Posted on 05/28/2002 7:39:35 AM PDT by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Political fashions come and go, but political principles endure. President Clinton noted some six years ago that the era of big government was over. Yet today, conservatives who should know better see a new fashion. George Will, high on his Hamiltonian horse in the Washington Post last month, seemed delighted that minimal-government conservatism was dead. And on these pages recently, Francis Fukuyama declared1 the libertarianism that followed the Thatcher-Reagan revolution to be in retreat. We're all Keynesians now, apparently.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
And for some reason political viability and actual measurable effectiveness seem to be systematically disconnected in politics and government, hence don’t hold that up as some morally superior measure of libertarianism as and ideology. If anything, such unaccountability totally discredits the system you defend, as no sane person would dare put their own money in to 90% of the government garbage if they were freely given a choice.
Wake up from the matrix. Its there to see if you’re looking.
My reading has led me to understand the founders' as having seen themselves as Whigs. This is why conservatives such as Hayek and Kirk use that term about themselves. The Whigish aversion to political systems corrupted by Arbitrary Application of Power or Arbitrary Power in general coulpled with the four generation long colonial practice of participatory self-government for the remote colonies gave them the model to which they continually refered.
I see many, from such reasonable libertarian sources as Cato, refering to these Whiggish traditions as libertarian and leaving out the Levelers, Diggers and Shays Rebellion crowd in telling the historical roots of Libertarianism. Fine, but if that is done, they shouldn't claim it exclusively.
Respect for government's limits is hardly hostility to government in all its manifestations.
If that is really the case for libertarianism in general, then why is hostility to government so central to the libertarian view outside Cato? Don't get me wrong, traditional conservatives see government as negative force, by and large, and only the State as ordained by that Enduring Moral Order to which most of us subscribe. But isn't being defined by the negative the same shortcoming to which conservatives are subjected?
Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty cited our true origination as along the Whig path of slow, organic, process and differentiated it from the Rationalist Totalitarian Democracy pattern. How often do we see libertarian writers falling into the camp of the rationalist, the enlightenment, and the ideologue? Perhaps too often, IMHO.
It matters little to me as to how many of our branches of conservatism claim the mantle of the founders tradition, just so long as that mantle is lifted from the dust, preserved and laid upon our shouders proudly as we stand and proclaim a path to constitutional restoration.
Names aren't nearly as important as action.
Separately, I find a bit philosophically incoherent your assertions about libertarian cris for government involvement on “legalizing” and “mandating” things. What is being asked by libs is that the busy-bodies of government butt-out re legalization of things, weather it be drugs, marriage, or smoking on private property. Likewise, I don’t know of any initiatives where libs “cry for govt. involvement” to mandate “what is now out of the purview of government.” Perhaps you can clarify with specifics?
You do touch on an esoteric dilemma of the very corruptible nature of politics, questioning if libertarian politicians would invariably become part of the problem they propose to solve. However, this in itself is self-canceling as once one “succumbs to the perks” they no longer are libertarian by definition. If voters would commit once and for all to libertarian ideology, rather than the current “my team vs. your team” approach, perhaps this would be less of an issue. But likely this expects too much from most voters, who tend to be fairly politically illiterate and easily bought and sold with the pretty packaging of perks offered-up by politicians. In any event, the LP is a long way from facing any such dilemma and if elected in growing numbers would do much more good than damage in the meantime!!
As for my ideas on liberty, I’d simply like to allow for an “opt out clause” whereby those addicted to government in their lives could continue to play ball, but those not wanting it could simply be truly free people and say, “thanks, but no thanks”.
But opt out now, and prepare to go to jail! Ahh, freedom.
Freedom comes in all shapes and sizes. I happen to be a conservative Christian libertarian. I figure if my God gives me a choice on whether I want to walk with him, my fellow man should be at least as gracious.
What I may frown on for moral or religious reasons does not give me carte blanche to form a cartel of like minded individuals to force our collective will on others. Do you support such authoritarian behavior?
I daresay that if libertarians were elected, in fifty years they would be as corrupt as the current crew. Well, we will have had fifty years of restored freedom, and having to fight the same battles again and again is the way of life.
>>>If that is really the case for libertarianism in general, then why is hostility to government so central to the libertarian view outside Cato?<<<
I think this may be for two reasons.
The term libertarian covers tons of ground, from Catoists to Anarchists (in the original meaning vs. the more recently co-opted molitov throwing Marxist meaning). I think most libertarians would agree, however, that if you were going to err, best to err on the side of little to no government. .
The other reason is that Cato is becoming less and less purely libertarian. They are adopting more of a paleo-conservative approach on foreign policy initiatives (defending interventionism lately), but are still fairly true on economic matters. Part of this may be that they are becoming victims of their own success. This phenomenon is not new – many respected organizations, philanthropic or otherwise, lose sight of their original mission and become more concerned with self-preservation and the success of their own members, or get hijacked outright by lefties. This explains much of the old money, “leftie” non-profits out there.
However, I have to point out the Depts. of Education and Housing and Urban Development are two of the most bloated and worthless agencies. The Education Department proposed budget will be $54 billion and HUD's will be $32 billion in 2003. I don't have to tell you the damage these agencies do. Heck, Reagan ran on a platform to eliminate Education. Sadly, he wasn't able to do it, but Bush younger seems to have given in to the left wing education union.
While Bush is a significant improvement over Clinton and Gore, let me remind you that they set quite a low bar. Let us rally behind a modest 4% increase in federal spending as an improvement.
To be libertarian by definition requires a base philosophical set of rules. Evaluated on the aforementioned total departures from “platform” (although such a term implies more stability than clearly deserved), if republicans had similar (any??) standards, George Bush, by definition, would no longer be republican.
Instead, and alas, “Hoorah!” for the Republican Team.
In any event, to use your own terms, even just 50 years of something libertarian is better than the near total abdication of professed ideology exhibited by republicans at the moment.
When you are in a philosophy club, why should you admit members who don't necessarily agree with your beliefs? This is why the LP is for so-called "pure" libertarians, and has moved in the extremist direction. If you don't agree 100% then you aren't really welcome. The LP is now the OP, or Objectivist Party.
LMAO
This prompts the counterpoint that perhaps they are "becoming less and less purely" ideological, in a rationalist or dogmatic sense. My stongest aversion to libertarianism is its central core of rationalist ideology...that reliance that most libertarians find so freeing, I find confining and limiting. Perhaps, more sure of their following and real-world applicability, they are adopting those conservative precepts of Prudence and Politics as the Art of the Possible?
Americans are naturally adverse to iconclastic ideology, and we do see Cato getting more play in the public media.
Libertarian Party members share a zeal for reducing government - unlike the republicans they actually mean it (darned “extremists” that they are…). They don't consider 4% growth “victory for the cause”.
Furthermore, to expect 4% reduction or even zero% is extremist or exclusory? Why then is not 4% growth extremist in the other direction? What exactly are you promoting? Protection for the Republican team, for team’s sake only? Or I guess words just don't mean anything more to them?
Republicans, more and more like the democrats, throw around dismissive tar-labels like “extremist”, worried that they’ll be seen for what they are – an emperor without any clothes. Must be getting chilly.
You missed a good thread the other day where it was suggested that libertarians turn every thread into a drug discussion. I laughed my ass off. I went back and showed who introduced the drug question into a totally different topic. The score was ,,,all Kevvie boy and his merry band of morons, and zero from any libertarian types. They were silent for the first time I can remember.
I see you have introduced your hatred for the LP and the attendant generalizations and mischaracterizations into yet another thread where the LP is not the topic. You remind me of Kevvie boy on the drug issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.