-
Enough With the Bipartisanship
May 24, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Damage Control for Dummies
May 22, 2013 | 85 comments
-
Assessing a Week of Scandal
May 17, 2013 | 135 comments
-
After Obamacare
May 16, 2013 | 24 comments
-
The New Paternalism
May 3, 2013 | 39 comments
Another Perspective
Are Libertarians…Pansies?
Conservatism’s friendly, occasionally strained relationship with libertarianism.
Pussies, not pansies. But the higher powers tell me Ann Coulter is allowed saltier language than our headline writers.
If you missed it, Coulter appeared on John Stossel’s Fox News show last week to discuss libertarians, and specifically why she wasn’t one. Asked about the drug war, Coulter exclaimed, “You libertarians and pot!” Pressed by Stossel, she added, “Look, this is why people think libertarians are pussies.”
The video quickly went viral and sparked an internet discussion on the merits of libertarianism. Nick Gillespie of the decidedly libertarian Reason.com pinned the p-word to his coat: “It may not have the rhetorical power of ‘I am Spartacus!’ but I’m happy to declare ‘I’m a pussy!’” Glenn Beck discussed how he was coming around to the idea of “maximum freedom” before blasting the libertarian movement for being too exclusive. Alexander McCobin, president of Students for Liberty, then wrote an open letter to Beck, questioning the radio host’s libertarian street cred.
Verbal warfare between conservatives and libertarians feels strange since, over the past two years, the two groups have often marched shoulder-to-shoulder against the left’s statism.
Libertarianism saw a bubble of interest in 2008 thanks to the Ron Paul Revolution, the pack of libertarian activists who gathered behind Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. After years of both political parties neglecting individual liberty in favor of war and breakneck government growth, libertarianism suddenly seemed a fresh alternative. The Tea Party, which sprang up in opposition to Obamacare in 2009, is regarded as a conservative movement. But many of its ideas found voice for the first time with Paul’s presidential campaign, leading Joshua Green to dub Paul the Tea Party’s “intellectual godfather.”
This created some intellectual shifting on the right, as many conservatives became more libertarian in their outlook. A CBS News poll taken in November 2011 found that nearly half of Republicans thought that the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. And many conservatives are increasingly uneasy about the Obama Administration’s civil liberties abuses and endless drone strikes.
Libertarianism, then, acted as a third path for disgruntled conservatives, allowing them to maneuver around the government activism of both the Bush-era Republicans and Democrats. Were it not for the Ron Paul-inspired Tea Party, Republicans never would have found their way out of the political wilderness in 2010. And as the economy crashed and debt piled up, libertarianism seemed a rational solution. Rolling back government is, to borrow one of the commentariat’s most grating phrases, an idea whose time has come.
Libertarianism and conservatism are often grouped under the same tent. The most consequential definition of modern conservatism came from political philosopher Frank Meyer, who saw it as a fusion of traditional and libertarian values. But while Meyer rapped thinkers like Russell Kirk for not putting enough emphasis on individual liberty, he also called on libertarians to admit the existence of an “organic moral order,” defined not by government, but by God, community, and objective truth.
There are, then, crucial distinctions between conservatism and libertarianism that stretch down to the most theoretical level. Libertarians tend to see politics as a dichotomy between the free individual and the oppressive government. The purpose of state power is to protect the individual’s rights, nothing more.
Conservatives believe in individual freedom too, but see it as a product of order. People can be free, but they’re not born that way as Jean-Jacques Rousseau surmised. Instead they become free under the architecture of good institutions that educate men and tamp down their worst impulses. These institutions include families, churches, and local communities. They also include what Edmund Burke called “little platoons” and Alexis de Tocqueville called “voluntary associations” – the local groups and organizations that provide our lives with structure. When this structure, along with Meyer’s “organic moral order,” start to recede, big government creeps in to fill the void.
This leads conservatives to examine not just the relationship between the individual and his government, but also the body politic as a whole. Is it healthy? Does it strive for virtue and elevate our best values? Russell Kirk, citing Eric Voegelin, argues that our great political division “is not between totalitarians on the one hand and liberals (or libertarians) on the other: instead, it lies between all those who believe in a transcendent moral order, on the one side, and on the other side all those who mistake our ephemeral existence as individuals for the be-all and end-all.”
This distinction can be seen on many social issues. While libertarians almost always select the position of individual liberty, conservatives tend to weigh that against the cost to civil society. Thus libertarians tend to favor marijuana legalization not to accommodate their “liberal friends,” as Coulter puts it, but because they see it as an individual choice, while many conservatives worry it will make civil society more indolent and expensive. The line is even more emblazoned on prostitution. Libertarians see no reason why a woman shouldn’t be able to sell her body. Conservatives might point to Amsterdam, where legalized prostitution has led to a degeneration of public morality, as well as unintended consequences like human trafficking and organized crime.
To illustrate the distinction further, consider Ayn Rand, the thinker and novelist lionized by many libertarians, and her view of the family. Conservatives consider the family to be perhaps the most precious unit of civil society and a necessity for individual freedom. Rand saw forced familial relations as a shackle on the individual. In Atlas Shrugged, she portrays steel tycoon Hank Reardon’s family – his cloying wife, his scolding mother, his leech of a brother – as an irritating obstacle to his success, “an unreality that would not become real to him” for whom he feels nothing but “the merciless zero of indifference.” Elsewhere Rand derided “the worship of the family” as “merely racism” and something that “places the accident of birth above a man’s valor and duty to the tribe above a man’s right to his own life.”
Many conservatives would shudder upon reading those quotes. So why have so many of them flirted with libertarianism and even embraced Rand?
Because, given our current problems, these differences seem abstract. Our most immediate political issue is a rampaging federal government burying its citizens in debt. This gives conservatives common cause with libertarians. We may have different philosophical foundations, but right now our houses are on the same side of the street. And when Republicans set our garage on fire, libertarians helped with the hoses, muttering acerbically.
They’re not pussies. They’re allies and they’ve been right about a lot. But there are differences between us and we should make sure we understand them.
Photo: UPI
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Purple
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/28/are-libertarianspansies
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 7:02AM
The way I see it, the differences are a matter of evolution. The libertarian doesn't believe in much government at all; he sees government as a drug, which his political foes claim to despise, but love to distribute and abuse; it is a drug which deceives and converts public servants into doing the very thing they promise not to do over and over, eventually evolving into the 'conservative'. He comes to believe in government and the power of the STATE just enough (we promise!) to help them overcome their fears and insecurities; Just enough government to bribe us, lull us to sleep and deceive us into granting the right people that righteous power , that power they assure us, will not become corrupted; denying the absolute truth that absolute power corrupts absolutely; and this then evolves into the Democrat which is a fire-breathing disciple of the Kingdom of Government. He has embraced the corruption of power to its fullest. He is god, and lord! He evolves into self-destroying death of sloth and anger, adopting selfish greed for all that he sees and lust for ultimate and total power is the goal and anything or anyone who dares to resist shall be ground into powder. He fails to see the very people from whom his power is derived then evolves into the enemy which he loathes but must tolerate in order to feed himself. He will eventually destroy the people who feed him and he himself will starve and die as a result.
Sadly then, the process will begin all over again.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 7:15AM
The difficulty with trying to plot positions such as this along a two dimensional continuum is that they are in some ways multidimensional. For example, in your characterization, what is the difference between not believing in government, and not believing in much government, and how does that distinguish itself from just enough government?
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 8:09AM
Hmmm... Perhaps you can tell me the difference. As I see it, there is no difference between just enough government and much government. The former cannot help but inevitably evolve into the latter.
For example:
We as a nation evolved from a simple theory of uniting for the purpose of organizing, "for a common-defence of the several states against all enemies foreign and domestic." Merely twisting that phrase alone we are now a nation of mercantilists; complete with full time, round the world, round the clock, standing armies.
Gee, I wonder how that happened? Is that how government creates jobs?
Rather than nurturing the tree of liberty as they ought; I believe those who want 'just enough government,' can't resist the lure of and the fruit hanging on the tree of much government. In fact, if they only eat the low-hanging fruit, they will eventually find it irresistible to try to climb all the way up to the top to get the remaining fruit. Of course that means climbing onto the weakest branches which cannot bear the weight and they come crashing to the ground. See: Humpty Dumpty.
No, I think we are best served by public servants who don't confound, "promoting the general welfare," with "providing forced charity."
Men who love their neighbor as they love themselves don't promote theft and plunder, division and hatred among those whom they are called to serve and have the temerity to call it, "good."
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 8:23AM
I'm not trying to provoke a contentious debate, but my first question was not about the difference between much government and enough government, but rather, where does the difference lie between not believing in government and not believing in much government. Said another way, what is the difference between none and not much?
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 8:43AM
As I said, you will have to tell me because I don't recall suggesting a belief in no government at all. The difference in not believing in much government and just enough government is the difference between the truth and little white lie. Perhaps I should phrase it thusly: some believe in limited government, some believe in just enough government and then there are those who believe in much government or better yet, nothing but government.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 9:08AM
As someone who believes in Constitutionally limited government, (and self-identifies as a conservative rather than a libertarian), I find your formula above more useful.
I suppose the points which are between limited and just enough might be among those which divide us, or at least are the subject of those disagreements which might highlight the differences between individuals who choose the divergent labels for their primary identification.
I think that below in his 845am post, OP4 succinctly captures the practical response in how the occasionally overlapping though at times competing positions can be reconciled, as well as your points above as how the limits devolve (or more government evolves).
Occam's Tool| 2.28.13 @ 8:24PM
I am perfectly happy to work with Libertarians on areas that I support them, and oppose them on those I disagree with.
On domestic issues, with the exception of drug legalization, Ron Paul and I have few disgreements. On foreign policy issues, he is worse than Obama, which, until he came along, I thought would be impossible. That's why Kucinich floated Paul as his SecState in a Kucinich administration (and probably the reverse, had Paul won---the two men are good friends).
The man makes my skin crawl. For the record, the Autobahns were a good idea, and I KNOW who designed them.
But, as a general rule, I support America as the dominant political and military entity on the planet, because all others would be much worse. Many Libertarians do not agree with me on this, which makes me quite leery of them.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 2:13PM
Leftists present "regulation" to us like it's ketchup, and you need "more" or "less", generically, without scrutinizing the specific nature of the regulation at all.
You two are talking about "government" the same way.
It's not the raw size that matters. It's the role.
Government's role is to protect natural rights. Natural rights are those which exist by nature and must be protected, not provided. They can be violated actively, not passively. And government must not violate them itself, using "greater good" logic. That's a slippery slope.
This is a position on which "conservatives" and "libertarians" agree. Leftists try to drive a wedge between us by suggesting to libertarians that conservatives disagree. This is just another of their lies.
If government's role is understood, there is no risk of the slippery slope to Leftism. Leftism introduces the idea of government providing benefits proactively, or sacrificing natural rights for "greater goods." These are, definitionally, what must be avoided to avoid oppressive government.
PolishKnight| 3.1.13 @ 8:26AM
The Constitution wasn't a perfect document. After all, it allowed slavery and this is ultimately the legacy that the left has exploited in staying in power with white supremacists up to 1964 and then with white male bashers since then. Perhaps what would have made the most sense would have been for the Constitution to have an expiration date along with all Federal laws and regulations. A Constitutional Cliff as it were.
Just as the government can't help but get bigger so called "free market" economics can't help but seek to reach out to government for their own selfish interests (GE, Goldman Sachs). The one thing about free markets is that everyone would like to see it free and open except where it suits them. Real Estate agents effectively have a 5 percent tax on all real estate. Bill Gates kept people trapped in PC's for years because of the dominance of his OS, not its quality. Diamonds are forever... controlled by a cartel.
When the right doesn't address these shortcomings for the so-called free market (That most in it don't want it to be free), they leave an ideological vacuum for dishonest leftists to fill. But hey, the right has their principles that are so important, who cares if they work or not?
OP4| 2.28.13 @ 8:45AM
The Founding Fathers wrestled with the same questions. That is why, after much debate, they wrote a Constitution that strictly limited the scope of the Federal government and added in Amendments that guarantee specific rights to all citizens.
Libertarians and Conservatives both generally respect the Constitution and wish our politicians would spend more time protecting and upholding it - and less trying to circumvent it.
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 9:04AM
I will attempt to answer your actual question with this:
I personally believe the difference between no government and limited government is the difference between chaos and organization. No government at all is hardly self-government which some love to claim. No government can become the same as a tyrannical government. I reject both arguments. After all, one argues, "My dad is bigger than your dad"; and the other argues, "You just can't fight city hall."At the same time, I see those who claim to believe in just enough government deliberately blurring the line of a definitively limited government so they can cross over into the realm of unlimited government. It is irresistible to the political class, the elitist, the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Which group do you suppose defines the limits of government as not having the power, the right or the authority to regulate, control and tax plants? Which group desires or is a little willing to control ever so slightly, guns, the church, the internet, a man's labor and what he exchanges it for? Which group defines private property as privately owned or collectively owned? Which group defines crimes as damage to another person or his property versus the prevention of a potential crime? Which group would, and in fact has, re-defined classifications of crime to include, thought-crimes, aka hate crimes?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 9:28AM
Though I think my response to the questions you put forth here are largely answered in my 908am response to your 843am post above, please allow me to further summarize by saying that despite where we might not completely agree on exactly where the legitimate limits of governments post on the bi-polar continuum which at one end has anarchy, and the other has totalitarian dictatorship, that our respective positions would likely plot much more closely together than they do to the anarchists at one end, and the moderates, liberals, socialists, and communists on the points to the other pole.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 10:24AM
Albert, don't you realize you are debating with Perp? What other A$$hole goes "Hmmm" and then rambles on like a third rate sex novel?
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 10:40AM
It must be tough going through life presuming you know everything when you truly know nothing. And assuming to be the smartest person in room simply by your ability to cast aspersion through name calling and in the end, being the one with the wrong conclusion.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 11:41AM
What was that porker?
JD| 2.28.13 @ 1:36PM
I really don't like childish name-calling, regardless of who does it. It demeans us all.
If someone demonstrates the characteristics of a fool, I will call him a fool. But perverting his name? Never makes sense.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 2:08PM
If you people stopped talking nonsense with trolls, perhaps we could have some constructive conversations.
If Parker is not a troll, I apologize to Parker. But the last time I said the same to Margie, she accepted as Tim.
So if you want to talk to trolls for amusement, I will make jokes to amuse myself.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 2:14PM
What is the point of talking only with people who already agree with you? Let the Left have its echo chambers.
I don't see Parker trolling here.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 4:39PM
If he has your approval, I concede. I have no animus toward Parker, but only Perp look-a-likes. My apologies to Parker.
I am open to any a legitimate argument. It is the propaganda we must avoid. Educating is the key in the short-term.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 1:20PM
As I wrote below, most libertarians are people who believe the Left's mischaracterizations of conservatives. Parker demonstrates this fallacy.
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 7:39AM
You are wrong. Libertarians don't want the government in the bedroom, the boardroom or the bowel. Conservadums do.
Gay marriage, pot smoking, real freedom to do as you will, while hurting no one else is the libertarian way.
Conservadums simply want Big Government to do their bidding to get their way on all issues. They say limited government, while what they mean is limited to what they want government to do and nothing else. Vaginal ultrasound probes for no medical reason, anti-gay marriage when they pretend family means something to Conservadums (if you fit their family view that is), fiscal responsibility for everyone but themselves, medical care decided by bureaucrats at a thousand insurance companies, and on and on.
No, Conservadums have nothing in common with Libertarians... and libertarians will never be at CPAC.
Moe Blotz| 2.28.13 @ 8:07AM
(_!_) (_!_)
Louis Jenkins| 2.28.13 @ 11:13AM
: ) : o (_*_)
Moe Blotz| 2.28.13 @ 12:44PM
; )
Jeff R| 2.28.13 @ 9:11AM
"Gay marriage, pot smoking, real freedom to do as you will, while hurting no one else is the libertarian way."
This is quite simplistic. No consequence to others of gay marriage, pot smoking (let's go all the way: drug legalization), etc.?
You need to better think out your position. Even in as free a society as you can imagine, there are typically consequences to our actions that impact others.
I want a society closer to the Founders' conception. They understood the need for individual responsibility, restraint, and basic societal rules as intregal components of liberty.
Occam's Tool| 2.28.13 @ 8:28PM
Over 50% of my patients that I admit are positive for Cannabis in their urine drug screens when they come through my door at the psych hospital I run.
You might want to check out the consequences to children of weakened marriages before you support gay marriage. Marriage is NOT about the desires of those marrying, truly; it is about establishing a solid foundation for children to be raised in. Yes, there are all sorts of problematic marriages, including childless ones, etc., but the institution exists to time bind one generation to another.
And those are two reasons I left Libertarianism.
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 10:29AM
The democrats-the party that lionizes Larry
Flynt that famous pornographer who slept in the Lincoln bedroom, courtesy of the great Bill Clinton-seems most interested in influencing the American bedroom behavior. What exactly is the full LGBT agenda ? Let me give you a flash pal-the women who vote democrat do not want some creep man who decides to dress like a lady one day doing their business. Conservatives and repubs get this. In your world it is an attitude the government must " fix ". And, the will release criminal illegal aliens(double law breakers) from prison first rather than cut money devoted to these education efforts to convice American women that watching some sicko piss in the sink is something they must accept-at least until urinals are mandated in all rest rooms-coming soon to a blue state near you ! Read about the latest cost projections for Obamacare Purp ? Hey, wait 6 months it will climb higher again. So full of crap.
Seek| 2.28.13 @ 6:24PM
Democrats don't "lionize" Larry Flynt. They merely see him as a necessary, if slightly embarrassing, counterweight to the forces of censorship. As do I.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 12:45PM
Find me any effort since 1900 to legally ban homosexuality.
You can't, because there isn't one. Leftists always lie.
Stuart Koehl| 2.28.13 @ 7:44AM
Libertarianism is an ideology; conservatism is a "disposition". Libertarians live according to a set of abstract ideals (as do all ideologues) and build sandcastles in the air. Real conservatism, on the other hand, recognizes human society as a messy organic construct and are loathe to interfere with long-standing social institutions that have withstood the test of time. Libertarians trust to their own wisdom in all things, while conservatives defer to the wisdom of our ancestors. True conservatives do not mindlessly imitate the past, nor do they worship the past, but they recognize continuity with the past and are not willing to sever those connections in the name of an untested intellectual construct that does not take cognizance of the frailty of human nature.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 9:37AM
Can't say I agree with the idea of contrasting "abstract ideals" with concrete life. America was founded on abstract ideas as opposed to status quo traditionalism. However, the fathers would no doubt agree with Locke that one doesn't change things on the basis of light and transient causes, so they would also accept the value of continuity.
I think we have to distinguish among libertarians. Many libertarians are okay with public morality while others are little more than anarchists (cf. Lew Rockwell et al.). Mises would not have agreed with Rothbard's anarchism and even said Rothbard's mind had gone to pot on foreign policy issues. Hayek definitely would not have agreed with the Rothbard or Rockwell versions of libertarianism.
Lincoln spoke of the abstract truths of the Declaration. By that he meant the truths of the Declaration were universal, applicable to all for all time. In touting continuity, tradition, and concrete life, we should never forget that without abstract truths, ancestralism can often be the basis of much oppression, as Lincoln well knew.
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 10:09AM
Applause !
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 10:10AM
For Stuart.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 10:41AM
Both Stuart and Vernon make good points, but we must simply keep in minds that not only are names generalities, but the names change over time. Hayek wrote an Essay in "Constitution of Liberty” titled "Why I am not a Conservative." Published in 1960, Hayek was referring to the classical definition of "Conservative" that means to "conserve." But he was not denouncing "change," but embracing traditions, morals and slow positive change. So he declared him an "Old Whig" since the name had not been perverted and he differentiated him from the "new" Whigs in America.
Vern has read a lot of Austrian Economics and clearly knows that when Mises wrote "Liberalism" or Hayek "The fortunes of Liberalism," it was not a blueprint for Obama's radical Marxism. It was the opposite since Classical Liberalism spoke of by these men meant more today what we call both conservativism and libertarianism.
I think that we generally use libertarianism for social constructs while we talk about economics as conservativism. But libertarians believe in small government as do true conservatives when talking about government size and scope, and therefore liberty and freedom.
I would watch out for coulter since she is a RINO. She wrote many interesting and entertaining books, but she does not get my attention in her articles since I find them GOP statism.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 11:30AM
I thought of myself as a libertarian a few years ago and regarded Mises, Hayek, and many others as in the same "family" with Reagan, Buckley, and other conservatives. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the worst elements of libertarianism are being promoted by Lew Rockwell and his merry band of anarchists. One of their number even trashes the Constitution.
That plus the anti-Lincoln stance of many libertarians has turned me against libertarianism in general. I still respect Misesian or Hayekian economics, but when I hear the term "libertarianism" nowadays I'm more inclinded to hear the term "anarchism" and the platform of libertarianism as moral chaos.
As time goes on, one's starting assumptions about life begin to assert themselves, and often in ways not anticipated in an earlier time.
John Navratil| 2.28.13 @ 11:54AM
Stuart Koehl,
I like your distinctions. Libertarians are anarchists with property rights; liberals without the government, a mythical beast which can only exist in the imagination. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight the common enemy in battle together. Wouldn't it be an interesting world when the Libertarian is fighting the Conservative over the size of government?
Nancy in NC| 2.28.13 @ 7:50AM
This is an excellent article, and pinpoints many of the views which are often fought about on this site. The conservative tends (in my opinion) to see the moral issues as those which divide us from the libertarian. I've had many a fight with those here who defend abortion. I contend the acceptance of abortion has infiltrated the culture and lessened the restraints in other areas as to the value of life. NO one can fail to accept that the culture has coarsened since Roe v Wade; the debate is how much correlation.
As a wife of a retired Marine, I have tended to side with the military. But I find myself drawing farther away from the GOP support of nation building and playing the policeman of the world. I still feel a strong empathy with the military but much less so with the industry it supports. It's so corrupt and is another way of feathering too many nests.
I hope the libertarians and conservatives can find a way to meld their differences. We definitely need each other.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 8:16AM
I think differences will always remain between those who identify primarily with one label or the other, as well as within each category. Nevertheless, I think your overall point is a critical one, and while respecting that differences will remain, all should be prepared to work together on the great mass of things that we have in common if we wish to be successful.
OP4| 2.28.13 @ 8:28AM
I started out as a Reagan Conservative and gradually drifted towards Libertarianism over the last 2 decades.
A few decades ago there was at least the illusion that Republicans protect economic liberty while the Democrats protect civil liberties. Both have been proven completely false over the past few decades.
At least as importantly, I realized it was a false choice. Freedom is freedom - you can't have economic freedom without civil liberties - and vice versa. Obamacare is proving that good and hard.
I also find Libertarianism completely compatible with Federalism. We don't need FEDERAL drug laws, we don't need the Feds involved in education, welfare, or our personal life in any way. I would much prefer the states and towns decide where to build a bridge, what to teach in schools, what drugs should be illegal, or how to help the unemployed.
Al Adab| 2.28.13 @ 11:45AM
OP4:
Honest evaluation. There has always been a large Libertarian streak in the Conservative Movement. we are necessary allies. However, the libertarian error is the rejection of moral absolutes which it encompasses. That rejection leads them to advocate policies which are ultimately a danger to the cultural good.
That said, the traditions of Liberty and economic freedom as well as constitutional government do lend themselves to the Libertarian viewpoint. There is also the Objectivist group which is not Conservative unlike the Libertarians in its activist tendency.
We need to get past the issues which divide us, put them aside and work on our common ground until once again the Movement preponderates within the GOP. The Left, our common enemy, is quite successful in divide and conquer tactics.
OP4| 2.28.13 @ 1:55PM
GOP leaders who feed at the same big government trough as their Democratic brothers and sisters are the biggest wedge between Libertarians and Conservatives.
Libertarians generally refuse to vote for such scum. Most Conservatives are still holding their noses and trying to elect them. Stop - and we can definitely work together.
c. j. acworth| 2.28.13 @ 9:04AM
I have a good deal of respect for Libertarianism, my problem is with Libertarians. So many of my aquaintance are in fact obsessed with things like pot, porn, sexual mores that it makes me think that they have a childs' view of liberty. They think it means nothing more than the right to say bad words and expose themselves in public and put whatever they want to into their mouths, like a typical 6 year old. I'm lassaiz-faire enough to say "Go ahead, kids. But when you grow up and find that such things do not bring real happiness (as in "The pursuit of..") come around and we'll talk serious, by which I mean I'll pull out my Bible and open it to John's Gospel and begin to read...
c. j. acworth| 2.28.13 @ 9:07AM
Which is not to say that I believe Libertarianism to be incompatible with Christianity.
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 10:01AM
Which is precisely why our republic was designed to serve a moral, just and self-governing people.
To add further to that thought: This is merely the naturally occurring result of a perverting of the true, natural, and declared responsibility of our federal, state and local government(s) to, "Promote the general welfare," and twisting it into "providing" for charitable and seemingly noble purposes (albeit not to all, but only to a chosen few from a chosen few) out of the general treasury. i.e. welfare, unemployment, retirement, health care, bailouts, etc.
If government can become lawless, which it clearly has, why, pray tell, would not the people themselves become lawless?
Egil| 2.28.13 @ 3:08PM
I agree that the government has become lawless. And maybe I'm not raising an important point, but it interests me: did "the people" become lawless first, which was then reflected in our government being that way, or vice versa? In other words, was it a top-down or bottom-up revolution? Regardless of where it started, we are now faced with the truth expressed by the Founders that we need "a moral, just and self-governing people," or else we descend into anarchy or despotism.
Considering the influence among the population of Kinsey, Sanger, the New Left, and over a longer time Marx and Darwin, I wonder if maybe a critical mass of people, reflected in the culture, became lawless first, especially since World War II, resulting in the type of government which is now a nightmarish, corrupt nanny-state run amok. The Progressives of the 1st half of the 20th century certainly turned our government away from the Founders' principles, but I wonder how much of that reflected pressure from below.
Anyway, good discussion by c. j. acworth andParker.
Jeff R| 2.28.13 @ 9:12AM
Ann Coulter is still credible? Incredible!
loulou| 2.28.13 @ 10:59AM
As far as I'm concerned Ann is a nonentity. She loves Chris Christie. That gives her no credibility.
John Navratil| 2.28.13 @ 1:08PM
loulou,
She's backed off her Christie position somewhat likening it to an infatuation with a biker.
Hardcard| 2.28.13 @ 9:17AM
Libertarians WTF this counrty is being destroyed every day by traitors and crooks, our Congress is a disgrace, the courts have an agenda, the executive branch is dictatorial. The three branches of government are corrupt and you jerks are pontificating about your personal preference in the name of so-called liberty. Lipstick on a pig, it don't work.
Jeff R| 2.28.13 @ 9:19AM
"I also find Libertarianism completely compatible with Federalism. We don't need FEDERAL drug laws, we don't need the Feds involved in education, welfare, or our personal life in any way. I would much prefer the states and towns decide where to build a bridge, what to teach in schools, what drugs should be illegal, or how to help the unemployed."
Federalism needs to be restored in our nation. But under federalism, states and localities have a right to set communal standards. That can cut for or against the libertarian's desire for "maximum freedom," depending on the jurisdiction.
Clearly, the Constitution recognizes that we as human beings have natural rights (God-given), not to be abridged by any government. Rights like expression, self-defense, and faith. But there's a good deal of dynamic and tension between communal order and the sort of unfettered freedom that most libertarians desire.
OP4| 2.28.13 @ 9:34AM
I agree - that there will always be tension between order and freedom. There are numerous reasons for that tension to be played out as locally as possible.
Far less chance of real totalitarianism in a town. The least worst solution to order might not be the same in every town and state. And - if my town or state really gets carried away, I can vote with my feet and leave.
Jeff R| 2.28.13 @ 10:08AM
We're on the same page.
Parker| 2.28.13 @ 9:36AM
Yes, however, states are, nevertheless, limited in their scope of power and authority. For example, if the constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and prohibits the federal government from infringing upon that right; once a state affirms that principle and adopts that through ratification, where would a state derive unto itself the power and authority to then infringe upon that which they have stated to be unalienable? Bluntly-
How can a state or any government, at any level, alienate an individual from that which they have affirmed to be unalienable?
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 10:16AM
Are we or are we not in the same rifle company ? Do we or do we not understand we must aim our rifles and not one another. Do we or do we not have a common enemey ? Is 2nd platoon the enemy of 3rd platoon ? Decide fast the real enemey is ready to attack again and again. But, I guess I am to simple headed, or lack convictions.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 10:28AM
You may recall from your own days of military service in past decades that in garrison (and not only in garrison), the rivalries you describe are quite frequent. Even after the balloon goes up, these disputes can continu; almost as many troops in Desert Shield/ Storm were killed by friendly homicide as were by Iraqi rifle fire (fortunately, both numbers were low; unfortunately, other friendly fire was less friendly).
Still, those units that don't redirect the natural aggression of their warriors against the enemy when they are under attack usually don't last long. It is usually good leaders who help provide that direction, along with a strong sense of survival on the part of individual warriors.
We will need to develop more of both if we are to avoid being overrun.
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 10:41AM
You cite an abberation. And, it is great leadership yes-but the instinct to survive as well. Most guys in Viet Nam knew they needed the strongest unit possible to survive. The GOP is simply not one unit and the other side is. A staggering disadvantage. In the final days of the civil war, Lee was trying .to break out west(Richmond was gone), join Johnston was it, and some how form a small secure area to survive a bit longer-till what I do not know ? Is that it ? Is that the goal conservatives the GOP must strive to make happen ?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 11:03AM
One of the more effective ways to get someone to stop shooting at you is to stop shooting at them.
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 6:26PM
Saying Akin and Murdock and others were a mistake is shooting at you ? Telling Mark Levine enough already attacking those of us who are Republicans first, and are telling you political philosophy is fine and dandy-but most are political agnostic and want results. Always attacking savagely does not work-especially with women. Calling Fluke a slut was idiotic. Such better ways to debunk and defeat her kind.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 8:30PM
I haven't characterized any actions by any body yet as shooting, I just pointed out how someone might stop attempted fratricide.
But since you brought those things up, do you think those who identify as conservatives first might resent it when someone like Karl Rove attacks the more conservative candidate after a contentious primary where he worked for a more liberal (and ultimately losing) candidate (particularly after both he and his candidate repeatedly spoke of the need of post-primary party unity) and we considered that action as shooting at us?
7-08| 2.28.13 @ 10:49AM
Quit think in terms of “government,” for most claiming the libertarian premise the context lies in the social issues, “If you are an independent adult, if it does not harm others, if it is not a financial burden to others and if you alone take responsibly for your actions then NOBODY or NO INSTITUTION has any right to meddle in your affairs.
As for the “government” such an individual is willing to live under (and support) the basic tenants of the Constitution provide the minimal framework. Common currency, National defense, criminal justice system – all strict Constitutional edits of a “branch” framework. Anarchists really cannot function in society – true anarchists only exist on a frontier fringe.
Our two party system has utterly disintegrated from the competitive framework that our founders envisioned to preserve the Constitutional Republic. The factions now have devolved into (1) the progressive element a Statist vision of acquiring all the assets for redistribution to a entitlement majority – a scamming of the voting system that assures their continuance of power, and (2) the misnomer of “conservative” – an equally elitist agenda driven coalition of equally repugnant tyrants whose defining characteristic is also retaining the purse strings of incumbency to bribe their constituencies.
Only the libertarians detest “rulers” as much as our founding fathers; the Republic has failed and only the libertarians escape complicity.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 11:39AM
The libertarian idea that everything is permitted as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else falls apart when confronted with concrete cases.
Read Jeffery Lord's article. The slippery slope will have libertarians backpedaling or making endless qualifications of their starting axiom.
Or else they will be forced into the extreme of adopting moral chaos in order to be consistent with their starting axiom.
Connection Not Compromise| 2.28.13 @ 11:37AM
Bravo, Matt! Thank you for taking this issue head on.
As you so aptly pointed out, Conservatives and Libertarians may not share the same view of man: Libertarians believe that man is basically good and left to his own devices will choose the good. Conservatives believe that man is basically flawed, and as a result, governments ruled by men will turn to the bad unless guarded by clear boundaries.
In spite of these fundamental differences, which we do need to recognize and respect, we still speak the same language: FREEDOM.
And, if we are going to stop the dictator in the White House from completely destroying our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we as Conservatives and Libertarians must find a way to come together in Connection while not Compromising our core values. I think to a large degree we saw this happen with the Tea Party gains in the 2010 elections.
Connection Not Compromise| 2.28.13 @ 12:31PM
Furthermore, we as Conservatives need to be very careful to not paint all Libertarians with the same anti-government, pot-smoking brush. This just isn't helping our cause!
Many who consider themselves Libertarian are former Conservatives who became (legitimately) disillusioned with the big government, bailout spending, nation building efforts of the Bush/Rove dynasty. And drawn by its limited government stance, they've found a home in the Libertarian / Ron Paul movement.
Listening to hundreds of delegate speeches at my County, Congressional, and State Assemblies last spring (given by those who wanted to go as delegates to the National GOP Convention), I was struck by the fact that the vast majority of Ron Paul / Libertarian leaning supporters spoke the same language I do: Concern for our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Concern about out of control government spending, and Concern that our Federal government is grabbing power that was left to the States and the People. And, gasp, many of these people were also pro-life.
In fact, the Ron Paul campaign teamed up with Rick Santorum delegates to run a Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Limited Government Unity ticket which swept the National delegates voted in at all 7 of our state's Congressional Assemblies.
Very few ran on a pro-pot platform. It's just that these tend to be the more vocal ones.
Connection Not Compromise| 2.28.13 @ 12:35PM
In addition, the number of young, enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters present at these assemblies was amazing to behold. They were dedicated, articulate, and tech-savvy. And, thanks to the education they have received from Ron Paul, they've got one thing down: they don't need or want the Federal Government to take care of them.
Freedom is their Native Language!
If we are going to win this war against those who believe that Big Government knows best how to take care of ourselves, our children, and our futures, we can't afford not to have these young, energetic Ron Paul / Libertarian leaning Republicans on our team.
Michele San Pietro| 2.28.13 @ 11:48AM
Of course, not all non-conservatives are left-wing extremists, communists or islamic fundamentalisms. Personally, I wouldn't call them libertarians: conservatives also find basic liberties holy. There's definitely a non-conservative part of society, in the United States and in any other country, with which conservatives could collaborate profitably. Of course, a mutual effort is needed.
Joe D.| 2.28.13 @ 12:16PM
The problem with libertarians, as I have told my libertarians friends before is it altimately leads to Kaos since man is a fallen sinful being.
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 12:17PM
The only thing libertarians have in common with conservatives is a belief in fiscal responsibility. Otherwise, they are liberals.
Bob K| 2.28.13 @ 12:29PM
I'm not sure that Libertarians are pansies but I would argue that the Liberal trolls who post here are. Same goes for the RINOs who sign off on Gay Marriage!
JD| 2.28.13 @ 12:57PM
There is a difference between conservatism and libertarianism, but it is not the difference that most people think exists.
Many libertarians believe in some of Leftism's biggest lies, which say that conservatives want government to run our social lives. They thus see a rift between themselves and conservatism that doesn't actually exist - a rift which Leftism delights in creating in order to divide its enemies.
This lie must die, but Leftism will fight to preserve it, because as we all know, Leftism is dishonesty, and they hate the idea of allowing us to define ourselves and having to win an honest debate against our actual beliefs. Straw men are essential to their survival.
Opposition to abortion is rooted in the belief in the personhood of the unborn, couple with conservatism and libertarianism's shared belief in natural rights, such as the right to life. Calling opposition to abortion a desire to have government control our social lives can only be a deliberate dishonesty, since everyone knows that the root of abortion opposition is belief in the personhood of the unborn.
No one seeks to ban homosexuality, but conservatives oppose government endorsing and subsidizing it by calling it "marriage". Libertarian ideals require that they also oppose government involvement in social relationships, but here too libertarians have been duped by Leftists.
So too every other issue on which the Left accuses conservatives of wanting government to run our lives. They're all lies.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 1:07PM
Drugs are a trickier issue. There is libertarian rationale for their restriction, though many libertarians don't want to see it.
Freedom is fundamentally threatened by mental manipulation, particularly addiction. Drugs which alter the mind and form addictions make functioning in a free society impossible. One can argue that the choice to initially sample the drug is freely made, but in many cases, drugs are taken unknowingly or by minors.
Protection of rights could thus be said to include protection against drugs in one's body. But arguments about specific drugs will still happen. Still, we should recognize, when such arguments happen, that neither side is arguing against freedom.
John Navratil| 2.28.13 @ 1:20PM
JD,
Drugs are tricky for the reasons you describe. I don't think anyone except the dealer wants to compel anyone else to use drugs. The argument is always framed as personal freedom. Were it truly victimless, I think the argument would be over. We could easily take a position that we truly don't care if someone chooses suicide by drugs.
The question is how to protect the society at large from the effects of drug use. Occam's Tool can document these effects graphically.
I propose the one thing we can agree on is that the drug prohibition has not been an effective tool. I call for legalization and education. Occam's Tool cannot support legalization. It might be a good thing if there were no Federal drug laws so that the states could try various solutions. Perhaps the Marijuana battles, today, will lead to the discovery of a better way.
Bumr50| 3.3.13 @ 12:15PM
Alcohol is a drug.
Why is it different?
It's not so much the libertarian in me that sides with the legalization argument, but my being offended at the hypocrisy.
As both a marijuana user and a fiscal conservative, I'm actually AGAINST legalization from a purely practical perspective.
Most groups seeking legalization are quick to offer up HUGE tithes to the government in the form of taxation in return for making a plant legal.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 1:15PM
The true difference between most libertarians and most conservatives is not a difference over the role of government. At all. It's differences in beliefs regarding morality and facts.
Most obviously, many libertarians are atheists, while many conservatives are Christians. Even if we agree perfectly on the role of government, we're going to disagree on a lot of life issues as a result.
Libertarians tend to join liberals in believing that situations like single motherhood, broken families, random sexual partnerships, etc are not factors in the prosperity of a society. In fact, they see the growth of these as evidence of more freedom (which they equate with prosperity), since they believe that these actions are all men's natural desire.
Ironically, Leftists love to single out the worst behaviors of libertarians and tar conservatives with them. This is typical of Leftism's tactic of lumping enemies together to levy accusations of hypocrisy where none exists.
Conservatives recognize that morality, though not enforceable by government, is an essential component of prosperity. It must be self-generated, but is still very important. Moreover, they recognize that degradation of morality INEVITABLY leads to degradation of support for Right-wing principles, regardless of whether one claims libertarian or conservative roots.
OP4| 2.28.13 @ 2:31PM
Libertarians believe that people are free to make their own mistakes - and shouldn't be rewarded by the government for them. Would we have so many single mothers if they weren't paid by the government?
We have the same goals. Less government (whatever ideology or moral compass motivates you) is how to get there. Some kind of government imposed methodology is certain to fail.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 2:56PM
Conservatives have those same goals for those same reasons.
hoosiertoo| 2.28.13 @ 2:33PM
The problem as I see it - and I have drifted more and more libertarian over the years - is that what passes for conservatism nowadays is big government progressivism writ small. I've come to believe that erring more toward personal liberty is to err on the side of liberty. I can live in peace with junkies and whores and married queers; what they do doesn't affect me at all, so long as they accept the consequences of their behavior without socializing the cost. We've long since lost "conventional" morality as a society. Getting it back is a function of religion; as vapid as most denominaions have become, a tall order, I know.
Abortion is the one area where I differ with most liberarians. I'd be more than happy to remove the issue from the realm of the Feds and devolve the regulation (or elimination) of the detestable practice to the various states.
The first priority is to hamstring the national government and eviscerate the black-robed oligarchy. Government is a beast that must be chained if we are to enjoy liberty at all.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 3:00PM
Ideologies define themselves. They are not defined by the people who claim to believe them. Hitler called himself a Christian, but that doesn't mean that Christianity committed the Holocaust. It means that Hitler lied about being Christian.
Redefinition of words, such as the claiming of the term "liberal" (which once applied to America's founders) by Marxists who twisted it into the opposite of its former self, is very damaging to a free society. Without words that have clear meanings, there cannot be informed participation in markets or democracy. Thus I reject attempts to change the definition of words that describe ideologies often claimed by people who do not adhere to them. I will not declare that "conservatives stand for big government." We must stand for the preservation of the meanings of words.
Egil| 2.28.13 @ 3:25PM
Yes, the battle over language is very important. Through the 1990's and more recently, a lot of people thought Political Correctness was just something to laugh at. Well, it now dominates our culture, and dictates so much of our lives.
Job| 2.28.13 @ 3:38PM
Matt you are the resident "can of worms opener" I see.
Thoughts:
Frank Meyer: "he also called on libertarians to admit the existence of an “organic moral order,” defined not by government, but by God, community, and objective truth."
Divine law or Ten commandments vs. Mosaic Law? Doesn't Mosaic law seems more secular while most of the prophets beefs were over breaking of divine law? We lump it all together as religion.
On another note, perhaps the polar statements "Do as thou wilt" (Crowley) and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (golden rule) distill the essence of Anarchist vs. Libertarian views.
"Do unto others" put another way is "love thy neighbor as you love thyself" (Christian version of golden rule). Does adding "and love God above all..." to "love thy neighbor", which paraphrased is the rest of the quote, strain out some of the differences between many libertarians and Conservatives that are having these ideological battles?
One could argue "Eye for eye" is a watered down version of "do unto others". Paul addressed the "do as thou wilt", which seems to codify "survival of the fittest", with "eat and drink" (and be merry).
(1 Corinthians 15:32. What have I gained if the dead do not rise? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.)
Teflon93 | 2.28.13 @ 3:44PM
Libertarians today are perfectly happy with the Democrat Leviathan so long as they can get high unmolested.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.28.13 @ 4:16PM
I still read Coulter's columns because I'm a Townhall regular. Like many here, she lost A LOT of credibility with me over her infatuation with Fatso. I've never thought that libertarians were "pussies." At least not the "normal" ones, i.e., the ones who aren't foaming at the mouth with Jew hatred. And for those of us who're regulars on THIS site, we all know the type I'm talking about. Some of their drivel makes them sound like they read "The Turner Diaries" & wank it multiple times a day.
That being said, I view "normal" libertarians as an ally in politics the way the Brits are allies militarily. While I don't dig some of what they stand for, we can usually count on them in a fight over the size & role of government. And they're ALWAYS there with us when such fights come up. The debate is, & will always be, how much gov't. is necessary & what defines "necessary."
However, as Mr. Purple points out, in the age of MaoBama, we see eye to eye with our libertarian brethren more often than not. One thing is for sure: this "president" has done more to revive the reverence for individual liberty & state's rights issues more than anyone thought possible. More & more young folks, like those who work at my restaurant, are seeing the cons of too much gov't. in their lives. Some become more libertarian, some even become conservative, but one thing is common, in all my conversations with them: the Age of Obama has CONVINCED them that they sure as hell ain't liberals/regressives.
JD| 2.28.13 @ 4:44PM
Leftists present "regulation" to us like it's ketchup, and you need "more" or "less", generically, without scrutinizing the specific nature of the regulation at all.
You are talking about "government" the same way.
It's not the raw size that matters. It's the role.
Government's role is to protect natural rights. Natural rights are those which exist by nature and must be protected, not provided. They can be violated actively, not passively. And government must not violate them itself, using "greater good" logic. That's a slippery slope.
This is a position on which "conservatives" and "libertarians" agree. Leftists try to drive a wedge between us by suggesting to libertarians that conservatives disagree. This is just another of their lies.
If government's role is understood, there is no risk of the slippery slope to Leftism. Leftism introduces the idea of government providing benefits proactively, or sacrificing natural rights for "greater goods." These are, definitionally, what must be avoided to avoid oppressive government.
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.28.13 @ 5:40PM
Agreed, my friend.
chet| 2.28.13 @ 4:34PM
And you Mr Purple can take your father knows best attitude and stick it where the sun doesnt shine. The Republican party had been destroyed by people like you who think if they scream and insult folks they win the argument
John Navratil| 2.28.13 @ 5:31PM
chet,
You win!
Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 2.28.13 @ 5:41PM
Care to elaborate, or should we just guess what the jist of your comment is?
bustunloose| 2.28.13 @ 6:31PM
Yup-call Fluke a slut. It was so simple to intellegently debunk and destroy her position. But the slut thing carried the day. But, guess that is part of having more fun that a human being should have. Mr. Big does not seem so happy now.
BringbackGroverClevland| 2.28.13 @ 5:29PM
Much discord between conservatives & libertarians; lies in confusion of what liberty is. Liberty - in the classical tradition is the absence of restraint, only that. i.e.-You can't restrain me (physically) from traveling from Boston to NYC. Wrongly we have let a concept of “positive liberty” creep in- i.e “I can't travel from Boston to NYC because I do not have the 37$ to pay for the fare therefore I am not free - I can’t achieve what fulfills me”. When this “positive liberty” is accepted, the state justifies violating the rights of others and steals the 37$, gives it to the traveler
The left always does this- I want my birth control, I am not free unless others pay for it. But so can conservatives if they use the state to do the right thing in an activist manner .
Libertarians & conservatives can agree when they both support a correct concept of liberty. A liberty based only on that concept can help avoid the moral morass that some here worry about. The state need not restrict the moral activities of someone, but it must not pay for the messes that people make of their lives. The state cannot restrain people from divorcing, but it has gotten easier because a husband can walk away because the state through the false freedom of the welfare state tells says it will pay for the family breakdown. Liberty won’t result in moral breakdown when peoples responsibilities to themselves aren’t covered by someone else.
N8tivTxn| 2.28.13 @ 6:14PM
Some interesting philosophical argument above, however any self-identifying, out-of-the-closet Libertarian I have run across didn't throw in to vote with Republicans in 2008, '10 or '12, therefore I presume they won't ever vote (R) unless and until their anointed "one" is chosen the (R) nominee, which I expect to happen in the same year that Hell freezes over, leading me to wonder, why the ridiculous fawning courtship.
Any time I come across anyone who claims the Libertarian mantle, I immediately want to know how they voted in the most recent election. The standard answer is, I didn't vote, or they admit voting for some obscure third-party unknown. Never once has one of them said they voted for the Republican candidate.
Their answer usually ends our discussion of politics, because they believe they are heroically principled, and I believe they have foolishly contributed to America's imminent downfall.
Seek| 2.28.13 @ 6:21PM
This is a fascinating and long overdue article. The conservative vs. libertarian debate is decades old -- and in a classic sense, centuries old. The piece also provides further ammunition, if any further were needed, that Ayn Rand was an arrogant and bizarre crank. Hopefully, we'll have some great debates.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 8:30PM
Next debate point: Can someone be an arrogant and bizarre crank and still be right on an issue or two?
Teflon93 | 2.28.13 @ 9:40PM
Rand was certainly correct about the looters.
PolishKnight| 3.1.13 @ 8:18AM
My take on libertarianism is that it's similar to someone becoming a pacifist in the USA on Dec 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor). Hey, if he becomes a pacifist the rest of the world will follow on their own, right?
Libertarianism winds up becoming indistinguishable from anarchy or pacifism and then gets swept away as quickly as a rural community by rampaging warlords.
Much of what the right loves is a product of statism: the military, the space program, keeping rape victims from getting abortions, etc. The statism cherry has been popped.
The left has a point in that they have a direction (at this point, just to win elections) but at least they recognize that winning is key. Being a principled loser is fun, for crazies but not most people. In this case, I agree with most people.
iowaan| 3.1.13 @ 4:37PM
Libertarians are idealists, conservatives recognize that we don't and can't live in a perfect world. That doesn't mean that we can't improve things and move toward the ideal, but an ideal world can't be achieved.
cheetham| 3.2.13 @ 11:14AM
Matt Purple - you seem like a nice kid.
But are you seriously quoting Rousseau when talking about the roots of conservative thought? That is just idiotic.
The conservative root you are seeking is John Locke - and yes he stated that man was perfectly free in a State of Nature.
It was only an agreement between free men - a social contract - to create government, not to "perfect men" - but rather to protect men's freedom from those who would take it away by force.
I'm a bit concerned that the asssistant managing editor for the AmSpec doesn't know that.
Bumr50| 3.3.13 @ 12:03PM
Nice piece, Matt!
But if you really want to do honest-to-goodness philosophical libertarians a solid, stop putting pictures of RP up next to pieces about them.
MANY of us have problems with his basic lack of foreign policy understanding and can admit that a policy of complete isolationism as Paul endorses is extremely dangerous.
obadiah| 3.20.13 @ 8:34PM
stomp on the pansies. or whatever you call them to justify the stomping.