The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Buy the Book

Freedom Is on the March

By from the September 2011 issue

Agreeing and disagreeing with Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch.

The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America
By Nick Gillespie & Matt Welch
(Public Affairs, 288 pages, $25.99)

In case you need any further evidence that Washington, D.C. is not a normal city, let me supply just one example: In the nation’s capital, young people attend political panel discussions at night — albeit panel discussions at which alcoholic beverages are served — voluntarily for their own entertainment. Six years ago, I was a speaker on such a panel, pondering whether the “marriage” between conservatism and libertarianism could be saved.

One of my sparring partners was the great Leather Jacket of Liberty and Fonzie of Free Markets, Reason editor Nick Gillespie. During the course of the evening, Gillespie acknowledged that government was getting bigger and more powerful all the time. Nevertheless, he claimed libertarianism was advancing. How did he reconcile these two seemingly contradictory observations?

Gillespie claimed that liberty — and therefore libertarianism — has as much to do with tolerance and pluralism as hacking away at the state. One of his examples of how Americans are freer than in 1970 was the greater ability of unmarried people to check into hotel rooms together. “Afterward, I wondered what the hell that had to do with libertarianism,” the Cato Institute’s Gene Healy (our moderator) later recalled, “and a friend cracked that I must have skipped the part about hot-pillow joints in Locke’s Second Treatise.”

This idiosyncratic view of libertarianism pops up throughout the book Gillespie has co-authored with fellow Reason editor Matt Welch, The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America. If you find it odd that the two men who run the country’s best and most influential libertarian magazine don’t think our freedom is necessarily measured by the size of the federal budget, you are not alone. But there is something to be said for the Gillespie-Welch way of looking at things.

Even the most avid political junkie must admit that the most important things in life have nothing to do with politics or government. Faith, family, friendships, the songs you know by heart — these are the things that make life worth living. Yet they are also all things that government and politics can destroy if allowed to spin out of control. This realization is the key to rejecting statism and embracing what Welch and Gillespie call “libertarian politics.”

Accordingly, The Declaration of Independents details the major social and technological innovations that have increased personal choice. (In a section of their book, the authors describe this process as “the democratization of everything.”) The major thing that stands in the way of an air-conditioned, Facebooking, craft beer-drinking, 401(k)-using individual from realizing even more freedom is a government that spends too much, regulates too much, goes to war too much, and — as a result of all these things — is about to go completely broke.

“[L]ibertarianism is about a default preference for the freedom to peaceably pursue happiness as we define it without interference from government,” the authors write by way of definition. “It’s the belief that the burden of proof should rest not on the individual who wants to sell lemonade, paint his or her house purple, hop on an airplane, ingest intoxicants, or marry someone from the same sex…but on any government seeking to thwart or control such victimless activities.”

A presumption in favor of the individual rather than the government would indeed be a major improvement over the political class’s incessant need to Do Something — no matter how poorly conceived or even destructive — in the face of any problem, real or imagined. Indeed, Gillespie and Welch are frequently on target when it comes to the big picture.

Free markets already do so many things that improve people’s lives that we ought to be relying on them more, not less, in areas like health care and education. The public sector’s deepening insolvency can only really be solved by limiting what government does. Politics can be “corrosive to a person’s constitution (to say nothing of our nation’s Constitution).” The differences between big-spending bailout machine George W. Bush and bigger-spending bailout booster Barack Obama are not as great as Fox News or MSNBC might have you believe.

BEYOND THAT, the devil is in the details. To usher in a more libertarian era, Welch and Gillespie appear to be relying on two things: independent voters who hate partisan politics and a Marxian withering away of the state courtesy of the “folks who created everything from the Pill, to venti macchiatos, to Wikipedia.”

Independents have swung so massively in just the past three election cycles one would hesitate to draw any broad conclusions about their politics. In 2006, 57 percent voted for Democratic House candidates. Two years later, they went for Obama by an eight-point margin. Come 2010, 55 percent of independents voted for Republican House candidates. That’s a more than 30-point shift in just four years.

Gillespie and Welch recognize how volatile independents have become, but don’t really explain how their apparent contempt for the two parties will yield libertarian results. Independents threw out a big-spending Republican Congress only to elect a bigger-spending Democratic one. They cast ballots for the people who gave us Obamacare and then voted in the Republicans who pledged to repeal Obamacare, only to be among the first to head for the exits when those Republicans made even semi-serious noises about cutting Medicare. Meanwhile, many independents dislike partisanship because they believe bickering Democrats and Republicans cause the government to do too little, not too much.

Alternatively, Welch and Gillespie cite data from David Boaz and David Kirby suggesting that 14 percent of voters are small-l libertarians and another 59 percent are libertarian-leaners. But according to Boaz and Kirby’s numbers, these libertarians gave plurality support to George W. Bush in 2004, majority support to John McCain, and manifested themselves as swing voters primarily by giving 15–16 percent of the vote to John Kerry and Barack Obama. These may be the four least libertarian presidential candidates imaginable.

Libertarians might reasonably quibble over whether it is better to vote for a Republican who supports Social Security privatization but also favors the Patriot Act or a Democrat who is anti-privatization but also anti-Patriot Act. But what’s so libertarian about voting for an anti-privatization, pro-Patriot Act Democrat?

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (42) |

Kenny| 9.6.11 @ 7:05AM

"Gillespie acknowledged that government was getting bigger and more powerful all the time. Nevertheless, he claimed libertarianism was advancing.

"Gillespie claimed that liberty -- and therefore libertarianism -- has as much to do with tolerance .."

Really? Tolerance, huh.

You see, much of energy of libertarianism has left the fight for smaller government and has become libertine in nature. Many libertarians seek pleasure and like the fact that big government is forcing 'tolerance' for homosexuals and the like.

Alan Brooks| 9.6.11 @ 11:30AM

"I must have skipped the part about hot-pillow joints in Locke's Second Treatise."

First Commandment:
1) Thou shalt go hot tubbing

Petronius| 9.6.11 @ 9:22AM

Freedom? Freedom for who? Freedom for who ever writes the biggest campaign checks for Senators and for the aggrieved parties most favored by Supreme Court Justices, that's who. So called "Libertarians" are Roob voters. They all juxtapose candidates positions on issue with their own prejudices and pet hates like Liberals and the dwindling knuckle draggers who got kicked out of the Democrat Party back in'72. The only conclusion one can make from this is that there is no unifying definition of who is truly a Libertarian. They should all ask P. J. O'Rourk after reading the Liberty Manifesto. If they can get past the bit about taking the consequences for practicing what ever hazardous activity they wish to indulge in sans "safety nets" or mommy government being obliged to kiss it and make it better after Darwin pronounces any painful results, they just might qualify. Are you Foxworthy?
If you believe entitlement programs should not exist for the public as a whole, you might be a Libertarian.
If you believe you have the right to shoot off large fireworks during a drought and are willing to put out any fire you start as a result, you might be a Libertarian.
If you do not join, and vigorously oppose movements seeking prohibition of products or activities because you don't like them, you might be a Libertarian.
If you believe that what you earn is yours and that you neither owe anything to anyone else and vice versa, you are a Libertarian.
If you believe you have the right to do anything which does not clearly harm another person, you are a Libertarian.
If your goal in life is the accumulation of enough wealth to become truly independent, You are a Real Libertarian. The Federal Government views you as an entity to be subjugated. It has already made that goal unreachable for the average American.

Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:39PM

When I lived in Las Cruces, most of the firework setters were NOT willing to put out the fires that they created. And some of my belongings were irreplaceable.

For Libertarianism to function well, men must be well behaved. They aren't. That's why I'm a Conservative.

Petronius| 9.6.11 @ 5:59PM

Nuff said.

RCV| 9.6.11 @ 10:11PM

It's why most Libertarian scenarios don't pan out in real life: everyone's house burns down because many people chose to buy that big screen tv instead of contributing to the voluntary fire department; children continue to be exploited in factories because "the market" doesn't eliminate child labor on it's own; that entire fifth grade class dies of e Coli poisoning because one unscrupulous beef dealer decides to sell that last pound of old uninfected meat.

Libertarians never took that course on normal human behavior.

RCV| 9.6.11 @ 10:12PM

"uninspected"

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 10:44AM

"One of his examples of how Americans are freer than in 1970 was the greater ability of unmarried people to check into hotel rooms together."

This is all I need to know about today's hipster Libertarians and it pretty much sums it up.
Ridiculous, sophmoric, and self centered.

KennesawJack| 9.6.11 @ 10:56AM

At the end of the day, it really isn't rocket science. It's still (and always will be), "He governs best, who governs least."

Joe D.| 9.6.11 @ 11:07AM

"It's the belief that the burden of proof should rest not on the individual who wants to sell lemonade, paint his or her house purple, hop on an airplane, ingest intoxicants, or marry someone from the same sex…but on any government seeking to thwart or control such victimless activities." - All of these activities are not victimless
Example - homosexual preversion of marriage is hurting marriage in Europe already. It is bad for kids and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with this preversions.
Drinking to excess while driving kills and mames. Doing at parties can and does hurt others.
I could go on. But you should get the point.

Vern Crisler | 9.6.11 @ 12:07PM

I think that's what distinguishes conservatives from libertarians. That latter absolutize the free market so much that it results in moral anarchism. Conservatives, on the other hand, see the free market as limited by moral restraint and natural law considerations. In other words, they don't see the free market as an end in itself -- man does not live by bread alone -- but merely as the best means to achieving a more prosperous society.

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 1:05PM

Man does not live by bread alone nor is he an island unto himself.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.6.11 @ 11:34AM

Liberalterians are only a step above Blue Lapdog Democrats. Good to see Antle hasn't lost his interest in anti-conservatives the world is still revolving around the sun.

Clint| 9.6.11 @ 2:17PM

Bullshit, Little Micky RINO.

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

Seek| 9.6.11 @ 3:47PM

Libertarianism is a necessary, albeit flawed attempt to decouple the American Right from cultural authoritarianism. For that reason alone, it deserves at least some applause.

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 4:35PM

Clint, do not want to correct troll, Seek.

(Crickets)

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 1:08PM

For those interested in knowing the differences between democrat liberals and republicans(establishment types). Found this article very illuminating.

http://www.americanthinker.com.....crats.html

Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 1:46PM

We in the hinterlands prefer our Politics sober. That explains much.

aware| 9.6.11 @ 2:04PM

"....prefer our Politics sober."

At least being stoned would be a good excuse for the past 20 years worth of "elections".

Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:36PM

The Hinterlands are a small group in number. I'm sure Chicago, washington, NYC, and Valley Forge, PA Vote WhileStoned.

I do like Michael Tomlinson. Anyone who gets a Paulbot's little tin brain whirring into a smoking, screeching overdrive is in my good graces.

garth| 9.6.11 @ 1:57PM

"Which society would be more libertarians: one where the prudish innkeeper is free to ban unmarried couples from his hotel rooms or one where such insidious discrimination is illegal?"The ignorance of libertarian ideas seems intentional.  What do you not understand about liberty?  This prudish innkeeper has a right to his prejudice; no one has a right to force the innkeeper into letting everyone stay on his property.  THE PERSON TURNED AWAY CAN FIND ANOTHER INN TO SLEEP AT!  The other inns that do not discriminate will benefit from the other inn keepers prejudice.  The gay couples are not losing liberty because they do not have an inherent right to the use of the inn keeper’s property.  If you pass a law (physical coercion) against the inn keeper’s right to his own property THAT IS THE LOSS OF LIBERTY!  Like Milton Friedman (Libertarian) used to point out; there are only individuals motivations, not societal motivations.  You can see in the above example how you have let the beast in, and the politicization of this circumstance, when it can be resolved at the individual level.  IT’S NONE OF YOUR (the states) BUSINESS!I find it hard to believe the writer of this article doesn’t understand this.Also, libertarians ARE “fiscal conservatives” and “social liberals”, because both stand for the individual.Hard line conservatives should understand one thing.  For the same reason you despise the left for their encroachment on your economic liberty, is the same reason libertarians are turned off by conservatives.  No hard feelings.  We can disagree without the venom.  You’re attacking your allies in the current political environment.    

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 5:27PM

Garth,

I wish life was that simple as it is in the basement of Wayne's World.

See, here in reality on planet world, we live in a self governing Republic whereby the people decide what they find morally unacceptable and unlawful. These decisions on social matters are made on not made solely on the whims and motivations of a few individuals that bark the loudest.
The problem that we conservatives have with this new brand of big L liberatarianism is its extreme and unrealistic utopian interpretation with the concept of the individual and liberty. It does not come down to encroachment or non- encroachment on someones liberty or whether the individual's behaivor effect others or not.
Individuals do not live on islands and in most cases their behaivor and choices due effect the rest of us.
Take the drug legalization you that you often like to put up as as case example. You claim that substance abuse has no impact on others so therefore it should be legalized. It is an individual choice.

Really? Apparently, you seem to be unaware of the inability of junkies to hold a job, the crimes they commit to feed the habit, the untold destruction on families, property, and lives, loss of production and contribution in the workforce, and the welfare support they will inevitably need.

I would say that this is definitely effecting my liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

This is one example of many of the disturbing misconceptions that your group has about a host of social issues. You then want us to take you seriously?

No one is advocating an authoritarian state that arbitrarily decides for unfounded, political, and power reasons to force laws and restrictions on individual liberty. That's the Liberals.

We are advocating that the People decide how to handle such issues based on knowledge, experience, science, and the impact that individual choices have on the society as a whole.

Of course, these decisions and issues are not always so clear. It is sometimes difficult to weigh the encroachment of an individual's liberty against the needs and liberty of the rest of us, individuals.

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 5:56PM

Sorry about the typos and some misspellings.

garth| 9.6.11 @ 6:47PM

First of all this is a red herring, your argument is essentially a scare tactic.
I don't see how the legalization of certain illegal substances changes the behavior of those junkies you mentioned. All of the behavioral traits you listed exist currently.
- Only now 40000 people are dead in Mexico since 2006, because the drug cartels have become so economically fierce, they overpower the state.
- Every dollar from addicts goes to thugs, when it could go to pay down debt.
-Otherwise innocent people (who have never stolen) are criminalized.
It is sooo easy to forget the unseen, the "forgotten man". I see a lot of this "crazy" language thrown at libertarians.
You must remove your emotions from your rationality thinking mind. Stop your marginalizations; there are many great thinkers who would side with me. Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, William F. Buckley (later in life), Milton Friedman (later in life) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY. I am speaking on principle and you demonize. Your language is destructive to rational discussion. Your language reeks of the mysticism of the left.
Let me help your cause, the only argument you have is more people may do drugs because they are legal.

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 8:02PM

First of all this is a red herring, your argument is essentially a scare tactic.
- This is not a scare tactic. It is reality. It was used as an example to illustrate the fallacy in your philosophy about drugs and other social issues not impacting anyone and being an individual choice. Deal with it.

I don't see how the legalization of certain illegal substances changes the behavior of those junkies you mentioned. All of the behavioral traits you listed exist currently.
-It is not about changing the behavor of junkies via legalization or not. It is about the cost that these choices have on the rest of us and the sanctioning of such choices and the consequences.
I am perfectly ok with decriminalizing the use but not the sale as I see this more as a health issue than a criminal one. These people are sich and need help. But I am damn well not going to pay for their drugs. I will pay for their rehab.

Only now 40000 people are dead in Mexico since 2006, because the drug cartels have become so economically fierce, they overpower the state.
-So, this is an issue about Mexico and its corruption. If it were not drugs we would be fighting something else like whole scale invasion, illegals, terrorism...

Every dollar from addicts goes to thugs, when it could go to pay down debt.
-Wow. I do not even want to think of the incredible immorality of that statement. That says a lot about your frame of thinking about the sanctity of the individual. It really is about cost benefit ratios with you libertarians...

Otherwise innocent people (who have never stolen) are criminalized.
-Not sure what the hell that means. They will need to steal if it is legalized. Otherwise, the state pays for the drugs.

It is sooo easy to forget the unseen, the "forgotten man". I see a lot of this "crazy" language thrown at libertarians.You must remove your emotions from your rationality thinking mind.
-What? Are you smoking right now? Nonsensical.

Stop your marginalizations; there are many great thinkers who would side with me. Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, William F. Buckley (later in life), Milton Friedman (later in life) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY.
-So what? I can name a dozen great thinkers that agree with me. Are you in high school. That is a pretty odd thing to say for an adult.

I am speaking on principle and you demonize. Your language is destructive to rational discussion. Your language reeks of the mysticism of the left.
-I did not demonize you. I am speaking on principle as well. You beginning to sound like a liberal. Mysticism? Put down the joint.

Let me help your cause, the only argument you have is more people may do drugs because they are legal.
- Yeah, that is the point. I did not need your help on that one.

Occam's Tool| 9.6.11 @ 2:37PM

Social Liberalism does not necessarily stand for the individual. You don't know many Liberals, I see.

garth| 9.6.11 @ 5:07PM

I know it’s hard to grasp that today's Democrats do stand for social individuality, but if you are going to imply otherwise, please provide an example.
Also, I don't think you should call them "liberals" because your use of the word "liberal" is in the context they would prefer from you. They have succeeded in deforming our language.
I probably also agree with you that the statists in power are not truly concerned with the individual. They only appear socially liberal in order to demo gauge, and divide. They are only driven by the pursuit of power of their own power.
Liberty is the principle that isn’t contradicted in libertarianism, but is contradicted with conservatism. A conservative will reply that liberty must be sacrificed to maintain morality (thru physical coercion). I would submit that you cannot legislate morality; morality can only be discovered on the individual level.

Simon Templar| 9.6.11 @ 5:51PM

Ok, put the guitar down, and we will explain it to you.

Liberals could give a frick about individual liberty.

They fight tooth and nail to limit our rights to bear arms.

They interfere with our rights to freely express our religion.

They pass laws telling us what we can eat and what we can not eat.

They tell us what light bulbs we should use and outlaw the use of others.

They force us to buy health insurance and force us to pay for others including illegals.

They try to attempt to control our free speech and outlaw what they deem as wrong speech.

They force their views and morality on our children.

They restrict our businesses with never ending regulation.

They insist we pay for abortions with our tax dollars.

Does that help? Need more?

garth| 9.6.11 @ 6:58PM

I think we can both agree that the language we have been given is clouding our discussions. The word "liberal" is tainted.
I agree with everything you just wrote. I am "socially liberal". I am also "economically liberal", which is another way of saying "fiscally conservative". Fiscal conservative are interested in restoring individual economic liberty.
This is a definite misunderstanding. I am a liberal, libertarians are liberal, the word has been perverted. You are correct, the left, Democrats, are anything but liberal.

shipley130| 9.6.11 @ 4:12PM

Didn't the motels check to make sure you were married before you checked in? That is what Nick was talking about, I guess. So his statement that in some ways, we are more free, is correct. Libertarianism has nothing to do with morality, it's just a right to do what you want, as long as you don't directly injure someone else. Conservatives would argue that allowing unfettered immorality does harm others. One thing I know is true from all this is that the unfettered immorality has harmed this world.

garth| 9.6.11 @ 5:37PM

So we are "more free" because you have physically coerced hotel owners, who are now people that are less free (from the butt of a gun) to allow anyone into their hotel. I guess the people who wouldn't have been admitted, that are now admitted, are more free? You are implying affirmative housing is good for freedom, you must answer; at what expense? The expense is easy to disregard because it is unseen. I want to make it clear to you, that your argument has the exact same premise as the statist-left argument that Social Security makes people more free, but maybe you still believe SSI equals freedom. I would like to see your take on this.
This idea that individual morality is only realized from legislation (physical coercion), is a dangerous fallacy. Morality is only discovered individually, usually with family guidance, but never from the state. I submit to you that if the state stopped forcing morality there would be a greater degree of morality. The idea that people would be running wild thru the streets is a perverted lie. It assumes that man is unable to distinguish right from wrong without the state.

shipley130| 9.7.11 @ 12:21AM

Morality was coerced for much of America's history. Now look at it. People are running wild in the streets now. Their butt cracks hanging out, shooting heroine in the alleyway, etc. But I see your point about coercion of the motels to let anyone in their motel. I don't think anyone in the hotel business cares anymore, so it doesn't matter. As for SSI, I think it was wrong for the federal government to get involved in people's lives like that. You let me know what you think about all the consequences of immorality due to
the leftist choke hold.

garth| 9.6.11 @ 5:41PM

So we are "more free" because you have physically coerced hotel owners, who are now people that are less free (from the butt of a gun) to allow anyone into their hotel. I guess the people who wouldn't have been admitted, that are now admitted, are more free? You are implying affirmative housing is good for freedom, you must answer; at what expense? The expense is easy to disregard because it is unseen. I want to make it clear to you, that your argument has the exact same premise as the statist-left argument that Social Security makes people more free, but maybe you still believe SSI equals freedom. I would like to see your take on this.
This idea that individual morality is only realized from legislation (physical coercion), is a dangerous fallacy. Morality is only discovered individually, usually with family guidance, but never from the state. I submit to you that if the state stopped forcing morality there would be a greater degree of morality. The idea that people would be running wild thru the streets is a perverted lie. It assumes that man is unable to distinguish right from wrong without the state.

Old Soldier| 9.7.11 @ 9:38AM

^ Yes! ^

I do not need the state or inn keepers imposing their morality on me! Leave me alone to find my own morality.

Multiculturalism is the state imposed morality of the UK. Look how that is working out.

garth| 9.7.11 @ 5:16PM

You don't know what your talking about.

Radioman777| 9.6.11 @ 5:28PM

The most striking thing about the beliefs of Nick Gillespie and his like-minded brethren are an unusually naive view of world politics. They seem to have an unfailing belief that somehow the rest of the world will leave us alone and no one seeks to do us harm. That, in a word, is idiotic.

W| 9.6.11 @ 5:36PM

True conservatives believed in limited government, especially at the federal level, doing what is necessary for an ordered society, such as roads, infrastructure, police, fire, and national defense. Libertarians believed in the same. There are differences in social policy such as marriage and legalization of certain drugs. John Stossel and Judge Napolitana experess the libertarian views clearly.
Republicans such George W Bush did not govern conservatively. A true conservative would not federalize public education with a bill written by Ted Kennedy or sign a bill restraining free speech like the McCain Feingold bill.
Ron Paul's views on terrorism and Israel are giving the Libertarian Party and libertarians a bad name.

If you exaimine the ideas of true conservatives and libertarians you will see more in common than conservatives have with republicans such as Bush 1 and 2, McCain, Dole, and their ilk. And of course, conservatives and libertarians have little in common with today's Democratic Party that stands for big government and intense regulation and micromanagement of the economy.
The old liberals in the Democratic Party were very concerned about the rights of individuals but they created such a large government at all levels to enforce these "rights" that the govenrment itself, through IRS,EPA, and numerous other agencies, now infringes upon the rights of individuals.

True conservatives and libertarians should be natural allies for a limited government despite their differences on some social policies.

Old Soldier| 9.7.11 @ 9:42AM

Agreed. I like Gary Johnson much better than Ron Paul. I am happy to see Libertarian ideas getting batted around the Republican debates. It gives me hope that we can pull the GOP back from the brink they were on a few years ago.

Always choose freedom when offered the trade-off with security / safety / whatever.

Wilfred| 9.6.11 @ 8:49PM

My political guru is currently Greg Gutfeld. When Greg says "Jump!" I say "How high?"

Hebe| 9.6.11 @ 11:08PM

If you believe that what you earn is yours and that you neither owe anything to anyone else and vice versa, you are a Libertarian.
http://www.topbrandsbags.com
http://www.winter-brands.com

Hebe| 9.6.11 @ 11:10PM

They restrict our businesses with never ending regulation.
http://www.discountsunglassesforsale.com
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com

Timely Renewed | 9.7.11 @ 11:27PM

Both social and fiscal conservatives can agree that we need to restore the allocation of authority between the national and state governments originally contemplated by the Constitution. To do this we must amend the Constitution to restore the original meaning of the clauses which have been most distorted by the Supreme Court to allow the unconstitutional expansion of federal power. These are many, although the most important may be the interstate commerce clause and Section 1 of the 14th amendment. The distortion of the interstate commerce clause is the largest source of expanded federal regulation and spending which fiscal conservatives object to, and the distortion of section 1 of the 14th amendment is the largest source of the imposition of anti-traditional leftist moral values which social conservatives object to. With the restoration of these original meanings, the debates will return to the states, where there will be a diversity of outcomes but people will be able to "vote with their feet" if they find the outcomes in a particular state to be unacceptable. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Buy the Book

Treasure State Treasury

May 17, 2013 | Bill Croke

Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority

May 13, 2013 | John R. Coyne, Jr.

Self-Righteous Republic

May 8, 2013 | Aram Bakshian, Jr.

Ruthie’s Way

May 2, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

A Free and Indivisible Union

April 25, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/06/freedom-is-on-the-march

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|99 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|117 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.