The American Spectator

Alan Brooks| 2.12.09 @ 12:03AM

you can trust a libertarian who wears a bob barr t-shirt, but not a michael jackson or roman polanski t-shirt.

but remember, there are no monsters UNDER the bed.

Alan Brooks| 2.12.09 @ 12:18AM

please don't get it wrong, libertarians are great at free markets, but as for their personal morality... you don't bring them home to meet the family, and for more than one just reason...

Bill R| 2.12.09 @ 12:52AM

Yeah... pretty sure baby punching would be considered aggression by libertarians (darn it). But hey if I was a pro Iraq war "conservative" I could maim and kill scores of babies and I pay trillions for that opportunity. Maybe I should switch labels so I can indulge in my innate baby punching desires without the cognitive dissonance.

ashok| 2.12.09 @ 4:19AM

I hate things like this. The libertarians I know are very good, decent people, and ask serious questions.

I do know a few that have the quirk described above - usually a penchant for conspiracy theory - or, on a very personal level, have been hurt by someone really badly and see their "independence" as needing to be asserted in every way possible. But I don't chalk this up to their ideology or libertarianism as a whole: this world of secular and sacred fundamentalisms is a genuine mess, despite all the good people do daily.

ashok| 2.12.09 @ 4:20AM

Edit: by quirk(s), I don't mean hurting small children or animals, obviously.

ruth| 2.12.09 @ 5:09AM

Liberals are just plain crazy. They rant about the horrors of war (war is horrible) but won't bat an eye about killing more than 50 million babies in our country alone. It's 'choice', you know.

Russell Sreadman| 2.12.09 @ 7:06AM

Bill Maher is a famous Libertarian. Would you trust him babysitting you kid?

Shawn Macomber| 2.12.09 @ 7:46AM

"Question for our libertarian readers: How much fiat currency would it require for you to punch a baby, slap a puppy, and sew on a tail?"

Lord, you mean I can actually get PAID to do this? Fiat currency or not, I've obviously been far too generous in my pro bono work for this world.

CranberryCynic| 2.12.09 @ 7:46AM

It depends on how ugly the baby is and the length of the tail.

In my limited observations, the term "libertarian" is the new "independent" e.g. "I don't like either party. I'm a libertarian (because I heard someone on the radio say it.)"

ConservativeWanderer| 2.12.09 @ 7:55AM

A good point about Libertarianism was made on another blog--I can't remember exactly where or I'd post a link, perhaps NRO's Corner

Anyway, the jist of it was, if someone claims to be a Libertarian, it's easy to find out if they really are. Just ask them if they support the government censorship of pornography on Saturday morning TV. If they say yes, they're not really a Libertarian, just someone using that term for whatever reason. If they say no, well, it's pretty easy from that starting point to explain why their political philosophy will never gain much traction.

By the way, the removal of all government "censorship," which would logically permit Debbie Does Dallas on Saturday morning TV, is not only a plank of the official Libertarian Party platform (link below), it's one of their very first planks, numbered 1.1. Thus, it's hardly a side issue to true Libertarians.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Jim| 2.12.09 @ 9:45AM

Yes, they are dangerous, alright. They might have stopped all of the taxing, spending and borrowing that has bankrupted and ruined the country. And they might not have sent thousands of kids to be butchered in all those idiotic and illegal wars. Couldn't have that now, could we? No, we prefer war, bankruptcy and ruin, and thanks to people like Mr. Carter, that's what we have... are you happy with the outcome?

Crusader| 2.12.09 @ 10:55AM

The open borders thing did them in for me. If you are a libertarian how can you also stand for allowing millions of welfare-dependent wastes of human flesh into your country? You can't have liberatarianism in a country with a majority of the population on some form of gubmint welfare.

Red Phillips| 2.12.09 @ 11:31AM

Interventionism and militarism ARE NOT expressions of AUTHENTIC conservatism. That people who call themselves conservative promote it is very unfortunate.

JB| 2.12.09 @ 12:19PM

Libertarianism and Austrian Economics are obviously gaining support and understanding with the general public. They are exposing the corrupt behavior of the 2-party system, so they must be attacked relentlessly using propaganda techniques to make the general public believe that only idiots, isolationists, fools, dreamers and druggies would believe librtarianism had merit. Ahhhhh....Transfer and Name Calling - two of the seven base Propaganda Techniques first used in 1938 by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis.

Another propaganda technique often encountered in the media is "straw-man", which posits arguments and positions on scenarios/beliefs that are nowhere even close to being libertarian positions. Other propaganda techniques used include: appeal to authority, bandwagon, glittering generalities, false-dichotomy, card-stacking, selective omission, name calling, plain folks, simplification, and transfer.

I read the whole .pdf - things are not as concrete as the author of this blog has led everyone to believe. Here is a little tidbit that might be classified as the propaganda technique "omission" because it truly challenges the authors silly/propaganda title, and of course, he mentioned nothing about it:

"Libertarians may support the Republican Party for economic reasons, but in their moral
foundations profile we find that they more closely resemble liberals than conservatives."

If I was the author of this blog, I would write something meaningless like, "Better not let anyone wearing an Obama button babysit your kids". Does everyone understand the utter stupidity and lack of critical thinking statements like these represent?

Finally, since all participants simply "self-identified" their political beliefs, and the study does not account for age, socio-economic status, education levels, conflicts of interest, etc. - it is pretty much completely worthless as far as "reliable" data.

Hey, don't believe me though - go read the .pdf and then familiarize yourselves with propaganda techniques.

One last thing - I really like what Jim said; it shows how turned around propaganda has made everything and everyone - how "1984" everything has become. Jim has identified that the bozos in charge and those that worship them believe that all the actions that got us to the point we are at now are not truly the actions that got us here - war, taxation, welfare, borrowing, etc. are all things that would have prevented todays tragic positions, IF only we would have made more war, borrowed more, taxed more, supported more, we would not be in this mess, so we better start doing those things now. Yeah...war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.

JP| 2.12.09 @ 12:31PM

The kind of Libertarianism promoted today is a wierd mish-mash of Ayn Rand fantasies, anti-semitism, paranoia, and self indulgent idealism. The purists, ever on the look-out for intellectual heretics - will ensure that Libertarianism remains a fringe movement. Better to keep the Movement pure of NeoCons, Jews, and interventionists than to actually do anything usefull (ie win elections). Ron Paul and Taki are 2 good examples.

JB| 2.12.09 @ 3:08PM

JP said:

"wierd mish-mash of Ayn Rand fantasies, anti-semitism, paranoia, and self indulgent idealism."

Wow - name calling, straw-man, and assertion; 3 propaganda techniques in one sentence! JP, this is not an intelligent response from someone with critical thinking skills - it is nothing more than a bunch of accusations backed by nothing (called "assertion" when used as a propaganda technique).

Again - everyone should not take my word for it. Go do your own research and see what you come up with. Look at which individuals/parties are utilizing propaganda and which try to present the truth about things like the Federal Reserve System, for example.

JP is the type of guy that defines any criticism of the State of Israel or Neo-Cons as "anti-semitism" (yet ANOTHER propaganda technique to stifle ALL criticism!) - I don't believe most individuals would agree with that definition whether it is criticism of Israel or criticism of ones country, family member, military, etc. Anyone who has read sites like www.lewrockwell.com over the years knows exactly what a guy like JP is doing - building straw-men because he has no arguments that are based on critical thinking.

Steve in MT| 2.12.09 @ 3:40PM

I disagree with the premise, that Libertarians are dangerous to babies, puppies, et.al. Libertarians are able to act morally based on their own decisions, and not that of some hierarchy which arbitrarily decides what is moral. That they are open to the full possibilities of the market place just places them at an advantage over those who believe that someone else needs to tell them what to do.

Frosty| 2.12.09 @ 4:59PM

All of the rights, none of the responsibilities.

Lance Brown| 2.12.09 @ 11:12PM

Am I the only one who figured out that the libertarians who said they would impale a kid's hand for "any amount of money" probably just realized that for enough money, could offer the kid a big enough payout that not only would the kid not mind, he or she would be delighted to have their hand impaled?

You give me a billion dollars to impale a kid's hand. I impale his hand with his consent and then give him 900 million dollars out of the billion. That would be morally reprehensible?

And the sewing on a tail question says little about anything. Plenty of people do much more damaging and humiliating things for money all the time. And I'm not talking about game show contestants and freaks. I'd rather sew on a tail for money than work at a HughesNet call center, for example. And since lying/fraud is a regular part of most call center work, the tail job would be far more moral.

Lance Brown| 2.12.09 @ 11:17PM

P.S. - As to the title of this blog post, a true libertarian babysitter would honor the job obligation that they entered into with you, no matter what other offers were made. To do otherwise would be fraudulent, and if the welfare of the child was involved, would amount to an act of harm against the kid.

But whatever...it's easier to take lazy pot shots than work to find significant truths. If libertarians ultimately fail, that will be as much of the reason why as anything else.

Flu-Bird| 2.13.09 @ 10:28AM

Mnay liberals would rather see a baby die then harm a bug i even heard one where some wacko said that is a kid was crossing the street and abug as crossing the street and a car was about to hit them he said he would save the bug instead of the kid well then what would happen to this eco-freak if he got smashed to a pulp by a car and ended up at the pearly gates and the almighty questioned him about why he prefered a insect to a human he would sit there explaning and his name certianly wouldnt be in the book and he would end up swimming in a lake of fire

Tennwriter| 2.13.09 @ 12:24PM

Libertarians have a strong tendency toward 1. Putting blinders on to ignore inconvenient realities. 2. Being more fundamentalist than fundamentalist. 3. Being extremely schismatic. 4. Attacking people they should support in order to help out people they should hate--I'm very Libertarian, in fact, more so than some who claim the name, but I'm also social conservative. Hence I'm a theocratic tyrant statist.And JB, this isn't propaganda. This is my impression, and my experience of being attacked when there is over 90% agreement, but evidently 90% isn't pure enough.

Bilwick| 2.13.09 @ 1:01PM

And who to sum up this piece best than Ayn Rand?

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/psychologizing.html

JB| 2.13.09 @ 5:11PM

Tennwriter:

You do realize your comment/opinion is completely contradictory, right?

I am wondering how you can be a "libertarian" (based on the word "liberty" in the context of the individual) and at the same time consider yourself a "theocratic tyrant statist". They are mutually exclusive IF you are properly informed. Don't go to the libertarian party website if you want to be informed, go to a site like www.lewrockwell.com, and if you want to learn about Austrian Economics go to www.mises.org. If you want statist-libertarian thought (that isn't truly libertarian at all despite calling itself such), go to the "libertarian party" website.

Maybe you are one of the individuals that I see commenting on a regular basis that believe libertarianism gives one the right to, "do just about anything", so you don't believe there is really much difference (between libertarianism and tyranny) and that everyone will become their own little "tyrants"? I see this interpretation a lot from people who really don't know anything about libertarianism, but think they are really familiar with it.

Your potential limited understanding may allow you to believe that a libertarian has the right to set up a tannery (for example) in their yard because your interpretation of what the philosophy of libertarianism equates to is incorrect. Libertarianism does not give you the right to do anything you want - it gives you the right to be left alone UNLESS you are infringing on someone else's property rights. So, I would not be able to set up a tannery in my yard (it would certainly infringe on my neighbors property rights), or do anything I damn well pleased in a libertarian society - that whole argument about being able to do anything one wants is a straw-man.

I have no idea what your 4 "points" mean - they are glittering generalities and could mean anything to anyone; kind of like "Change" to those that seemed to almost worship Obama.

"1. Putting blinders on to ignore inconvenient realities". OK - which "inconvenient realities"? Which libertarians did this? Where? When? How?

"2. Being more fundamentalist than fundamentalist". Is this supposed to mean that you think libertarians are some sort of "super-fundamentalists" because they believe compromise on their attitudes toward personal property rights, among others, will compromise themselves in the future, and due to this possibility, they will not compromise their beliefs? Not too long ago, that kind of individual was known as a person of great integrity and was admired for their tenacity and strength. Compromising when selling a used car, for example, is one thing, but according to what you are saying, IF I am interpreting it correctly, someone like MLK or Gandhi should have simply compromised with the powers-that-be that were suppressing their individual rights.

"3. Being extremely schismatic." So? Are you saying that is a bad thing that everyone doesn't just agree on everything like a bunch of brain-washed cult followers? You seem to be implying that there are no other groups of individuals that have a wide variety of opinions, which has led to sub-groups that have actually made the larger group stronger and allowed for the exploration of more paths by more individuals? Is that interpretation correct?

"4. Attacking people they should support in order to help out people they should hate." OK - which people? When? Where? How? What are you basing "should support" and "should hate" on?

"This is my impression, and my experience of being attacked when there is over 90% agreement, but evidently 90% isn't pure enough."

I have no idea what you are talking about here. 90% agreement on what? Attacked by whom? Also, you seem to imply that consensus means, without doubt, that something is correct. At one time, you could have probably gotten 99% or higher consensus that the Earth was flat - that didn't make it correct.

Simon Jester| 2.14.09 @ 10:36AM

"Asked about impaling a child’s hand, 78 per cent of the conservatives responded that they would refuse to do this “for any amount of money,” compared with 70 per cent of liberals and just 59 per cent of libertarians."

Can anyone find this figure in the PDF (I've looked and can't find it), or did Mr. Haidt just make it up?

Tennwriter| 2.14.09 @ 5:22PM

JP,

I am not a 'theocrat' or a 'statist', but I have been called that by doctrinaire Libertarians. In point of fact, I compared my views to a fifteen point list composed by a moderate Libertarian, and got 93% agreement, but that was not enough for that fellow. I'm still a tyrant to him.

This goes to show the fundamentalism and the schimatic nature of Libertarianism.

There is another group that is similar to Libertarians. Independent Fundamentalist Baptists. IFB's are criticized for only looking to the Bible for Truth (which is not true.), and that they are blind to other factors and points. IFB's also have been known to split churches over the color of the carpet.

Libertarians are more fundamentalists than IFB's, and I suspect more schismatic as well.

There is a bell curve in all things, and IFB's are way over to the right side for Fundamentalism, and Schsimatic Nature. Libertarians are waaaay beyond them.

And with less reason, to boot. IFB's claim rightly that the Bible is inspired, God's Revelatiom to Man. Well, that demands some fundamentalism.

Do Libertarians claim that Ayn Rand is inspired? Or that Hayek is God's prophet? Milton Friedman is the Messiah? No? Then for what reason are Libertarians more fundamentalists than Baptists?

Libertarianism is a political program. Politics involves compromise. I can't share religious communion with an atheist, but I would have no problem sharing the Republican Party with one as long as he was also a Conservative.

It seems Libertarians are replacing Christ with Contract, True Religion with Party, and this is a grave weakness most known on the Left where 'the One' rode into the White House to loud hosannahs.

As to glittering generalities, they seemed specific enough for you to respond to them.

Tennwriter| 2.14.09 @ 5:55PM

Let me add more...

First let me say I appreciate the courteous tone of JP. It is not something I'm used to from Libertarians which makes me a bit prickly when I shouldn't be.

A Fundamentalist believes his source document is true. I am a Biblican and Constitutional fundamentalist. Nothing wrong with being one, if the source documents deserve this respect. I am not a Republican Party Platform fundamentalist. I do not think the source documents of the Libertarians deserve this much respect.

Schismatic. One example is how Neal Boortz was treated. Most famous Libertarian in America, but he supported the Iraq War, and so the Libertarian Party refused to have him speak at their convention.

I'm very strongly opposed to abortion (one issue where I'm more Libertarian than most Libertarians.), but I enjoyed greatly Giulianni's speech to the Republican Convention.

One's an adult postion, the other is childish and pointlessly schimatic.

Should support...Social Conservatives, Standard Conservatives....these guys frequently have 80-95% agreement with Libertarians (and not just on economic issues), but classism takes its ugly prejudgiced toll. Should fight....RINOs whose only principle seems to be 'its good to be the King' and are generally bad all around for freedom. Liberals who hate social freedom and economic freedom, but sometimes claim to be for sexual freedom (in between making the most hideous attacks on gays).

I'm coming to the conclusion that the proper way to deal with Libertarians is to beat them with a stick, and see if they will behave. I've tried to be nice to them, and they seem to treat it as weakness. I've tried to say, "Hey look, we agree almost all the time." and instead I get virulent attacks directed my way. I think there is a lot of bigotry and prejudgice based on class in the Libertarian movement. They really, really want to hang out with the Liberals, but the requirements for doing so are so insanely twisted to their professed ideals that they can't quite make themselves do it. But in their heart of hearts, they know the socons are their truest brethren, but the socons are uncool, and so the Libertarians hate them.

Its a war between the Libertarian heart and mind, and all too often the heart wins.

At one time, I was a big booster of Fusionism. But a marriage doesn't work if one partner viscerally hates the other partner.

Derrick| 2.21.09 @ 10:49PM

Tennwriter, I'm not sure what "Biblican" means, but Christianity and libertarianism are entirely compatible. IIRC, a guy named Eric Schansberg (http://schansblog.blogspot.com/) wrote a pretty good book on the subject.

think| 8.21.09 @ 2:32AM

I think there is a lot of bigotry and prejudgice based on class in the Libertarian movement. They really, really want to hang out with the Liberals