What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian

McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University ^ | 2009-01 | Prof. John Hasnas

[rabscuttle385]

Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.

Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.

Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans than they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "[I[f it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T[he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."

I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.

Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.

If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

[rabscuttle385]

ask yourself this: “Would I want my OWN child to conduct this type of behavior?”

If you don't want your child to do something, then as their parents, teach them not to do that something.

That's your right as a parent.

Note well, however, that you have no rights over the children of others, and neither does the Government.

Frankly, I am thoroughly disgusted that we are arguing over the Government "legalizing" this and that, as if we are supposed to ask the Government for permission to do something instead of the other way around. It smacks of a reality in which we are ruled rather than being governed.

[parsifal]

Back to the single payer gov’t stuff. If I had to bet, gov’t will screw it up. Costs up and quality down. But, its going to happen sooner or later. The way health care costs are going up, more and more firms are going to drop coverage. They can’t afford it.

So, if we do it, we citizens will ignore our job to bounce lousy incumbents out and insist on proper management. But it doesn’t have to be that way. There is an internet now and information should be available. We could actually imprison more cheating doctors. We could actually pull an “ACORN” on crooked providers. Alan Grayson had a good point there. We are all for dumping Acorn, and probably rightfully so, but we should also dump other contractors who screw gov’t. Gov’t doesn’t have to be run like sh*t, but it probably will be.

parsy, who thinks sometimes all alternatives suck

[aSeattleConservative]

Conservatives that believe in limited government, know that government is needed to create and enforce laws. Being that the vices that I’ve mentioned involve people with “low moral turpitude”, more often than not a larger police presence is needed in areas where these vices take place. A police presence isn’t necessarily needed to curtail the vice per se, but because other crimes take place because of the immoral behavior that goes with the vice (robbery, rape, assault, theft, murder).

I’m amazed at the compassion of libertarians: “I don’t want MY daughter to be a prostitute, but I can’t tell someone else’s daughter not to go sell her body to some disgusting pervert.”

[aSeattleConservative]

Wow. You’re a lost soul rab...kinda like your Party.

[rabscuttle385]

Conservatives that believe in limited government, know that government is needed to create and enforce laws.

I never argued against creating and enforcing laws.

I did argue against creating too many laws, or against creating federal laws that are beyond the scope of the Constitution.

I’m amazed at the compassion of libertarians

I'm amazed at the "compassion" of some conservatives who think that the answer to a social ills is yet another Federal entitlement, or more Federal regulation, and then, after they lose power, and the other side uses more Federal programs against them, they bitch and moan and whine and clamor for "limited government."

Do you realize exactly **what** is "limit[ing]" the Federal government? It's a piece of paper called the U.S. Constitution.

Too bad that both sides have been selectively ignoring bits and pieces of it (holding up the nice, tasty morsels that support their own quests towards remaking American society) over the last fifty years.

“I don’t want MY daughter to be a prostitute, but I can’t tell someone else’s daughter not to go sell her body to some disgusting pervert.”

Oh, you can tell her, but she is not legally obligated to follow your instruction.

Let me put it this way: some eco-freak believes it's morally wrong for you to "destroy Mother Earth" by driving your car or, God forbid, breathing in O₂ and exhaling CO₂. Should he be allowed to regulate your driving, your lifestyle, and your breathing?

[rabscuttle385]

You’re a lost soul rab...kinda like your Party.

Newbie, what part of my remarks at post 59 was not consistent with conservative principles? The part where I referred to the Constitution or the part where I referred to Jefferson's Declaration?

As for my political affiliations, I have never held a membership in the Libertarian Party, and I have no intent of acquiring one at any time in the future.

[cripplecreek]

As for my political affiliations, I have never held a membership in the Libertarian Party, and I have no intent of acquiring one at any time in the future.

Same here, I won't be anybody's plantation boy.

[aSeattleConservative]

Whether you belong to the Libertarian Loser Party or not rab is of no concern to me. You walk the walk, and talk the talk.

What’s your philosophy on pornography by the way? Yet another “victimless crime”?

Here’s what the Party that you don’t belong to (but go by their platform to the “t”) feels about it:

B4. What is the libertarian position on art, pornography and censorship?
Libertarians are opposed to any government-enforced limits on free expression whatsoever; we take an absolutist line on the First Amendment. On the other hand, we reject the “liberal” idea that refusing to subsidize a controversial artist is censorship. Thus, we would strike down all anti-pornography laws as unwarranted interference with private and voluntary acts (leaving in place laws punishing, for example, coercion of minors for the production of pornography). We would also end all government funding of art; the label of “artist” confers no special right to a living at public expense.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B4

Again, such simplistic thinking. Let’s see what the pornographic aspect of the “if it feels goooood do it” lifestyle really does:

30 years of data connects porn with child molestation
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 10/2/2009 5:30:00 AM

Morality in Media (MIM) has posted a report online showing a relationship between adult pornography and child molestation.

The report covers various sources — news articles, court cases, studies, books, and congressional testimony — published from 1980 to present. Among their findings — child molesters use adult porn to “groom” their victims; many perpetrators progress from viewing adult porn to viewing child porn; and children imitate with other children the behavior they view in adult porn. (View MIM’s report [PDF])

MIM spokesman Bob Peters tells OneNewsNow he hopes to awaken people who are really earnest in their efforts to curb sexual exploitation of children, but who turn their backs on the adult pornography problem.

“...[I]t’s kind of counter intuitive, but a lot of people who sexually molest children also look at adult pornography,” he states. “They use it for their own arousal.

“They also often use it in the actual crimes,” he continues. “And there have been social science studies, surveys of people who commit sexual crimes against children, and during the questioning they’ll be asked about the role of pornography — and many of them will say that they used adult pornography shortly before the crime.”

Peters acknowledges that while adult porn is not the full explanation for the crime, it is certainly part of it. Polls over the past decade also show public support for Morality in Media’s stance that pornography is harmful.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=705570

But hey, that molested child is someone else’s, right rab? Let’s all be good little libertarians and mind our own business, right rab?

[rabscuttle385]

You walk the walk, and talk the talk.

Walk what walk?

I don't live a libertine lifestyle, if that's what you mean.

Libertarians are opposed to any government-enforced limits on free expression whatsoever; we take an absolutist line on the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads

Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech....

As far as I am concerned, the First Amendment applies to acts passed by Congress and not by the legislatures of the individual States.

On the other hand, we reject the “liberal” idea that refusing to subsidize a controversial artist is censorship...We would also end all government funding of art; the label of “artist” confers no special right to a living at public expense.

What's so "simplistic" about dropping all subsidies for the "arts," including works of "art" that are crude, obscene, and depict things that you may not approve of?

Thus, we would strike down all anti-pornography laws as unwarranted interference with private and voluntary acts (leaving in place laws punishing, for example, coercion of minors for the production of pornography).

It is unwarranted interference with private, voluntary acts involving consenting individuals of legal age. Those are the key words: private and voluntary.

30 years of data connects porn with child molestation

And your point is? What, that every pornography user must necessarily be a child molester?

But hey, that molested child is someone else’s, right rab?

There already exist all manner of laws prohibiting child molestation.

Let’s all be good little libertarians and mind our own business, right rab?

Is there something wrong with minding your own business and maybe not sticking your nose--like an "I know better than you" nanny-stater--into the lives of others because they might be doing something that you consider wrong?

[sickoflibs]

I would like to see a movement to dismantle federal power and control. I don’t want federal Christian based laws, not even crazy about conservative federal laws, definitely don’t like what is going on now. But it would be nice to use Obama disaster as a opportunity to show the country the problem with federal power. GWB caused a huge problem with his ˜compassionate conservatism” big government. The neo-cons and many on the religious right thought big government was great, because they had “their” guy in charge. Well guess what???

[LifeComesFirst]

I think parsy is Paul Krugman in disguise, and he’s just messing with us.

[LifeComesFirst]

Thank you for proving the point of this article with your far off-base smear of what libertarianism actually is.

[aSeattleConservative]

“Is there something wrong with minding your own business and maybe not sticking your nose—like an “I know better than you” nanny-stater—into the lives of others because they might be doing something that you consider wrong?”

I’m honored that you think that it was I that wrote the moral code that civilations have been using for centuries.

So sorry Mr. moral relativist, God decides what is right and what is wrong, not man. When we violate God’s laws we pay for it. It’s something to think about as you toke away tonight (it’s all about the freedom to get hiiiiiigh isn’t it rab?).

[aSeattleConservative]

Do tell what libertarianism “actually is”:

Their free market approach to the economy is admirable, only to be overshadowed by their “if it feels gooood do it” social policies.

Granted, their is a lot to be said for the drag queens of the homosexual so-called community (doing their own “thing”).

Killing unborn babies in the womb might not be your “thing”, but who are you to judge when someone else does their “thing”.

Look the other way when you walk down a city street and see a junky puking his guts out. Granted, he or she is someone’s son or daughter, but that’s not YOUR concern, he’s a weak link in the chain right? (doing his own “thing”).

[aSeattleConservative]

“I don’t want federal Christian based laws”...

Not to worry, the atheists are basing our laws on their “religion” (pick a side or get out of the way sonny boy).

[sickoflibs]

RE :” pick a side or get out of the way sonny boy”

Thought I made it perfectly clear. Limited role of the federal government, you know like that old dusty constitution says. I know this can't be done overnight.

RE : ” Not to worry, the atheists are basing our laws on their “religion” ”

Yes they are. And they are having a field day using the federal power precedents that your man GWB made. You assumed for some reason he would stay in power forever,that republicans could never lose. This alone tells us something.

[rabscuttle385]

I’m honored that you think that it was I that wrote the moral code that civilations have been using for centuries. [sic]

I never said such a thing.

So sorry Mr. moral relativist...

What makes you think that I believe in moral relativism? Have I advocated that there is no right and no wrong and all actions are relative?

No.

I have simply advocated that the individual has "certain inalienable rights" to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness and that the role of the Federal government is to protect these rights.

There is absolutely nothing relativistic about such principles.

Furthermore, I have not pronounced judgement of any sort as to the moral rightness or wrongness of the nearly limitless number of actions that an individual may commit during his or her own lifetime. I have only argued that the individual does in fact have the inalienable right to choose for himself or herself how to act, subject to the valid laws of the United States and of its subordinate but still sovereign jurisdictions, i.e., the States, and by implication, their constituent counties, parishes, boroughs, cities, towns, and other municipalities.

God decides what is right and what is wrong

You're right. Our Creator does have sole determination over right and wrong, but within the framework of our Federal government, he does not have determination of what is lawful and unlawful. We--the people--do.

When we violate God’s laws we pay for it.

As far as I am concerned, the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," i.e., all United States territory and any other place where the United States government holds lawful jurisdiction.

If our Creator feels the need to intervene, he is more than welcome to do so.

It’s something to think about as you toke away tonight

Toke away on what? Or are you so trollish as to generalize that all libertarians and libertarian conservatives live a libertine lifestyle that includes the use of controlled substances such as marijuana?

[Dead Corpse]

Who is more "conservative"? Who is more moral?

The libertarian who lives a moral life absent a gun to his head, or the conservative putting a gun to everyone else's heads to get them to "behave"?

Allow people to suffer the full effects of their bad behavior and there would be a lot less bad behavior...

Good post rab...

[Dead Corpse]

Really? How so?

[Dead Corpse]

Not only do such laws not work, they make a mockery of our Justice system, engender abuse by those tasked with enforcing them, and they are inevitably expanded by those looking to get re-elected and damn the consequences.