Comments on: The Promise of Liberaltarianism

By: Divided We Stand United We Fall

Divided We Stand United We Fall — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:40:44 +0000

Dear Libertarians, We’re just not that into you. Love, Democrats…

Mark Thompson thinks that libertarians have issues, notably a blind spot regarding ex-spouse Republican faults. Will Wilkinson agrees with Mark, noting that libertarians should understand that being seen with the left is cooler than hanging with the r…

By: Remark of the Week « Chicago, Athens, and Jerusalem

Remark of the Week « Chicago, Athens, and Jerusalem — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:09 +0000

[...] conversation about the future of libertarianism that includes, among others, Virginia Postrel, Will Wilkinson and Ross [...]

By: JB

JB — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:39:19 +0000

Certain freedoms may be harder than others to purchase, but your case is a bad one. Many people in countries with censorship can and do get around it with money (smuggled newspapers, books, internet, etc.)

You may not buy off every prosecution, but drugs and prostitution are prime examples in this country that money buys privilege (either in not being targeted, arrested, or prosecuted). Social freedoms that others may not get to enjoy are made easier by economic freedoms.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:52:34 +0000

Reminds me of one of my favorite Catallarchy posts.

In reply to Cool Cal: I'd rather have Pat Buchanan on tv than anybody that favored the Iraq war, a category which includes a number of "libertarians".

By: Paul O'Pinion

Paul O'Pinion — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:00:29 +0000

Cool Cal's comments are so correct and well articulated. Why indeed are the Will W's and Nick Gillespies not asked to give their viewpoints on what passes for Network and Cable news? Instead we get the usual suspects.
Why also is there no reasoned debate about school vouchers? If a school is failing 70% of it's students the only parties threatened by vouchers would be the teachers. If kids are not getting any discipline or direction at home, maybe a private or parochial (hold the prayers!) school can give it to them – for $.50 on the dollar!

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:40:18 +0000

Oh, come on. Corrupt purchase of political or judicial favors is the classic example of a good that is priced in terms of relative wealth. Even if the poor become twice as rich, materially, they will still not be able to buy their way out of prosecution for offenses against socially-conservative laws. Has everybody in Singapore bought their way out of censorship laws?

Besides which, I have yet to hear an articulation of the whole economic vs. social freedom concept that makes it clear which side of the fence prostitution falls on. Why is a law against prostitution an assault on social liberty, while a law against (say) hairdressing is an assault on economic liberty? (Because conservatives aren't made uncomfortable by hairdressers, that's why.)

By: JB

JB — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:02:51 +0000

I'll put this bluntly: Any sane libertarian should value economic freedom more than social freedom.

Thus, sane libertarians should feel more comfortable with those who propose economic freedom than those who propose social freedom (neither of them does well on the execution front).

A simple way to think of this is that you can buy social freedom with economic freedom while it does not work the other way around. Look at drugs and prostitution; if you engage in wealthy pursuits of those vices it is very unlikely you will be caught and even less likely you will face punishment at the hands of the state (I'm looking at you, Eliot Spitzer, you hypocritical lying sack of poo).

By: Libertarians, the Left, and the Future of Freedom « Good Tithings

Libertarians, the Left, and the Future of Freedom « Good Tithings — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:54:21 +0000

[...] TIP: The fly bottle) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Can liberals and libertarians find common [...]

By: Cool Cal

Cool Cal — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:40:00 +0000

I think one of the major challenges, elementary as it sounds, is to educate a great many lay-liberals as to what libertarianism even is. It might surprise you (or it might not) that many non-wonky, though ostensibly educated liberal people have a view of American political culture that is limited to the tawdry partisan dichotomy of cable tv and AM radio. In one conversation, my remark that some ideas embraced by the Republican party were worth consideration, her response was one of disgust, as her knowledge of those ideas was limited to fag-bashing, Christian extremism, and latent racism.

In the modern economic dialogue, the libertarian view is so fraught with the hoary left-right associations that a classical liberal is all too often assumed to be a social conservative out of hand, or at worst, to have come to his economic conclusions out of a flippant cruelty and disregard for fellow humans, rather than scientific knowledge of markets.

A contemporary conversation regarding school vouchers, for instance, among laymen, will degenerate into an emotional mudslinging exercise, as liberals find this argument not only arrived at via personal animus to the poor, but tied to a parochial penchant for school prayer, as it were.

If nothing else, I think there needs to be an effort to insinuate the serious libertarian argument into the mainstream. When Rachel Maddow wants a counter point, she summons Pat Buchannan. Why can't it be Nick Gillespie? Or Will Wilkinson, for that matter!

By: someguy

someguy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:33:22 +0000

Might I suggest some other people to exclude from the coalition while you're getting rid of church goers, defense hawks, and plain old nationalists? I think we need to get rid of Hayek, because he stated unequivocal support for a social safety net, and he did it in conservative terms, talking about a decent society. That's the worst kind of statism, conservative paternalist statism. Friedman and the Chicago School types talk about ordered markets. This is just a cover for statism, like having a standing army. So we really need to get rid of them too; we have nothing in common with them.

I can't help but think we're on the road to building a winning coalition here of pro gay, pro abortion, pro drug legalization anti-standing armed forces laissez faire free marketers. In addition to that coalition being wicked kuhl and attractive to 20-something urban dwellers who are 420 positive, I think it will be broadly attractive to many liberals. I don't see how it could possibly fail. I'm sure there are tons of liberals right now just waiting to hear your good words about how we need to drastically reduce government regulation and intervention in our daily lives…

By: Christopher Monnier

Christopher Monnier — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:24:08 +0000

De-rightification is essential to avoid antagonizing would-be libertarian sympathizers who otherwise end up defaulting to modern liberalism. Let's face it, it's basically impossible to have in informed position about every issue, so a lot of people pick their pet issue (e.g. opposition to a war), find like-minded people, and then adopt (often passively and without as much critical thinking as what led them to their pet issue) the beliefs of those like-minded people. As long as libertarianism is allied in any way to conservatism, it will instantly be a non-starter with young people, actively repelling them and turning them toward modern liberalism and all of its ideological baggage.