr:

… the real goal for the Libertarian Party in my view — I certainly don’t speak for it — needs to be to take that core philosophy and do a top-notch job of explaining it to the American people, and to impress on the American people the value of having a third party that is a true, workable alternative. [It needs to] work to identify, recruit and support good candidates for elective office at all levels, to work to open up the political and electoral process in this country so there are ways for a third party to truly become a player in that process and to articulate its philosophy in ways that appeal to and are relevant to the average voter, the average family out there. And certainly the libertarian philosophy of reduced regulatory burden, reduced tax burden, much smaller government and so forth, I think, will resonate very well with the American people.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

So yes, I’ll admit it. I am not an Obama flag waving 20 something. Nor am I a bra burning Hillary addict. They are both way to liberal for my small pocketbook and both like to infringe on my ever decreasing personal rights.
But yes, Mom, what about the others? Two major news makers and not much for the others. I’ll be honest here, I have hadn’t the proper time to indulge in presidential election. The bit I’ve done, I kinda like Bill Richardson. He has the experience and seems a little less far leaning. Plus, he’ll be the first Hispanic president! (sarcasm should be noted).

I’m just hoping for the day pre-elections campaigns will be announced before the results.

Aw shucks.

Read Full Post »

Jeff Taylor at hit-and-run joining the mounting snark over jon edwards hiring amanda marcotte as blogmaster comments on one of amanda’s duke-rape-case posts with this:

…. interesting in the same way that ramblings about CIA radio transmitters in your teeth are interesting — as a marker for raving moon-bats.

moon-bats? i know and have grudgingly come to accept that some libertarians have their heads really far shoved up neo-cons asses and all, but let’s please not start appropriating malkin-speak.

Read Full Post »

And there goes any hope for me ever voting for a Democratic candidate. At least there is one bright light . It’s really going to come down to what I deem the important issues of 2008.

Read Full Post »

In doing some lexis-nexis research on a completely unrelated topic, I came across this November op-ed from Bill Mayer in the Boston Globe, “A re-look-see at the Constitution.” Maybe I just like any mention of pirates, but I found it pretty damn funny:

There’s no out-of-the-box thinking in this country. If we were really looking for a new direction, we’d not just change Congress, we’d have another Constitutional Convention, as Jefferson suggested we do. Jefferson said: “Let us provide in our Constitution for its revision… every 19 or 20 years… so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation.” He himself was saying, “I’m a bright guy, but even I can’t foresee the iPod.” Or the assault rifle.

And I know traditionalists are saying, “But Bill, it’s a sacred document!” Please, it’s full of crap about pirates, for God’s sake. And I don’t mean the kind that copies Justin Timberlake CDs. I mean peglegs and parrots. “The
founders were so brilliant.” Yes, they were: the proof being, the government they designed keeps functioning even with cement-head doofuses like you in it.

Listen to Jefferson – he was saying, “We’re smart guys, we’re not Nostradamus.” We deal with things today no founding father could have imagined – the Internet, global warming. Toilet paper, instead of bark. If Ben Franklin got beamed in to visit us today, the first thing he’d say is, “For 17 dollars, I get porn on my TV all day? How can the hotel afford that?” And then he’d say, “You’re still using the old Constitution that we told you to revise? That’s so nuts hemp must still be legal.”

Read Full Post »

New Republic tells libertarians to fuck off

I don’t blame libertarians for wanting more than the lesser of two evils. But, when your beliefs are wildly unpopular, supporting the lesser of two evils is about the best you can expect.


Read Full Post »

At the risk of further contributing to a debate I’ve recently come to hate, I can’t help but muse on the whole recent “liberaltarian” conundrum. It’s an issue I feel like I’ve been reading incessantly about since David Boaz at Cato published “The Libertarian Vote” in October, and with Brink Lindsey’s coining of a term, “liberaltarianism,” the issue has tipped into downright blogosphere frenzy, with every good libertarian blogger and commenter wonking off about it.

Democrats and Libertarians will now hold hands and skip through fields of legalized marijuana while it rains civil liberties!

A Democrat and Libertarian alliance will make Milton Friedman weep acid rain over the Beltway!

And so on and so forth ….

I think James Markels at AFF got to the crux of the matter in his commentary today about “purity-test libertarianism,” which he described as “the insufferable way that libertarians squabble amongst themselves to prove who is more consistent or pure in their ideology.”

There’s been a lot of this going on lately, and particularly vitriolic were some of the responses to David Weigel’s post about a Libertarian/Democrat alliance over on Reason Magazine’s blog. The mere suggestion that a Dem-Lib alliance might not be the Worst Thing Ever got Weigel accused of being a “Democratic shill” unworthy of deigning to call himself a libertarian …

I know that the Republican Party has traditionally been the institutionalized home of small-L libertarian voters, but it makes me cringe to see the more liberal-leaning libertarians berated and out-ideologized by smarmier-than-thou purity test libertarians.

The Republican Party has “security moms” and Christian fundamentalists and good old boys and Reaganites; the Democrats claim middle-class populists and lofty hippies and upper-crusty intellectuals. The point being, each party encompasses a range of individuals and groups with various social, political and economic agendas. So why can’t libertarians, as a group, agree to do the same?

I think it can be boiled down to an argument I was having with a friend of mine while drinking beer in the mall a few weeks back. We were discussing the issue of gay marriage, and he just didn’t understand why it seemed so important to me. He supported gays’ right to marry, but a politician’s views on this issue just didn’t really matter that much to him, and the same with several other social policies. He was going to vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates possible, regardless of anything else. I, on the other hand, am much more concerned with social and civil issues, and no amount of amazing tax policy could ever make me vote for a candidate that was anti-homosexual, anti-choice, etc. I’m a libertarian because I believe the government should stay out of our living rooms and bedrooms. He’s a libertarian mostly because he thinks the government should stay out of our wallets.

There’s a place for both positions within the libertarian label. At the core, social libertarians and economic libertarians share the underlying belief that the government should, in general, leave us alone. In a perfect world, I would support the entire range of libertarian positions, economic and social, but when forced to choose between the two, my priority is social policy, which means I’m always going to skew Democrat. If your priority is economic, you’re going to skew Republican. It’s as simple as that.

In-fighting amongst libertarians about who’s too-Democrat or too-Republican isn’t going to help anything. The PTLs may vote a straight-libertarian ticket (or not vote at all), but most of us are going to have to choose between two separate-but-equal enemies when voting. And that’s okay.

Read Full Post »