Are Libertarians Cheerier?

Amber, I don't know about you, but I have no doubts on that score.

We may be more cheerful. But don't you dare say that we're better in bed. People get a little touchy.

Cheerful? I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Or I have to change my reading list. The libertarian blogs I read talk endlessly about the sheer horror of the obstacles we face, how deceived everyone else is, and so on.

Almost none of them say ANYTHING about optimism, much less about how specifically to achieve the changes we want.

I'm an optimistic libertarian. I enjoy reading left, right, center, and libertarian writings. I like thinking of ways to solve things (while making money).

The rationales I see here for libertarian cheerieness would depress me if I believed them. I should be cheery because conservatives have a twinge when they vote for Bush, or because conservatives play dirtier than liberals? Please! Stop salivating; Pavlov's left the building. I should be cheery because I believe that people are basically good and don't need oversight? Then why do the people we have keep on setting up horrible oversight?

There's a much better reason to be cheerful -- it's because we're working for change, and we know what we're doing. I believe most of us know what we're doing, but most of us aren't doing anything.

So hop to it! Make those changes! And stop whining, for heaven's sake. It's not a political failure; it's a business opportunity!!!!

-Billy

It's the weeeeed, man.

Will's cheerful? Let's all write Cato and get him fired for cheeriness!

I think a certain amount of optimism has to go along with libertarianism. If, like me, you think people are generally great, and things tend to work out, you're unlikely to think much meddling is necessary.

If you constantly think the country is in decline, or the Big Bad Scaries are coming, or people are just waiting to rip each other apart, you almost have to be for a big stompy-foot government to keep things in line.

I think this exchange sums up us libertarian-types fairly well -
Marge: You know, Homer, it's easy to criticize.
Homer: Fun, too!
The lack of guilt helps too....

I would like to think that I am a libertarian, but I don’t think it has any relation to ones attitudes. I have always thought that being cheery and generally content is almost an intellectual defect, a mental incapacity to perceive and grasp the grim reality in the world. But then, I am a European… (And we Europeans tend to have pessimism in our genes, since the frolickers (who couldn’t no longer stand us and vice versa) all emigrated – guess where to? Plus being a libertarian in Europe is really depressing.)

I don't think cheery people are real libertarians (he said, before running for cover).

But I guess it didn't, because I'm still smiling despite the fact that Movable Type doesn't display comments immediately, causing me to annoyingly double-post, and then to write an even more annoying third post about it...

I think one reason that libertarians are happier is that a lot of us have been touched by Ayn Rand at one point or another...

Well, that sure wiped the smile right off of my face.

I think one reason that libertarians are happier is that a lot of us have been touched by Ayn Rand at one point or another...

Good Lord, no! That sure wiped the grin right off of my face.

Maybe it's easier to be cheerful when you don't need to go through life reaffirming one's loyalty to one's peer claque at whatever the cost to one's own self-respect. I'm plenty grateful for my material blessings like the high-resolution monitor I'm typing on and the snug magic polymer socks I'm wearing. But I'm even more grateful that I don't need to try to defend the natural rightness of 100% estate tax to support a bundle of positive rights based on inherited citizenship in the richest country in the world. Kill the voluntary nepotism using negative rights in the service of involuntary inheritance rules and positive rights "to reduce inequality," the better to enforce inequality with the absolutely poor brown people, mmmm.

In our age, the law, in its majesty, allows both rich and poor to inherit their citizenship. The populist left and right compete to discard the most negative and individual rights in favor of rights reserved for citizens. Almost all the left, from knuckle-dragging semiliterate populists to the rarefied leftist 91% of often-literate academics, wrap themselves in a mantle of moral superiority which they claim as their inherited right from internationalist socialism. (Be sure never, ever to wonder whether your nationalist socialism is quite the same thing!) The Internet repeats and remembers it all without quite understanding it (yet). And libertarians, by and large, maintain a positive mental attitude.:-)

I just pooped in my pants; should I be happy about that too? I wouldn't be so happy if I were you. Someday, you're going to die. Looking on the bright side, death is the great equalizer. Every scum billionaire out there is going to kick the bucket too. One hopes that they will have a long, painful illness before they are sucked away into eternal nothingness. Only their indestructible greed will be left behind in the form of their heirs. Kinda makes you wish for a 100% estate tax, doesn't it?

I guess ham-fisted gloating isn't, technically, 'cheerful.'
The 'Right' still seems fairly happy, nevertheless.
It IS nice to sit on the sidelines and make snarky comments while someone you dislike beats up someone you despise.

I'm with Will. Cool stuff! Readily available! At low labor-time-adjusted prices! I love it, I love it, I love it! And unlike many, I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt about it.

I think you might be right about libertarians being able to appreciate capitalism more than others. Surely, the liberals and the conservatives enjoy the fruits of capitalism. But I think there might be some extra happiness that libertarians get out of buying cool things off of the market that the other groups don't get.

We could dispute whether libertarians are cheerier, but on the assumption that they are, Nick Gillespie at Reason magazine may have suggested why.

I happened to be clicking through the channels last night when I came across a book party for their new book on C-Span's "Booknotes". At the answer and answer session, one guy expressed frustration at the "apathy" he felt at the lack of participation in the fall election. After politely pointing out that the turnout this year was unusually high, Nick Gillespie said:

"Maybe people aren't that involved because they have lives. That’s how it should be. People shouldn’t be involved with politics all the time.”

This is consistent with a view that says maybe libertarians don't expect to win. But it's also consistent with a general attitude that sees society as something separate from, and more important than, government.

Maybe that’s why.

There are some bitter libertarians out there, but I avoid them at all costs.

I think one reason that libertarians are happier is that a lot of us have been touched by Ayn Rand at one point or another, and her philosophy placed tremendous emphasis on the virtue of pursuing one's own happiness. She also believed that if you went about it rationally, attaining happiness really was possible. Maybe we've succeeded?

Also - maybe, Will, you're just cheerier. Or maybe the exceptional cheer is more characteristic of DC libertarians, or blogosphere libertarians (each being just overrepresented enough in their respective [and often overlapping] subcultures). I bet the actual LP members in the rest of the country are bitter little curmudgeons.

I'm with Yglesias - when you've got no dog in the fight, it's all the more entertaining to watch. No matter who loses, libertarians can point to why, and why we knew better. No matter who wins, we get to be snarky. Which is, you know, maybe why we've been so successful at shaping public policy.

Any conservative with half an ounce of principle must feel an unpleasant twinge every time they have to spin for Bush. What on earth is conservative about that guy? At least economic conservatives. Social conservatives appear to have no problem with big spending as long as they guy doing it claims to believe in jebus.

If I were a liberal, I'd be frustrated to distraction at the lack of gonads on the part of my party. And the unwillingness to fight dirty. If you're not going to fight at least as dirty as the republicans (see, Swift Boat Dudes) then don't bother showing up.

Justin, Don't yell! Look! Shiny things! ....

What a delightful mosaic of contrasting worldviews!

"It's more likely that you just aren't trying to win, and it's a lot more fun to jeer from the sidelines...."

That sounds like a cry for help to me. I read it as "you don't have a cadre of shiny-faced, glad-handing hacks reminding you of who really runs things."

Hmm, I guess I'm an outlier. I haven't reached that Mencken-style jumping off point where you just shake your head and get another drink. I yell, /then/ I shake my head and get another drink.

I think that one's happiness depends a lot on how perceived reality compares with his expectations.

Some libertarians are perpetually frustrated. But I think that most of us have more realistic expectations about how long it will take to make significant political progress, and are only pleased when things go well. When they go poorly; well, that's what we expected.

And yes, we are more likely than the left and the right to be happy about the cool achievements of a dynamic semi-free society.

Well, *some* of us are, but organizing libertarians politically is (wait for it) like herding cats. Especially with the purity wars & "more libertarian than thou" poses going about.

It's more likely that you just aren't trying to win, and it's a lot more fun to jeer from the sidelines....