Libertarians And The Two Major Political Parties
Libertarians (when I use the word libertarian alone I am referring to believers in libertarian ideology not members of the Libertarian Party) believe America has a history of being great because it has a history of being the nation best at preserving private property rights and civil liberties. We desire a government that has the power needed to maintain law and order so an environment exists where property rights are protected and people feel confident enough to sink all of their time and effort into increasing their property without fear of it being stolen from them. This is the definition of the right to property. Libertarians also desire a government that doesn’t dictate moral values to its citizens. Consenting adults who wish to violate the mores of society should be free to do so in any way they wish until their actions perpetrate demonstrable harm to someone who didn’t voluntarily take part in those actions then government should step in to redress resulting grievances. This is civil liberty. Libertarians are deeply distrustful of anyone arguing that some of their property should be forfeit to government so it can be re-distributed to anyone else for any reason other than protection of property rights and civil liberties (police, courts and military).
I’ve always believed that neither major political party has been good at implementing libertarian ideals in government. For most of my life I’ve believed Republicans were better at maintaining my property rights while Democrats were better at maintaining my civil liberties. It is clear that both parties have been very willing to compromise both of these values throughout our nation’s history. In my opinion Democrats are currently the lesser of the two evils when it comes to violating my economic freedoms and my civil liberties. That is why I’m a Democrat and that is why I urge other libertarian leaning individuals to support the Democratic Party over the Republican Party.
(I’ve just written in two short paragraphs what the “great” Markos Moulitsas couldn’t effectively communicate in this giant essay. Not that I’m being cocky or anything.)
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Plus Jeremy, you also believe what you just wrote, unlike Kos.
We share a political philosophy, but we currently disagree on political parties. This WSJ editorial is an example of why I don’t trust the Democrats more than the Republicans (not that I trust the free-spending Republicans right now either). http://tinyurl.com/mqdek
Comment by Daniel — October 4, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Daniel, can you give us the Reader’s Digest condensed version of that editorial? We senior citizens on a fixed income can’t afford that pricey WSJ subscription…we can barely afford our medications and health care. I’d love to read all about how the “Party of Family Values” is better for me than the Dems.
Comment by Part of the Plan — October 5, 2006 @ 6:26 am
Sorry Dan the Republicans have lost me in Utah and nationally until they can show they aren’t completely full of crap. Republicans have promised smaller government as long as I’ve been alive and they have never…NEVER delivered on that promise. Even Reagan was a mixed bag. I don’t demand complete intellectual honesty in politicians…that is asking to much…but when I’ve been rear ended by the politicians I support over and over and over again I can’t stick with them.
Our government is broken right now. If we make it more efficient by mainting one party dominance it will corrupt even more quickly. We need mixed government and we need to slow President Bush down any way we can. It is only a matter of time before people on the right start coming to the same conclusion I have. This article you sent me convinces me even more that this is the case.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html
Comment by Jeremy Manning — October 5, 2006 @ 6:46 am
Many senior citizens can barely afford health care now. I agree. Few of the next generation are stopping to look at how ugly it’s going to get in a generation, let alone two. It’s hard to find anybody willing to pay a penny towards my future anymore. I’ve already been robbed of 8 years pension by corporate america. Gone are those days. While I fumed and looked for a new job, everybody around me seemed to worry about nothing more than next week’s paycheck.
I feel horribly guilty about handing my children (that 2nd generation) a current $400,000 per household money pit. (See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-10-03-debt-cover_x.htm) Any president or group of congressmen who can make me believe that they will begin taking out a chunk of that has my vote.
I’m still waiting…
Comment by Cody — October 5, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Sorry about that, I thought that the WSJ editorial was free. Here’s the intro:
Democrats are campaigning on “a new direction for America,” but they’ve been deliberately abstemious with any details of what that means. New York Senator Chuck Schumer told the Journal last week that silence is their strategy because laying out an agenda “gives Republicans a target.” So much for the courage of one’s convictions.
Apparently, however, Mr. Schumer hasn’t connected with Charlie Rangel, the 36-year House veteran from New York City who will chair the Ways and Means Committee if Democrats win a majority. Mr. Rangel has been happy to explain his own agenda on taxes and the war in Iraq.
In a recent interview with Bloomberg News, Mr. Rangel was asked specifically if any of the Bush first term tax cuts were worth preserving and he answered that he “cannot think of one.” Then last week, Mr. Rangel was asked by Congress Daily whether he’d consider tax increases across the income spectrum. “No question about it,” he said. “Everything has to be on the table.”
“Everything” would mean repealing the 10% low-income tax bracket, the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, all of which passed in 2001 and expire in 2010. According to the Treasury Department, repealing those provisions would raise taxes on the average middle income family by about $2,000 a year. Most Democrats say they only want to raise taxes on the rich, so give the would-be-chairman points for honesty.
Comment by Daniel — October 5, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Daniel, at some time in the near future taxes will of course have to be raised again, it is an inevitable consequence of lowering taxes during wartime (and I mean a war even more expensive than Vietnam). Read Bruce Bartlett. And even though the socialist Rangel might be Ways and Means Chairman, his will only be one of 435 votes and besides, I really don’t see the Dems gouging the poor and middle-class. It’s the richest 5% (the ones the WSJ writes for) that are going to be targeted, and that doesn’t bother a lot of middle-class people like me. All the millionaires I know have feathered their nests quite nicely the past six years.
I also think at this point it is inevitable that the Dems will retake the House so it is even more imperative that we elect moderates like Matheson, Burridge and Olsen here in Utah. We need moderates to hold the radicals like Rangel in check.
Comment by Part of the Plan — October 5, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Jeremy,
I agree that the Republicans have been a huge disappointment. But I’m still not convinced that Democrats are the answer. President Bush’s tax cuts were a positive and that is one of the places the Democrats will start their attacks. Do you really think that a Democratic Congress will constrain Bush’s free spending ways (other than by constraining his spending on defense)? Will a Democratic Congress promote lower taxes? Would a Democratic Senate give us a Supreme Court Justice more like Thomas or more like Ginsburg? Would a Democratic Senate give us more decent Circuit Court judges? Would a Democratic Senate or House vote to open ANWR to more oil production? Would a Democratic Senate or House vote to open the Outer Continental Shelf to more oil and natural gas production? Would a Democratic Senate vote down a carbon-dioxide cap and trade scheme that does not affect global temperatures, but would cost American consumers billions of dollars a year?
I recognize that the Democrats would probably have been better than the Republicans on the border fence bill and the military tribunal bill if they had had a majority. But it wasn’t as if they were champions of liberty as the minority party.
Comment by Daniel — October 5, 2006 @ 10:14 am
I’m going to go to the left of both of you and say that I hope for massive tax increases ACROSS THE BOARD as soon as possible to pay for the war and Bush’s massive increases in social spending. I favor tax increases on the middle class and poor equal to those the socialists will want to place on the rich. The current regime has increased spending in an enormous way while cutting taxes. This leads most Americans to believe that they can have huge government without ever having to worry about paying for it. The more progressive our taxes are the fewer people there are paying for government. Nearly half of households don’t pay anything in federal income taxes now as it is. That should be a little scary to supporters of small and responsible government.
People will continue to support big government Republicans/Democrats as long as they think the benefits of big government are free. When they realize there is a price tag and that trickle down is never going to save our system of government then maybe they will be in favor of politicians and policy leaders who are more realistic in their platforms for office. Until then government will continue to grow exponentially no matter who is in office.
I know my desires aren’t that realistic but I’ve always been a bit of an idealist. If you want more pragmatic reasoning for supporting Democrats for office this election I can only resort to my love of divided government that is restrained from doing anything substantial because of partisan bickering. Bush’s spending on defense should be reviewed and as you said Democrats will review it. We are currently spending a lot and not getting our money’s worth for the contractors who get the majority of our defense $$$.
Bush’s judges haven’t been all that great. Roberts is ok but Alito has no respect for civil rights in any of his opinions that I’ve read. He is a rubber stamp for government busy-bodies, snoops and men with rubber hoses.
I don’t know how you can worry about Democrats not supporting ANWR or off shore drilling when we can’t even get that past an all Republican government.
On balance Democrats will have to be better than Republicans if they gain the house because they will have such a tenuous grasp on power. They will cause problems for Republicans and they will also be required for the first time in nearly 6 years to state their ideas and argue why they are better than Republicans. It will be good for all of us to have partisan competition in Washington again.
Sorry for this long disjointed post but work is busy today. There are lots of tax payers pissed that their homes are worth more than they were last year!
Comment by Jeremy Manning — October 5, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Agreed. Let’s do it now. Save the fiscal government of our children. I’ll gladly pay another $3-5k in taxes a year if I knew that my kids wouldn’t have to later on.
…sorry about the extra work. No worries though, their homes will be worth less next year.
Comment by Cody — October 5, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Great idea on taxes. If only more democrats thought the same way then I could be a convert and vote democratic.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 7:06 am
Jeremy, when you say “We desire a government that has the power needed to maintain law and order so an environment exists where property rights are protected and people feel confident enough to sink all of their time and effort into increasing their property,” it demonstrates exactly why I cannot be conservative nor libertarian. The attitude that we should sink all of our time and effort into increasing our own property is the path to conspicuous consumption, materialism, selfishness, and greed. They are the roots of the very social ills which social conservatives so denounce and like to blame on liberalism.
We as a people need to recognize that material acquisition is not the ultimate end. We need to recognize that there are limits to the nobility of private property. We need to learn when we have enough, and turn our time and efforts to more noble pursuits: personal relationships; strengthening the bonds of families; serving others rather than just oneself, through church, civic, or personal service; sharing and cooperation rather than competing; sacrificing your own benefit for the benefit of others in an effort to life them up. Those are the hallmarks of a healthy, moral nation, not the fact that everyone is sinking all their time and effort into the personal aggrandizement of property accumulation.
Comment by Derek — October 7, 2006 @ 7:14 am
Derek,
Nothing that I wrote in the post or comments states that I think it would be a good thing for people to “sink all of their time and effort into increasing their property.” I wrote that people should feel free to do so without fear of government getting in their way. As long as I am not harming someone in a demonstrable way with my use of MY property I shouldn’t be subject to government sanction.
Someone on the right could have objected to my statement on civil rights using the same logic you used in your condemnation. I said, “Consenting adults who wish to violate the mores of society should be free to do so in any way they wish until their actions perpetrate demonstrable harm to someone who didn’t voluntarily take part in those actions…” That doesn’t mean I think anyone should act against the mores society has set. It means that as long as I am not harming anyone in a demonstrable way I should be free to do so without government interference.
Since you seem to disagree with me and most other libertarians on the importance of this individual freedom I have a question for you. Who would you rather have making decisions for you and me on what we can do with our property or our personal lives? Why do you think they could do a better job making those decisions than we can?
Comment by Jeremy Manning — October 7, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
Who can we trust? Us, of course. That is, the collective “us.”
I certainly respect and honor the importance of the right of individuals. But that right is not an absolute virtue in some vacuum. It is a right which must be balanced by other rights and obligations. Much of governance concerns balance. In creating the constitution, the framers sought to balance, among other things, the rights and the rule of the majority with the rights and protection of the minority; the rights of the states and the rights of the federal government. Likewise, there must be a balance between the rights and needs of the individual in economic pursuits and property, as well as the rights needs of society.
The libertarian theory is a well-intentioned one, and is a rather attractive philosophy. I myself am drawn by the idea of an idyllic world in which anarchy (true philosophical anarchy, not goths in trenchcoats) rules. But I’ve read too much history to hold out hope that anarchy would work. Minimal/nonexistent government only works if all participants are roughly equal. If relationships are fundamentally unequal, then the strong (in whatever category is relevant) take advantage and abuse the weak. Government is necessary in that case not to protect the “rights” of the strong–as they can take care of themselves–, but to protect the weak and community resources (“the commons,” air, water, land, etc) from abuse.
Jefferson and other early advocates of “small” government subconsciously recognized this. Jefferson was very adamant about his ideal society: an agrarian society, one comprised of small, self-sufficient communities, filled with subsistence farmers and local, independent tradesmen. “Small” government would indeed well suit such a society. On the other hand, Jefferson very vociferously opposed industrialization and large-scale commerce (despite the fact that the only way he himself ever really made any money was by producing nails for industrial consumption). Not surprisingly, minimal government is unable to deal effectively with the accumulation of power and wealth by the few under industrial, commercialized societies; power by which the less fortunate are exploited.
History shows us what happens under a government concerned primarily with property rights and creating a friendly economic/business environment. During the Gilded Age, a very few industrialists and corporations were able to amass enormous levels of wealth through the exploitation of labor and the environment. Tens of thousands were dispossessed, rendered ill, crippled, or died–not even considering the cost to the environment–because of the robber barons and their pursuit of economic advantage.
Liberalism attracts me because it DOES recognize the importance of individual rights, but also places value on the obligations we have to our society–particularly those who have little ability to protect themselves. It advocates government not large for the sake of size, but just large enough to protect the public from exploitation by the powerful forces who don’t have the public’s interests at heart.
I wrote the above to answer your question, but I am primarily concerned with clarifying my initial point. Yes, I can see what you’re saying. I can see how a conservative could take issue with your other statement. But I believe that we need to be particularly careful about how we address economic issues. They do, after all, deal with life and death. If hunger, disease, and homelessness are rampant in society, then all of society’s mores are meaningless. Moreover, a study of linguistics provides compelling evidence that the language with which we discuss an issue actually shapes the way we perceive that issue (ie “greed is good”). By focusing primarily–even exclusively–on rights and freedom in economic issues, neglecting to mention individual obligations and failing to understand the value of the social needs, the good-willed libertarians whom I’ve read, like yourself, run the risk of increasing the skewed perception of the place of important but not penultimate concepts such as economic pursuits, wealth accumulation, and property rights in society.
Comment by Derek — October 8, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
I have made no argument in favor of anarchy. Government should have clearly described responsibilities and limits. I described the responsibilities and limits government should have in my post. I have respect for the great good government can do. I also have fear of the great harm government can cause because I understand the formidable power government has. Government exists because its subjects grant it the sole monopoly over the use of force. Government has power because government has the guns and its subjects don’t. It doesn’t matter what type of government we are talking about. The whole point of government is that it has the ability to force people to conform through the implicit threat of violence.
When you say you trust “the collective ‘us’” to make decisions for me on what I can do with my property and my personal life you are really saying you think I should be directed at the point of a gun to do what “us” wants me to do. It isn’t irrational for me to want to limit the scope of what “us” can use government to make me do. I understand the Jeffersonian fear of unconstrained government and I don’t think it was based solely on the fact that he and Madison wanted America to be a nation of farmers. Government has been the tool used in the perpetration of all the greatest atrocities in our world’s history. Jefferson and Madison worked to create a severely limited government because they were students of history. I am too. I think recent history has shown that when “us” decides it wants government that is willing to perpetrate tyranny (the past 3-4 years for example)…even for seemingly admirable goals…it gets it.
I don’t think we are going to have a perfect American government that is limited to maintaining the freedoms I’ve written about. We have never had one. We didn’t even have one in the “Guilded Age” used earlier by you as a straw man to support your contention that limited government was tried and didn’t work. The wealthy have used our government’s monopoly on force as a tool to further enrich themselves since America’s inception because we have entrusted our elected leaders with too much power and not enough limits.
I am not so dogmatic in my desire for limited government that I can’t support the idea of a publicly funded welfare system or public schools. That said, it should never be forgotten that even these and other worthy priorities can only be provided by government when citizens are forced at the point of a gun to surrender their property to pay for them. It is important that we not be cavalier about using government to right all of society’s wrongs. In most cases it isn’t the right tool for the job.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — October 10, 2006 @ 12:11 am
I wish there were some way to communicate tone and intent on the internet. I fear far too often, people (including myself, I’m sure) see accusations and attacks where none are intended.
I can see your point that “citizens are forced at the point of a gun to surrender their property to pay for them.” I think to phrase it that way is a bit extreme, but agree it is technically true. Can you likewise see how allowing unrestrained pursuit of self-interest and economic advantage is to freely permit the coercion and abuse of the weak by the strong through means other than literal arms?
I did not suggest you supported anarchy. I very consciously introduced anarchy to the discussion. In my cursory exploration of limited government, I admitted that the idea of anarchy (particularly anarcho-syndicalism) is appealing to me on some levels. I did so to express the fact that I can understand the attraction of the idea of minimal, even absent, government; to express that I can find some off the concepts of libertarianism amenable. It is only my study of history and the complete absence of obligations of the individual to the public in libertarian discourse that dissuades me.
You seem to misunderstand my talk of the collective “we.” Yes, the collective “we” that is democratically elected and participatory government, should be limited. I didn’t suggest it should be all-encompassing or all-powerful. Recall that I talked about it balancing, not overriding, the individual, just as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights strive to balance the interests of the majority with the interests of the minority. I don’t think that libertarians generally, or your talk about parties in particular, appreciate the importance of that balance, stressing only individuality.
The tyranny perpetuated in the last few years is not a result of the collective “us,” but of the increasing influence of economic interests on the government, which has been permitted because our society has bought into the glorification of economic liberty, freedom of property, and self-interest (while dropping the essential “enlightened” qualifier from the phrase). If “we” pushed the influence of powerful economic interests out of our government, rejected their dogma, and increased participation by “us,” this current batch of tyranny would be stamped out. Simply limiting–perhaps even neutering government–would not eliminate the ability of the wealthy to enrich themselves at the expense of the public. It would only eliminate the need for powerful economic interests to go through the government–those interests could simply prey upon the weak directly, without worry about the impact of government.
If you study Jefferson’s works and words, you will see that his vision of limited government is inextricably linked to his vision of an agrarian society. You cannot really separate them. And for good reason: that sort of government requires that sort of society. Minimal government in a society of high commerce and corporatization will not be powerful enough to counter the coercive power of the corporate elements. Note that Jefferson didn’t even explore the impact of an industrialized society, because he repudiated the concept of such a society.
My mentioning of the Gilded Age was no straw man. I believe that you do not intentionally advocate for the robber barons. But the Gilded Age did indeed happen, and did so because men in power supported a government which did not interfere with business. They worked to create a nation which gave the utmost freedom to capital, markets, and property, where corporations could write their own rules, where laissez-faire capitalism was ascendent, and where the social obligations of property were minimized. The discourse of the libertarians, Ayn Randians, and free-marketers today is nearly identical to the language used by the advocates of the economic principles of the Gilded Age. It may not be intentional, but we should be honest in recognizing that libertarian discourse and your own post (at least that one, admittedly small, line) follows in their footsteps.
I only bothered to comment on your post at all because I respect your good intentions and good-will, and I appreciate your willingness to ally against the current direction of the Republican party. I appreciate the principles you espouse–in balance with other equally important principles. But I fear that the libertarian focus when it comes to economics plays directly into the hands of the “free-market” language of the conservatives in power.
I hope this helps you better understand where I’m coming from. If not, or if you simply don’t agree, c’est la vive. I’ll say no more.
Comment by Derek — October 10, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
I agree…it would be nice if tone could be better expressed in writing because I thoroughly enjoy your comments on my site. Conversing with interesting people about ideas is the reason I have a blog. Your comments are not only welcome here but very much appreciated.
I’m sorry if I came off as bitter or rude in my comment. That was not my intent. It was a fun comment to think through and write. I didn’t mean to offend and really hope I didn’t.
I agree with you about the dangers of a government that takes it upon itself to support business interests. When government helps corporate interests in any way it is forcefully taking resources from all of us in an effort to benefit the few. Libertarians get a bad rap from many on the left for being against the use of government to benefit the poor but I think that view should be balanced by the poorly publicized but important truth that libertarians hate government efforts to benefit corporations just as badly.
There is little doubt that government efforts to assist business interests and corporations have been far more damaging to our freedoms and property rights than any government run welfare system. I like to think that more libertarians will note the damage done by recent administrations in their efforts to improve the economy when we’d all have been better off if they had left it alone. Subsidies to oil companies, farm subsidies which benefit mainly huge corporate farming interests, military contracts for weapons the armed forces don’t even want and hundreds of other instances of government assistance to corporate interests are destroying our country’s future economic prospects. Today’s robber barons are very similar to the robber barons of America’s “free wheeling” industrial revolution period. They write their own rules with complete disregard for this country’s citizens or its environment and they can do that because our government has taken upon itself their cause. That is not laissez-faire capitalism and it definitely isn’t libertarian style government and I don’t think it was during the Guilded Age either.
If you are tired of this line of discussion I understand but please feel free to continue to post on my site when something strikes you as worth commenting on. It makes blogging much more enjoyable for me and definitely makes this blog more interesting to each of the 3-4 readers I have
Comment by Jeremy Manning — October 10, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Jeremy, I wouldn’t be surprised if your readership has doubled to 6-8 since I added you to my blogroll.
Comment by Part of the Plan — October 11, 2006 @ 7:39 am
No, I’m not so much tired of the topic as much as I want to avoid belaboring the point (which is all too often my wont) or trolling.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t offended, nor were your words offensive. I thought they seemed a mite defensive, but I seem to have misinterpreted (again, the problem with internet communication and the lack of metatextual data).
Since you egged me on, I’ll pose a question. Are you familiar with mutualist economic theory? Because “small government,” “property rights,” and “free-market” arguments have so often been used in defense of corporatism and modern conservative economic agendas, I’ve (quite obviously) very suspicious of such language. I’ve largely supported the idea that government needs to be strong as a result. However, I was recently alerted to mutualism. According to Kevin Carson, creator of the mutualist.org website, mutualism is “free-market anti-capitalism.”
I haven’t been able to study the theory in detail, but on my fairly cursory reading of his site and blog (mutualist.blogspot.com), his views are a bit attractive. I was particularly encouraged to see a “small government” advocate who was highly critical of the same conservative/libertarian/Randian objectivism that bothered me (see his ”Vulgar Libertarianism Watch,”). Carson and the mutualist theories are ones under which I could consider being an advocate of “small government.
How do you feel about the mutualist theories?
Comment by Derek — October 11, 2006 @ 4:11 pm