Libertarians' Awkward Bedfellows

Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2013 | John Stossel

[Kaslin]

Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss- -- well, she used slang for a female body part.

We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.

"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot? ... If you were a little manlier, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."

We do, actually. We say employers ought to get to choose whom they hire. They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people -- anyone they don't want.

But Coulter has a point.

Government rarely makes a dent in people's drug use or their ability to partner with people of their own gender.

"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm. It kills opportunity and wrecks lives.

But Coulter doesn't just want to downplay "liberal" parts of the libertarian agenda. She opposes them.

When I asked why gays can't marry, she said,

"They can -- they have to marry a member of the opposite sex."

I see why the students were annoyed by Coulter's shtick.

If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.

Fortunately, some Republicans are onboard with that. Another of my guests was Justin Amash, congressman from Michigan.

The young libertarians admire him, in much the same way they admire Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake; Gov. Gary Johnson; and new Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

Amash focuses on government spending. He has pictures of libertarian economists like Murray Rothbard in his office, and he warns that big government -- including military spending -- will bankrupt America. He's not afraid to call for cuts in popular programs like Medicare, Head Start and food stamps.

After Amash's complaints about government spending, establishment Republicans in Congress kicked him off the budget committee. One said it was because of the "a--hole factor ... inability to work with other members."

I asked Amash about that.

"It might be because I wanted to balance the budget," says Amash.

"The level of government spending is so insane."

It is. Even if the sequester cuts happen -- cuts the left calls "brutal" -- in eight years the feds will still spend $5.3 trillion annually ... just a little less than the $5.4 trillion they will spend if no cuts are made.

The "brutal" sequester is anything but. Even the much-feared Paul Ryan budget plan would only reduce the federal debt in 2021 from the $26 trillion President Obama projects to ... $23 trillion.

With our economic house in such disarray, Coulter is right to avoid getting bogged down in fights over drugs and homosexuality. But I prefer the way Amash handled the libertarian-conservative conflict.

Michelle Montalvo of Temple University asked him to "comment on your faith and how you reconcile that with your libertarian beliefs? There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, (but) we're not all godless."

Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."

The young people at the conference worry about the economy. They worry less about drug use and gay sex -- most have come to see those as socially acceptable.

Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter -- and other Republicans -- to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.

Then we can concentrate on the important things.

[mnehring]

the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.

They could also increase 100 fold if they regulated fringe issues to the fringe and focus on things like the freedom of businesses to operate, the freedom of you to be secure in your home, etc. They mention these things but treat them like side issues to things like Pot. They turn off many people to issues they are strong on such as limiting government surveillance when they tie in Alex Jones types into the argument and suddenly it becomes a big trilateral conspiracy.

Also, one other beef I have with them is their attacks on big Corporations. Yes, some are in bed with Big Brother but most are trying to get by in the sea of regulations like the rest of us. The concept of a Corporation who is free to grow as big as it can manage is fundamental in Capitalism. After all, if they weren't free to do that, it means you have a regulatory body restricting their growth- not very Libertarian is it?

[mnehring]

Would you suddenly go out and start raping, stealing, and doing every drug available?

Sadly, many would. Which is why Conservatives aren't anarchists (unlike how the left likes to paint us). There has to be some level of societal order or there won't be a society.

[gdani]

the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.

How's that working out for the Tea Party folks?

[Tublecane]

I do, too. Of course, gay marriage is the opposite of that. I can’t understand why we can never talk about that for what it really is, instead of getting bogged down in false and irrelevant equality or personal liberty arguments. Stossel writes as if Pubs are trying to outlaw sodomy, or something, instead of merely refusing to allow the state to intrude further into our lives. It’s akin to the sort of corruptly n of language in FDR’s “four freedoms,” not all of which were freedoms at all, but rather the opposite.

[kosciusko51]

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but here goes:

The problem with libertarians is that they overemphasize the rights of the individual to the detriment of the society, which is the opposite of the progressives, who see the individualistic point of view as a detriment to social development.

There has to be a balance between our rights and our responsibilities, and there is a difference between liberty and license. While many of our founders where not Christian, they realized that the Judeo-Christian foundation was necessary starting point for our country, as it had a balance between the rights of the individual along with their responsibility to their fellow man. Both progressives and libertarians work to undermine this foundation of this Republic.

[Dysart]

I agree with all that, and would suggest that the pot fixation issue is driven by the more exuberant, activists 20-somethings who are more likely to champion drug legalization. Institutions like Reason and lately the party apparatus, I think, are just playing to that crowd. It's a mistake because important and basic principles of liberty get lost in the haze so to speak.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“If Republicans were smart, they’d listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too. “

IMHO, the contention that young people want government to stay out of their lives in a lie. They want free tuition, they want the government to mandate their parents pay for their health insurance and birth control, to not allow you to smoke, or eat animal products, or develop your property if it endangers the environment, or hire whomever you want, and a host of other things. They are like all other people. They are zealous in support of what they believe in.

Very few have even heard of a serious discussion of the idea that the Feds should have less say in our lives.

[ansel12]

The left knows what they are doing when they call themselves libertarians.

Here is the libertarian position on the concept of having a border.

“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER

IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””

[mnehring]

How's that working out for the Tea Party folks?

Better than the Libertarians.

[blueunicorn6]

A Libertarian is just a Democrat who doesn’t want to pay his own taxes.

[concerned about politics]

You should be free to screw up your own life. No, don’t expect us to bail you out. No, we don’t want to associate with you until you clean up your act either.

That's the way it should be. This was why the Constitution was written, to guarentee it.

Liberalism destroys lives. Destroyed lives lead to social programs. Social programs lead to bigger government. If people were set free to do as they please without others being held responsible, society would clean itself up. (Liberals would eliminate themselves via homosexual diseases, STD's, drug abuse, fighting over stuff among themselves,women would have to raise their own illegitimate children, etc.)

If everyone were to be held responsible for their own actions, the world would be a much, much better place. Our founding fathers were well aware of that.

[Tublecane]

You are exactly right. Why does Stossel pretend as if Republicans are llcalling for police raids of private gay “commitment ceremonies”? I wouldn’t normally ask, because people will use whatever’s at hand to win an argument, and just like they misuse the equality argument because it’s important in our culture to pretend to believe in it, there’s also still a residue of regard for freedom to which we bow in empty ceremony. But if you can rely on libertarians for anything, it’s to keep clear the division between government intrusion and living your own life. Everyone partakes in special pleading, of course, but this seems too obvious.

Gay marriage is not an equality nor a liberty issue (except, maybe, to people who advocate tearing straight marriage down to equalize it with homosexuality, but then we’re not talking about gay marriage, are we).

[babble-on]

Tea Party screwed it up on their own. Lost their focus on the tax and spend issue and became a catch-all for 100 disparate Conservative causes.

[Ransomed]

“I do NOT care if government on all levels gets out of the marriage business, which seems to be the libertarian argument.”

That’s the small l libertarian argument as they know the state can punish you for not buying into whatever impossibility the state decides to call marriage at the time. The big L libertarians seem to be completely hypocritical on the marriage issue, as the whole ‘gay marriage’ fight is about punishing those who disagree with their nonsense with the power of the state, which they seem to have no problem with.

Freegards

[gdani]

It's a mistake because important and basic principles of liberty get lost in the haze so to speak.

While I don't typically prescribe to any particular party or label, there are those of us who see the wholesale evisceration of the Fourth Amendment & billions of dollars spent by the Republicrats on the failed War On (some) Drugs to involve important & basic principles of liberty.

[fr_freak]

Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.

That's because more and more people are wholly brainwashed into confusing completely separate issues, rendering them incapable of rational thought. For example, the number one argument for changing the definition of one of the most basic, foundational institutions of society, marriage, to include same-sex couples is "Why shouldn't people be able to love whomever they want?"

This question, of course, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with changing the definition of marriage, because anyone can love anyone, emotionally, physically, or whatever, whether the definition of marriage is changed or not. In addition, nobody is trying to outlaw love of any kind, or even homosexual sex. But "gay-marriage" proponents can't allow the dumbed-down masses of America to engage in rational thinking, or they would easily reject the redefining of marriage as ludicrous, so they muddy up the waters by equating a redefinition of marriage with the right to love, thus using base emotions to override real thinking. That technique, of course, is the very definition of brainwashing.

Millions of kids who grew up drooling in front of the TV (largely thanks to their lazy parents) have been conditioned to passively accept whatever is pumped into their mushy little brains. They have been spoiled rotten to the point where most have never known real hardship or sacrifice, and have come to expect everything handed to them on a silver platter, considering it a violation of their "rights" when they don't have the latest smartphone or big screen TV. Some of these "kids" are currently middle-aged, by the way.

Only a collapse and purge will correct this problem which, ironically, the self-indulgent policies of this dumbed-down, spoiled population will guarantee.

[Tublecane]

That’s just stupid. The Berlin Wall kept people in, not out, duh.

I believe in open borders, so long as people have to make their own living.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

there is a difference between liberty and license.

Which is what, exactly?

[kosciusko51]

Did you read the rest of my post?

[driftless2]

I don't approve of abortion on demand. Do you? If a new conservative government comes in and appoints new supreme court justices who throw out Roe v. Wade, would you agree, or would you say government has no right to interfere with individual choices?

If your neighbors decided to prance around naked in their yards and engage in sex on their front lawn in full view of you and everyone else in the neighborhood, what right do you have to forbid them from doing something they want to do? How does two people having sex on private property harm you? Don't give me the morality argument, after all, according to you, it's a private affair and none of you or the government's business.