Libertarianism in 4 Words

The hashtag #libertarianismin4words was trending on Monday, leading to some amusing critiques of what I will charitably call the political ideology, along with some breathless efforts to decry the ignorance of the mockers and some noble attempts to find four words to describe the libertarian worldview that weren’t all either “freedom” or “liberty.”

I haven’t exactly made my thoughts on libertarianism a secret around here, so I don’t need to rehash or go into any great detail here. I will note, perhaps gratuitously, that four words is probably a fair limit for defenders of the ideology, at least since my own experience suggests that it has nothing to recommend it aside from abstract nouns.


I took the liberty (see what I did there?) of Storifying some tweets that I found amusing. This is by no means a complete set of tweets I liked, but rather just the ones that came up on a quick search of the hashtag:

Here were my thoughts for those who, as always, claimed that the critics just. don’t. get. it:

Share

The Tale of the Libertarians and the Bitcoins

Charles Stross brilliantly stated what I’ve been thinking about Bitcoin, along with what I’ve long thought about libertarianism (h/t dpm). Bonus points for saying it in a post entitled “Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire”:

To editorialize briefly, BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions. Which is fine if you’re a Libertarian, but I tend to take the stance that Libertarianism is like Leninism: a fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless spherical humanoids of uniform density (because it relies on simplifying assumptions about human behaviour which are unfortunately wrong).

Share

More Talk of Secession from Texas Republicans

KellyP42 from morguefile.comTexas Attorney General candidate Barry Smitherman, when he’s not advocating for pre-birth voting rights, is apparently talking up Texas’ ability to go it alone as an independent nation (h/t Jenn). He apparently said in an interview that Texas is “uniquely situated because we have energy resources, fossil and otherwise, and our own independent electrical grid…. [Texas has] been very strong leading in the charge agains the Obama administration.”

People like this tend to wrap themselves in the American flag when it suits their purposes, then talk about taking their ball and going home when the rest of America doesn’t do exactly what they want. Democracy is messy, America is big and diverse, and affluent white men don’t always get what they want anymore. Sorry, Mr. Smitherman, but it’s life. (Also, no legal authority for secession exists.)

I could not find any specific statements Smitherman has made recently regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do see that he was a guest speaker at a meeting of the Texas Patriots PAC on August 6, 2013, which reportedly opened with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. (The minutes do not mention if it was to the U.S. or the Texas flag. Yes, Texas has its own pledge of allegiance.)

My question for Smitherman is this: Did you recite the pledge to the U.S. flag that day, and say the words “to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible…”? Continue reading

Share

Some Excellent Questions for Libertarians

I often make common cause with self-styled libertarians on social issues, police brutality, military overreach, and the like. Where I differ greatly is on economic issues, for the basic reason that libertarians generally pretend that all individuals start from an equal bargaining position. R.J. Eskow has a piece at Salon called “11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites” that hits on pretty much all of the issues I have with the Ayn Rand style of libertarianism. Here are a few choice quotes.

On the lack of libertarian societies throughout history:

At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide. But libertarianism’s self-created mythos claims that it’s more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep—and easy to identify.

On libertarians’ narrow definition of “order”: Continue reading

Share

A Question to Ask Libertarians Who Try to Use Abortion to Change the Subject

In a very shouty exchange between Thom Hartmann and professional smug person Austin Petersen regarding the American health care system and “liberty,” an interesting red herring kept popping up. Hartmann kept asking Petersen if libertarians believe in the “right to life” espoused in the Declaration of Independence, and Petersen kept trying to change the subject by bringing up abortion (specifically, liberals’ support for abortion rights).

To his credit, Hartmann didn’t take the bait, but it is a question worth exploring. See, Petersen was trying to confuse two different meanings of the “right to life.” Hartmann was talking about the fundamental right of individuals to live their lives, while Petersen was referring to a very narrow concept that privileges the right of an unborn zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus over any rights that the pregnant person may have over their own body. The “right to life” of a clump of cells with slightly different DNA than the mother, in this definition, by necessity trumps the “right to life” of the mother. However, in the Declaration of Independence definition of “right to life,” I would argue that it is the mother, first and foremost, whose “right to life” is protected.

In order to protect the “right to life” of the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus, it is necessary to supersede the “right to life” of the mother. This is not to say that the mother’s actual life is threatened in every instance, but the mother’s right to bodily autonomy is always secondary. Libertarians, or at least the kind of libertarians represented by Petersen, will not abide any sort of infringement on their liberty by anybody, at all, ever, apparently, including Petersen’s belief that tax collection directly involves someone coming to your house with a gun. (I find this viewpoint hopelessly childish, but that’s a conversation for another day.) Petersen seems to believe that he has the sole authority to assert and protect his own rights, and no responsibility to defend the rights of others if he does not want to.

Here’s my first question, then, for libertarians of Petersen’s ilk: do you believe that anyone other than the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetus itself has the right or duty to assert or protect its own “right to life” (in your definition)?

If you answer “no,” then let’s just let the zygote/embryo/blastocyst/fetuses of the world find a way to petition for redress of grievances themselves, and stop trying to derail discussions.

If you answer “yes,” how exactly should others assert or protect those rights, in a way that does not infringe the essential liberty of the mother? You have pretty much already established your principle that liberty can only be curtailed by individual consent. I could see your argument that, by consenting to sexual activity, a pregnant person also consented to bear the child. Do you see where I am going with this? It’s not always a product of “consent.” Additionally, why can’t “consent” be withdrawn? I suspect you would reserve the right to withdraw your own consent to just about anything, so how is this different? That “consent” argument is fatally flawed.

I have seen countless ways that people who oppose government intervention in anything except the uterus try to weasel out of this question. I’m even less polite about it than Thom Hartmann. I know that the majority of people who claim to be “pro-life,” but want to assert dominance over all the uteruses, are full of crap when it actually comes to caring about “life.” There is no way to definitively eliminate abortion without state power. You know it and I know it, but most of you don’t have the courage to admit it.

I’ll ask the question more simply: why do you only want to use state power to control women?

Share

See If You Live in a Bubble, According to One Guy’s Quiz

Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 4.28.14 PMDo you live in a bubble?

I should probably explain what that means, except I don’t think I can. Here’s what some folks at PBS said:

White America is coming apart at the seams.

That’s the thesis Charles Murray, a libertarian political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, puts forth in his new book, “Coming Apart.” In a piece soon to appear on the NewsHour, Murray argues that the super wealthy, super educated and super snobby live in so-called super-ZIPs: cloistered together, with little to no exposure to American culture at large.

Murray came up with a 25-question quiz to determine the size of your bubble. I’ve heard of Murray, but don’t know much about him. Since I tend to agree with libertarians on roughly 50% of issues (the issues involving keeping government out of the business of individual humans, as opposed to corporations that only exists because of government blah blah blah. I digress), I try to give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom I’m not familiar. Murray and I align at least somewhat on issues like marriage equality and some aspects of reproductive rights, but I’m sure there’s divergence elsewhere. His “bubble quiz” told me a lot more about what Charles Murray thinks of city folk than about any bubbles I may inhabit. (HINT: Eating at chain restaurants, identifying military rank insignia, and personally knowing at least one evangelical Christian will significantly reduce your bubblage.)

At any rate, I got a 36 out of 99, which overlaps two different bubbles. A 99, by the way, would mean the broadest exposure to American culture, while a 0 would be a Howard Hughes-esque bubble. Of the two bubbles in which my score fits, the one that seems closer to me is “A second-generation (or more) upper-middle-class person who has made a point of getting out a lot.” It was actually all the upper-middle-class evangelical Baptists I knew growing up that gave me most of my supposedly non-bubble experiences, but whatever. Take the quiz yourself and see how a 70 year-old libertarian who works for a think tank judges your life!

Share

“The Wild West approach to protecting public health and safety”

It is unsurprising, while still disappointing, that Texas lawmakers, along with many citizens, seem to have learned nothing at all from the disaster in West, Texas a few weeks ago. Many have used it as an opportunity to rail against government regulation.

Even in West, last month’s devastating blast did little to shake local skepticism of government regulations. Tommy Muska, the mayor, echoed Governor Perry in the view that tougher zoning or fire safety rules would not have saved his town. “Monday morning quarterbacking,” he said.

Raymond J. Snokhous, a retired lawyer in West who lost two cousins — brothers who were volunteer firefighters — in the explosion, said, “There has been nobody saying anything about more regulations.”

Texas has always prided itself on its free-market posture. It is the only state that does not require companies to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage. It boasts the largest city in the country, Houston, with no zoning laws. It does not have a state fire code, and it prohibits smaller counties from having such codes. Some Texas counties even cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.

***

As federal investigators sift through the rubble at the West Fertilizer Company plant seeking clues about the April 17 blast that killed at least 14 people and injured roughly 200 others, some here argue that Texas’ culture itself contributed to the calamity.

I actually am sympathetic to the argument that additional regulations would not have prevented the explosion, but not in a way that reflects favorably on Governor Perry or anyone else who sides with him. The problem is not a lack of regulations. The problem is that our “business-friendly” culture in Texas has no intention of enforcing the regulations we already have. Spare us the bullshit about not needing more regulations until you have at least tried to do your damn job.

The New York Times quoted my torts professor from UT Law, Thomas McGarity, who sums it up far better than I ever could:

The Wild West approach to protecting public health and safety is what you get when you give companies too much economic freedom and not enough responsibility and accountability.

The greatest irony of West, perhaps, is that the fertilizer involved in the explosion is regulated by the Department of Homeland Security, because it is explosive. If someone had stolen fertilizer from the plant and blown it up somewhere else, these anti-regulation types might be singing a very different tune. Why is an explosion allegedly caused by greed and incompetence that much different from one allegedly caused by terroristic intent?

Share

Let Freedom Ring All Throughout North Dakota

A bunch of libertarians ranked the fifty states based on “freedom.” Fox Nation reported on the results under the headline “Report: Americans Are Migrating to More Free Republican States.” The article contains gems like:

Americans are migrating from less-free liberal states to more-free conservative states, where they are doing better economically, according to a new study published Thursday by the George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

The “Freedom in the 50 States” study measured economic and personal freedom using a wide range of criteria, including tax rates, government spending and debt, regulatory burdens, and state laws covering land use, union organizing, gun control, education choice and more.

So, if Fox Nation is to be believed, people are departing oppressive states for places where they can stockpile weapons, miseducate their children, and do with their employees as they please. What magical wonderland is this, I wonder…

The freest state overall, the researchers concluded, was North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. The least free state by far was New York, followed by California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

Oh, I see…

Look, no disrespect to North Dakota, but what. The. F*********.

People are leaving California, New York, and New Jersey for the Dakotas? Does Fox Nation think we’re stupid? Does Fox Nation think at all?

I could link to evidence showing that Californians are not doing a reverse-Steinbeck in droves back to Oklahoma, but honestly, what’s the point?

Share

The Libertarian Dream World

Ian Boudreau seems to have captured the idealistically ethereal nature of libertarian ideas in today’s political discourse:


Discuss.

Share

Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself

20120707-175428.jpgWe know Obamacare is bad, according to many, because freedom is good. I think I’m representing the argument as accurately-yet-succinctly as possible. Many of Obamacare’s more strident opponents might object to my caps-lock-free use of the word “freedom,” preferring instead to use the sobriquet “FREEDOM.” I will use the lowercase version, but please understand that my refusal to express my stridency through capitalization does not necessarily reflect a lack of enthusiasm for my subject matter.

Now then, on to the point of today’s screed: libertarianism might be “back,” at least according to Pauline Arrillaga at the Associated Press, who writes that

Something’s going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself – that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism.

It’s Saturday, so I’m not going to bother unpacking the various historical amd equitable inaccuracies in that statement. I’d be preaching to the choir, anyway. Where it gets interesting is where she starts talking to actual self-styled libertarians.

She interviewed Mark Skousen, an economist who founded FreedomFest, a conference starting this week in Las Vegas that talks about freedom, presumably with some liberty thrown in for good measure. I’m not saying that Skousen speaks for all libertarians, but he brings up some points that have long bothered me about the whole concept of libertarianism, or at least the way many people express it:

“It is a rebirth,” said Skousen, and a reaction to a feeling shared by many that America has moved too far afield from its founding principles. “This country was established for the very thing that we’re fighting right now: excessive government control of our lives. In today’s world everything is either prohibited or mandated. … You have to have medical insurance. You have to wear a seat belt. … They have to pat you down (at the airport).”

Skousen has a simple analogy for all of this: “If you restrict a teenager, they rebel. I think that’s what people are feeling.”

Perhaps he was speaking off the cuff, and had not had time to put together a better list of examples. Of course, he is also purporting to represent an ideology, so the examples of “excessive governmemt control” he cites are worth noting. Airport pat-downs are pretty obvious. I have yet to hear anyone who doesn’t actually work for the TSA defending the practice, but no one in Washington seems to have the guts to stand up to them. Complaining about that hardly sets this guy apart.

Seat belts: truly, our Founding Fathers fought, bled, and died, so that their descendants two centuries later could hurtle across paved roads in large steel carriages at speeds unknown anywhere else in the animal kingdom with no safety restraints. (This was covered in a song that unfortunately did not make the final selection cut for Schoolhouse Rock.) As an example of excessive government control, this makes Skousen look like a crybaby.

Medical insurance: this is the issue of the day, isn’t it? Never mind that most Americans want affordable health care and agree with the individual provisions of Obamacare. Never mind that we as a nation made a decision that health care should be a for-profit enterprise, meaning that drugs are developed and marketed for their ability to make money for shareholders more than for their ability to improve health. Never mind that ensuring people have basic access to health care is the right damn thing to do. The fact is that people both need and want health care, and they have to pay for it. The only people who would “suffer” under the mandate are the tiny percentage of people who can afford insurance but decide not to purchase it. Presumably because of FREEDOM. I am skeptical that someone who would refuse to buy health insurance under those circumstances, if faced with an illness or injury later on that required health care at a greater cost than they could not afford, would just go gently into that good night. Opposition to the mandate, once you get past all the “slippery slope” rhetoric and word salad about liberty, is really just about being a freeloader. And that brings me to my last observation.

Skousen overtly compares libertarians to angry teenagers who don’t like rules. That is the perfect analogy, actually. He sounds like a sullen teen who is angry that his dad won’t let him borrow the car even though his mom needs the car right then to take his little sister to soccer practice. He wants the car right now, and screw the rest of the family. He’s probably not quite a bad as Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but he’s getting there.

In Skousen’s analogy, the teenager represents the libertarians, and the parents represent the government. There’s another word we can use to describe the parents, and it encompasses everything that libertarians like Skousen are not: grownups.

Photo credit: ‘Veruca Salt, from the film ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’ [Fair use], via Virginmedia.com.

Share