Matt Welch (via TBogg):
When reality is unconscionable, and you are an opinion-journalism outfit with principles (or just a human with a functional spine), you tilt at the goddamned windmills, without first vetting it through a reality check.
Why would anyone want to associate themselves with a movement that was content to tilt at windmill? At least regular conservatives try to win elections and enact policies. Libertarians just sneer at the world.
cleek
libertarianism has always seemed to me to be the political philosophy of people who want to be left alone because, basically, they really don’t like messy interactions, fuzzy social rules and being told they can’t do that because some busybody somewhere thinks she knows what’s best for everyone. it’s a wish that everything was simple and logical and basically guaranteed their right to be left alone and to do what they want, as long as they’re not bothering anyone else. it’s anti-social and misanthropic and introverted.
it sounds perfect for me, frankly. but, unfortunately, i realize that it’s unworkable for something the size of the US. it might work if the US had 1/100 the population and we all lived on giant self-sufficient farms. but we don’t.
Cat Lady
Unless libertarians all go galt to Somalia, the only response to their continued presence is scorn and ridicule. TBogg is the right man at the right time for that job.
BC
Tilting at windmills is the job of the pundit or the philosopher. A politician has to deal with reality, not the ideal world in his/her head. An elected official spending time tilting at windmills is not good for the country or the constituents.
MikeJ
We have a phrase that describes principles and theories that don’t work in the real world: empirically wrong.
beltane
Libertarians have always struck me as being five-year olds who are perpetually rebelling against their mothers for making them brush their teeth at night. There really is nothing more to their philosophy than that and all attempts to argue otherwise have so far been futile.
The success of the human species is do almost entirely to our ability to form complex social units. We are not a solitary species that does its own thing except during brief periods of courtship and mating. Cats would make better libertarians than humans.
Bill E Pilgrim
I wonder if libertarians proudly citing “tilting at windmills” realize that Don Quixote was satire? Here’s a summary of the book that’s fairly typical:
Sounds about right for the libertarian hero.
wonkie
Libertarians have this in common with religious fanatics: while believing their simpleminded ideas to be absolutely right they take no responsiblity for the cnsequences should those ideas be enacted into law and haveno expectation of experiencing any negative consequences themselves.
At point point in Afghanistan the Taliban forbade women to work. This was afer the war with Russia and many women were widows. Those who had no father to support them starved or were forced to turn to prostitution and risk being stoned to death.
Rand aPaul is opposed to the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also hates welfare. I don’t think it would bother his conscience much if disabled people died of malnutrition. I wish some reporter would ask him.
fucen tarmal
i’m sorry, but how did libertarianism get to be logical?
it seems far more like an emotional reaction, which is then rationalized by narrow application of logic, to obfuscate at all costs, that the position being held in the first place, is an emotional reaction.
when liberals do it, its name-calling, when everyone else does it, its a purely objective observation.
jadethews
And then they cancel their Meet the Press interviews once the world sneers back.
beltane
@cleek: It doesn’t work anywhere. The smaller and more insular the community, the more rigidly are social norms and customs enforced.
I once had a libertarian neighbor. He used to burn plastic and other trash right near our property line away from his house, because it was his right, but was quick to threaten us with the cops on those rare occasions we threw a party because he claimed it infringed on his right to peace and quiet.
I blame bad parenting.
gnomedad
In the wake of glibertarian-bashing here, I’ve been trying to frame my own views on libertarianism. I think it’s a useful critique of government power; the problem is that “libertarians” tend to identify with a rigid set of answers rather than the questions.
One theme I like is whether government edicts create concentrated, visible “good” at the price of diffuse, invisible harm. For example, do minimum wages benefit a few at the expense of higher unemployment for the many? The answer may be “no”, but the question is worth asking. One problem is that the “diffuse, invisible harm” is taken as an article of faith. Clearly, a lot of “libertarians” regard government non-interference as so sacred that any attendant harm is considered irrelevant. This I reject.
PeakVT
Why would anyone want to associate themselves with a movement that was content to tilt at windmill?
Because it’s cool to sit at the back of the class and shoot spitballs – if your emotional development halted around age 12.
Sirkowski
I can’t believe he used the words “tilt at windmills” without a trace of irony.
RSA
But, but… A is A!
Bill E Pilgrim
@Sirkowski: They’ve probably been addled by hearing “To Dream the Impossible Dream” and take it to mean “fighting for your principles against great odds” instead of “being comically insane”.
Another summary of Don Quixote includes this line:
Brian J
I don’t know if anyone posted it yesterday, but Brad DeLong rounded up two respectable Libertarian responses to Rand Paul. As DeLong implies, they said in the nicest way possible that he’s brain dead. Take a look.
Alex Milstein
I just want the Libertarians to point out one country where libertarianism has been a raging success?
To them, it’s always a perfect solution because it really has never been tested, and it will always remain idyllic in their minds.
tim
I find libertarianism to be mostly bullshit. I WANT laws that outlaw discrimination in “private” businesses, etc…BUT I find the knee jerk, snotty BJ clan-based put downs here in the comments silly and immature.
It’s not as though Liberalism or Progressivism or Conservatism have worked well as a combined set of allegedly opposing forces to work well in the U.S. This country is devolving further into corporate/elite oligarchy under an allegedly progressive prez and congress right now.
I too have been sneering at the U.S. as a political/social entity since about the time Al Gore spinelessly handed the presidency to Bush jr. in 2000 rather than fight tooth and nail and nasty like the Repukes would have done in his place. Beginning then, and on thru the Dem-enabled war on Iraq, my sneer has only grown. It now curls up, meets my nose under one nostril, and I have to drink with a straw.
I focus on what I can really change: my behavior and attitude in my own personal sphere. I can do NOTHING to change the political outcomes in this country; Obama has proven that unmistakenly true since taking office, and as he is doing now in his utterly fucked up, weak ass non response to the oil spill in the Gulf. I only feel sad for all his true believers who have had their hopes crushed.
But at least now perhaps they can accept reality, let it go, and focus on their own personal universes where they can really make change.
I know you BJ’ers enjoy sneering at sneerers, so I hereby welcome your abuse. :D
Third Eye Open
I like to imagine if the Libertarians made that next step, that next great logical metamorphosis–that we might be lucky enough to have our very own Dada’ist party.
I vote for off-switches on street lights
catclub
@Bill E Pilgrim:
But the main point should be: Read Don Quixote!
Who gives rats patootie baot libertarians.
It is fantastic and an incredibly modern novel. Lots of
self referential parts when Sancho says he likes the Sancho character.
ed
Has liberterienne Megan McCoddledDumbass said anything about this? I haven’t heard anything. For some weird reason she’s remained silent or at least relative quiet. For some reason.
Kirk Spencer
I keep saying this, and here it goes again.
Libertarianism is a type of anarchy. At the far end is “No rules.” You then get a bunch of people a step back who allow as how one or two rules might be necessary, but only because this world is too used to them — and the goal should always be to move toward “no rules.”
Yes, they disguise it by making most of the discussion about businesses. Dig a bit deeper, however, and the individual portion comes out as well.
Bill E Pilgrim
@tim: Yeah no sneering in your post, that’s for sure.
I think the tone is a reaction to the arrogance of Libertarian claims. But that’s just me, I can’t speak for anyone else, contrary to the charming way you lumped everyone posting here today into one big undifferentiated mass.
beltane
@catclub: People shouldn’t be put off by the length of the book. Don Quixote is hysterically funny in parts, but like The Colbert Report it seems to have gone over some people’s heads.
AhabTRuler
@catclub: Yeah, I think I will have to add that to the book list. I have read excerpts, but never sat down to read the whole thing. Seems like it is entirely too relevant and topical to pass up.
I should also add, for those who referenced it recently, Moo is also on the list. It was recommended to me by one of my professors at my formerly Ag-college University (Go Twerps! Duck Fuke!).
Lowkey
@beltane:
And with that, beltane wins the morning. And teh internets. Win.
wonkie
Unqualified Offerings has an ineresting take on Rand paul. The thesis over there is that libertarians are tolerated in the authoritarian Republican party because they don’t have any actual influence. Guys like Ron Paul help the Rethugs by giving them the appearance of tolerating diversity of thought, which is possible only because RonPaul is in the House where no one has to actually pay any attention to his thoughts.
If Rand is elected he will be in the Senate and this thoughts and votes will be as much a concern to the Rethug leadership as Joe Leiberman’s thoughts and votes are to Harry Reid.
So it will be interesting to see if Rand morphs into just another conservative during his campaign. My guess is that by the time he gets into office any pretence of being a liberatarian on issues such as the patirot Act, the war on drugs, and our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will be gone. He’l be a vote against regulation of Wall Street and oil companies, a vote for tax cuts for rich people and a toer of the rightwing party line on other issues. Anyone want to place a bet?
wonkie
Wow, that was fast.
This is from Time magazine via Ta-Nehisi Coates:
“Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn’t believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he’d support federal drug laws, he’d vote to support Kentucky’s coal interests and he’d be tough on national security.
“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian,” Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms. “
Smedley
@RSA:
Aristotle would be proud.
Null A.
Laertes
I’ll give Welch props for not nutpicking. Lots of people prefer to engage the other side in its’ weakest form. It takes cojones to link to the other side when their article is way better than yours.
El Cid
I think libertarianism in the modern context is simply a rhetorical strategy to attack the sorts of government interventions that right wingers don’t like.
It’s a more principled-sounding way of talking about your notion that the government is spending tons of money on giving welfare to black people or making banks give free mortgages to blacks who can’t afford them.
Instead of talking about Cadillac welfare queens in the ‘hood, you talk about freedom, and limiting self-motivation, and the history of American entrepreneurship, etc etc.
Citizen_X
You know, I can respect a Libertarian who rages at unconscionable, and seemingly untouchable, realities in our politics. So what unconscionable reality does Rand attack, and then double down upon? The National Security State? The way both Republican and Democratic politicians have embraced torture and indefinite detention? The endless War on Drugs? No. He attacks the fact that government can force restaurants to serve n****rs. Pardon me for not recognizing his heroism.
Mike in NC
That worked pretty well for Newt Gingrich for a while. Then when people expected him to be an adult, he left the room.
b-psycho
@wonkie: I bet he doesn’t win the general.
Lowkey
@wonkie: Yeah, I’ll take that bet. It’s a longshot, I personally think your prediction will prove correct, but I just like the underdog possibility:
As I read somewhere else (can’t remember, no H/T, sorry), “GOP operatives are surely now parachuting into Kentucky.” As we’ve seen in the last, gads, it seems like mere minutes, Paul has told black people they have no right to expect equal treatment, coal miners (in Kentucky!) “sorry, too bad, so sad,” and Gulf Coasters “how dare you be upset about your coasts! Anger at corporations is unAmercian!” I’m not certain this freak CAN be controlled, by his own campaign people obviously, and by the GOP establishment particularly. I still think Rand wins Kentucky (dammit), but I’m betting he’s DNC Chair Tim Kaine’s wet dream.
DonkeyKong
Tilt at windmills, nah!, more like booger flickers.
El Cid
@Mike in NC:
And yet he’s welcomed into nearly every media forum as though he’s full to the brim with ‘serious’ conservative ideas, such as the notion that Democrats are as harmful to the nation as Al Qa’ida and via health reform a mirror of “Nazi Germany”, and of course there’s the “secular-soshullist” destruction of America.
He was a jackass before 1995, he was a jackass after 1995, and he’s a jackass now, and he’s supposed to be some sort of elder sage because he’s more sophisticated than Jo’berg Goldbutt.
Comrade Javamanphil
@beltane: Pretty much. What I don’t get is why anyone would pay someone to write anything from a libertarian point of view. I’m sure you could just write a computer program to handle it. It would go something like this
10 Write “Free markets solve that”
20 Goto 10
Carl
@6,
I know he’s not the first person to butcher the metaphor, but it always bugs me. The Man from La Mancha thought those windmills were giants. People who say “we till at windmills” might as well say, “we’re stuck in an imagined past and are determined to fight against how things are even if we’re clearly insane.” You know what, that actually describes many libertarians pretty well.
jank_w
Saw Welch’s article pop up on memeorandum last night with a title that was all defiant and shit… like right in my grill with some hard earned knowledge on how libertarians roll. Then I remembered this:
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care
via http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/27151.html
Garrigus Carraig
@Lowkey:
Fixd that fer ya.
Mnemosyne
@tim:
Okay, I’ll bite — are you trying to claim that liberalism/Progressivism haven’t worked well historically or that they’ve been made toothless in the past 30 years? Because the fact that we have things that Progressives fought hard for like the 40-hour workweek, child labor laws, workers’ compensation insurance, Social Security, etc. etc. would seem to me to be proof that Progressives actually accomplished a whole hell of a lot.
Liberalism worked great until racist whites realized that they were going to have to share those benefits with black and brown people. Then all of a sudden it was about “property rights” and “government overreach.”
gnomedad
@gnomedad:
Ya’ know, it just stuck me that one of the big glibertarian blindnesses is precisely the “diffuse harm” caused by lack of government regulation (e.g., pollution).
patrick II
So, after watching Maddow the other night, would anyone here actually let Rand Paul operate on their eyes?
Uloborus
@tim:
Thank you, tim. It’s good sometimes to be reminded that our hands are not entirely clean. Our side has no shortage of people who have chosen their stance based on emotion, even though they have to use circular logic (‘The world doesn’t work like that! It has to be a corporate giveaway!’) or just plain ignore the gigantic pieces of evidence against their attitude.
Once HCR passed, I figure anyone who thinks both sides are basically the same has simply abandoned reality. With a rather vicious financial reform package about to pass, I am embarrassed that there are people supposedly on the liberal side who think Obama’s a corporate sell-out.
It’s just as insane as the ‘communist’ accusations, and it’s based on almost exactly the same logic. Because, hey, you just KNOW his intentions, right? You know how things work.
geg6
@DonkeyKong:
This.
There is no such thing as a “serious” libertarian, just like there has never been a “serious” communist. The true believers are fantasists who have no insight into human nature and the politicians and pundits are stupid, viscious opportunists who cynically use the true believers for their own enrichment. The two stupidest political ideologies ever thought up. Say what you will about the flaws of both liberalism or conservatism, they are both more practical and intelligent as ideologies than the dimwitted idiocy of either communism or libertarianism.
Laertes
@patrick II: Oh sure. I know a guy who’s a full-on wingnut. Teapartier, birther, the works. Hell of a dentist though.
All kinds of smart, capable, terrific people have stupid or cruel political beliefs. I haven’t yet found any correlation between brains and ideology.
The only questions I’d ask about a doctor would be “How many times has he performed the procedure” and “does he have any malpractice judgments/settlements.”
MTiffany
@Kirk Spencer:
Until someone steals their wallet, at which point they demostrate just how devoutly they believe that government has no legitimate purpose by screaming loudly for the police.
Sentient Puddle
@MTiffany: Or until a black man sits at their lunch counter.
Jeff K
Apropos quote:
– Jesse Ventura, 1999
Lowkey
@Garrigus Carraig: ROFL, of course! Any strike at the universal free market is a strike against reason itself! When the aliens that found Voyager trace it back to Earth, and arrive to begin operations to harvest us for our delicious, delicious organs, the Libertarians will be thrilled! “At last!” they will exult, “Rational actors have arrived to deliver us from the oppresive anti-capitalists!” And they’ll start shoveling people onto space barges.
MaximusNYC
These comments pretty much sum it up:
I’ll say it again: Libertarians are the Trotskyites of the right.
slightly_peeved
And yet, they’ve worked a lot better in other countries.
What do those countries have that the US doesn’t? Or perhaps, what does the US have that those countries don’t?
I can think of one thing the US has that those countries don’t – a shitload of libertarians.
Lowkey
@gnomedad: That’s my favorite way to explode wingnut heads. I’m a Virginian, and my libertarian friend recently added the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to his enemies list. “But, why?” I asked. “They think that the government should be able to tell anyone what to do with their own land, for thousands of miles,” he seethed. So, I proposed a thought experiment. I don’t know why he agreed, he must have known I was going to trap him. He’s a very smart guy, I suppose he was just mad.
“So, property rights, yeah?” says I.
“Exactly.” he says.
“Suppose I own the land uphill of yours,” I say. “Can I dump 1000 tons of cyanide on my property?”
“No, he says, “I have legal recourse. I can rightfully sue that you have wrecked my land.”
(I avoid the obvious, “So, you admit the government has obvious jurisdiction over what you can do?” quip, I’m trying to make a larger point. It was tough, though… I’m a smarmy asshole.)
“Fair enough. How does the individual oyster farmer in the Bay sue the 10,000 small farmers and several farming mega-corporations upstream for the fertilizer and pig shit that are devastating his oyster beds?”
You’ve got to appeal to that same place in their character. Some of these people just don’t want to be messed with. They’re not crazy, just fiercely independent and proud. You know, Americans. Anyone that relents on that point is a grown-up, a rational actor. Anyone one that doesn’t is a glibertarian, by definition.
clone12
@Cat Lady:
You think you’re being snarky by suggesting that Libertarians should go live in the libertarian paradise that is Somalia.
Libertarians at one point argued that Somalia proved that libertarianism works.
trollhattan
OT, but here’s an opportunity to tell WSJ what you think of the Texas schoolbook nonsense.
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/education-challenge-679/topics/do-you-support-texas-board
I heard the BBC interview one of the board members yesterday and he prefaced everything he said with “In order to counter the liberal bias” or some equivalent.
When did the liberals conquer Texas, and why are they still holding its kidz hostage?
Cliff
My current theory is that libertarians are people who don’t have the balls to admit they’re Republicans.
Brachiator
@cleek:
Not even then. There has never been any society, of any size, that operated on libertarian principles. If anything, the smaller the group, tribe or society, the more it might tend to be authoritarian. But loosely speaking, the only practical choices are authoritarian or co-operative.
Societies which become larger can accomodate individuals who do their own thing. Small societies expel those who can’t work with the group. Or kill them.
And yeah, people should read Don Quixote. It’s funny, full of puns, shaggy dog stories, self-referential jokes.
handy
@Cliff:
I’ve met some self-described libertarians who are pretty wary of the whole war on terror and embracing of the Religious Right. But it never seems to animate them as much as “Dems want to raise your taxes!”
licensed to kill time
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Aha! So that’s where the proverbial rusty pitchfork comes from!
yam
To quote Chateaubriand, “One is not superior merely because one sees the world is odious.”
licensed to kill time
Wow – just had a 5.3 earthquake here in Baja, the ground’s still shaking….
licensed to kill time
Aaaaaand a second one, 4.8…we’re rockin’ and rollin’ here!
Mark S.
Welch:
Not really. I think Welch is confusing “not likely to happen” with “completely unworkable idea.”
Why is it always assumed that the free market is more efficient? To take an example, bridges. I suppose some enterprising company might build some bridges and recoup their expenses through tolls, but I doubt most bridges would be terribly profitable and there would be a lot fewer of them. It would undoubtedly be a large and risky investment for one company. It’s not that risky of an investment for the govt, where the risks and benefits are diffused to the population as a whole.
Cliff
@handy:
Exactly.
My impression is that they’ll bitch and moan a little about civil liberties and legalizing pot, but once that sweet military-industrial complex cash starts rolling in, they’ll change their tunes real quick.
Lowkey
@licensed to kill time: Fingers crossed that that’s as rough as it gets. Keep us posted, man.
Mnemosyne
@licensed to kill time:
Yikes! I didn’t feel anything up here in LA, but I’m guessing that San Diego got a decent-sized jolt.
Time to doublecheck the earthquake kits …
licensed to kill time
@Lowkey: Will do. That was a big one, I was poised on the edge of my chair wondering if I should bolt out the door or post about it on Balloon Juice. So guess which option I chose, haha!
@Mnemosyne: Yep, I’m sure they felt it in SD, this was in the same spot as the 7.2 on Easter Sunday. That one did make me run outside!
ETA: Have had 3-4 smaller ones in the 2.7 to 2.9 range.
shecky
This is what makes libertarians unbearable. And it’s what makes reads like Reason suck. Instead of sticking to pragmatic solutions, even if they’re politically untenable, they insist on going off on stupid pie in the sky utopianism (cut all my taxes), or just plain stupid juvenile shit (Draw Pictures of Muhummad Day!). If it pisses off Muslims, or libruls, then it must be good.
Where it pisses me off is that the stupid absolutism and antics makes the occasional pragmatic libertarian idea, such as ending the war on drugs, like more stupid libertarian tricks.
Uloborus
@licensed to kill time:
Sure, but 2.7s are ‘Hey, is that an earthquake or a heavy truck?’ If 5.3 was the worst, with any luck nobody got hurt. I, too, will cross my fingers.
@Mark S.:
Actually, despite my earlier comment I largely agree here. Glenn’s principles are fine and basically reasonable. It’s only the logic he applies to them that drove me away.
I had a similar conversation with a friend last night. He pointed out that he’d rather have libertarians than social conservatives running the GOP. The idea being that even if their basic ideology is just as big a fantasy, libertarians *in general* are trying to be reasonable about it and admit to compromise.
EDIT: I’m not sure I believe this, but I do accept that it may be true and I’m being deceived because the wackos are yelling loudest in the name of libertarianism.
Let me add a disclaimer that I don’t consider the Tea Partiers libertarians. I don’t consider them social conservatives. I consider them paranoid conspiracy theorists. They’re fruitcakes who take a little from every column, and they’re just leaning conservative right now because that’s the side that’s been egging them on for decades.
FlipYrWhig
Hey, loving the presence of _Don Quijote_ fans!
Yes, it wasn’t until Romanticism that the idea of a whacked-out old loser who hated the modern world–he fights not just those famous windmills, but a few other early heavy-industry phenomena; he doesn’t think he needs to pay for anything; etc.–became something positive about “imagination” and “idealism,” which is a goofy strand of Quixotism that culminates in _Man of La Mancha_’s “Impossible Dream.” Cervantes didn’t see it that way in 1605.
(My favorite joke: a criminal character who says he’s writing his autobiography. Sancho Panza asks how it ends.)
Also at least somewhat amusing: Charlotte Lennox’s _The Female Quixote_, an 18th-century novel about a woman whose mind gets warped from reading too many romance novels. A bit like _Northanger Abbey_.
FlipYrWhig
And re: libertarianism, all it really is is selfishness. A libertarian thinks he should be able to do what he wants, but you shouldn’t be able to do what you want if it conflicts in any way with what he wants. All else is commentary.
bemused
@wonkie:
Rand says he’s not a libertarian. Fascinating. I wonder how, pray tell, everyone & his uncle thought he was. If he’s not a libertarian, has anyone in the media asked him what label he would hang around his neck?
Mark S.
@Uloborus:
They’re certainly not libertarians (Keep Government Outta My Medicare!). They aren’t social conservatives for the most part; you don’t see a bunch of gay abortion signs at their rallies.
They seem mostly like zombies who get all their news from Fox and talk radio. Since Glenn Beck is a large part of both those things, they’re paranoid.
Mark S.
@wonkie:
They don’t have any influence, but they are useful idiots and that’s why Reason is funded by ultra-right orgs like the Koch Foundation. Libertarians are useful because, despite their pretensions of individualism, almost everything they advocate is advantageous to corporations.
maus
This… reality check. It does not understand the workings of the invisible hand of the truly free market. No RATIONAL consumer would ever buy from a company engaged in immoral activities, all customers transparently are aware of every single immoral activity in all aspects of a company’s actions, and it is impossible for monopolies and monopolistic actions to exist in the Truly Free Market.
Also certification bodies are perfect and one certification body can certify another and another and it’s all turtles down here.
Kirk Spencer
@handy:
I’ve started hammering the TANSTAAFL point. Heinlein’s acronym for There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The point, however?
You want an army? You want courts so you can sue when the guy uphill encroaches on your land? You want someone making sure food from China isn’t loaded with lead? TANSTAAFL, brother; pay your taxes.
J sub D
Like abolitionists in 1790.
Or suffragettes in 1850.
What a bunch of losers. Responsible “adult” politicians like Abraham Lincoln* were so wise to steer clear of those wingnuts.
His adult practical side overriding any humanity he may have possessed is why he is so beloved today, right?
As a libertarian I am not a liberal or conservative. I do not reside on the one dimensional left/right line. I am outside the blue/red spectrum and am quite proud of it. I do not expect a libertarian party to ever take power in the United States as libertarians want to live and let live. That is contrary to a politician mindset.
Most libertarians accept that we can only steer the debate slightly, try to minimize the damage that the big government left and the big government right inflict on the economy and liberty.
“The health care bill is deficit neutral” will go down in history alongside “The Iraq war will pay for itself”. Whether those who spouted such nonsense were delusional or bare faced liars only they know. I just knew they were flat wrong.
I tell other libertarians “We’re Cassandras. Accept it. Revel in it”.
Uloborus
@J sub D:
…no. The argument here is not ‘You will never get what you want, so stop trying.’ The argument here is ‘What you want is a figment of your imagination that has nothing to do with reality. And so are the arguments you use to support what you want.’ I understand that these arguments can sound the same, but they’re not.
Lowkey
@J sub D: Your political philosophy has been moved front and center. You cannot shrink from it now with poetical deference. Make your case, you now have a national microphone larger than that of Representative Paul’s. You will either engage more of the country or you will not. You, if you are an activist, are on the upswing. You, if you are not, should be quiet. Honestly, I am foremost a liberal, but I have libertarian leanings. You have a legitimate chance to advance your cause, not only in political representation, but in national attention and respect. You control your philosophy. You control your agenda. Paul is mollifying the religious right by surrendering on traditional conservative issues. That’s a legitimate, and smart, political play. Where else are you prepared to compromise to win the center?
Mnemosyne
@Lowkey:
Com-pro-mise? What is this strange word that you use? Don’t you understand the deep connections between the anti-slavery movement and libertarians’ desire to be legally allowed to discriminate against black people?
(Not that they would ever do it. No, not them. They just want to have the legal right to do it, just in case.)
JR
The last three days have really illustrated why it’s a good thing the Libertarian Party remains an isolated fringe with practically no elected officials in office anywhere.
Ruckus
@El Cid:
he’s full to the brim with ‘serious’ conservative ideas
That’s the problem. He is full of serious conservative ideas.
Both Newt and the ideas are full of shit.
J sub D
@Lowkey:
Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He’s a fiscal conservative and a somewhat hawkish one at that. I’ve no big problem with fiscal conservatism but that is merely part of libertian philosophy, not the sum.
War on Drugs? Rand Paul, like Obama, Biden, McConnell, and McCain is all for it. Silly, unrealistic and idealistic libertarians believe not only that people own their own bodies and should be able to put what they wish into them but also recognize the futility and negative consequences of trying to stop them.
Military spending? Rand Paul, like Obama, Biden, McConnel and McCain thinks that our present military spending is about right. That the United States should be spending more on the military than Russia, China, the UK and Germany combined. Libeertarians believe that we should not be trying to reshape societies in South Asia and the Middle East but should only have a military large enough to defend the United States. We are not big fans of imperialism (that left-right line has imperialism all along it).
Civil Rights? Who knows what gobbledygook Rand Paul has cobbled together in his mind? Libertatrians believe that terrorist suspects possess all of the rights that every other person in America possesses. We idealistically foolishly also believe that those who have served their sentences, even OMG! SEX OFFENDERS, should be free to partricipate in society as free people. Not very popular I know. Libertarians also believe that the first, second, and fourth amendments are under attack from both the major parties and should be fought tooth and nail.
Rand Paul rails about ancient history that no longer matters in 21st century America. You could repeal the CRA of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 today and it wouldn’t matter. I know you liberals, progressives or whatever label you’re using this election cycle have a reverence to those overall excellent but still less than perfect pieces of legislation. I understand it. On the whole they moved America forward and addressed some grevious government and private created evils. Like I said, it doesn’t matter anymore. America has moved on.
Short version – Rand Paul is a fiscal, social and parochial conservative. He does not claim to be a libertarian and this libertarian has no desire to claim him.
Unless you wish to claim Al Sharpton and Dennis Kuchinich (sp?) as standard bearers od the Dem party I’d appreciate not referring to Rand Paul as the embodiment of libertarian philosophy and political thinking.
FlipYrWhig
@J sub D: The entire ethos of your belief system truly is being inexplicably proud of yourself. “Revel in it” indeed.
J sub D
Let me add that libertarians also believe that affirmative action based on race, religion, sex or national origin is misguided, immoral and has more negative than positive effects.
Speaking for myself only, affirmative action based on wealth is palatable.
J sub D
@FlipYrWhig:
Good partial quote. Yeah. I’m fiercly independent and do not believe that government office confers any sort of wisdom on its holders, that they know no more about what is best for me and mine than i do. In fact I am convinced they know far less tham I. Perhaps you are filled with doubt about your own and others’ abilities and think that somehow government, like Mommy and Daddy, can smooth all the bumps in the road and pick us up every time we fall. That they can, and should, feed, clothe and shelter us, releasing us from that troubling responsibility thingee. I realize that most of humanity agrres with that and would rather have others make every major decision possible leaving themselves only the American Idol or Law and Order quandry for themselves.
What is more arrogant – “I know what’s best for me” or “I know what is best for everybody”.
jcricket
@Lowkey: There was a great essay I read a while back showing the fundamental bankruptcy of Libertarianism using the same point you made. Ultimately, all contracts have three parties involved. The third party is the “state” (small s). The threat of enforcement of the contract/law by the state is basically the only thing that makes contracts viable forms of agreement.
But once you admit that, you’ve basically given up on Libertarianism and are instead having a pragmatic discussion about the appropriate reach of government and the private sector. I am plenty willing to have this discussion (what should be left to the states, the feds, the private sector, what should/not be regulated, etc.). And there’s plenty of room for a discussion about where personal Liberty should be protected and where shared responsibility/oversight kicks in.
I basically think Libertarianism is about as useful as Communism when it comes to designing a political system in which people would actually live. That is to say, not useful at all.
And frankly, as everyone has pointed out, pretty much every Libertarian is a giant hypocrite. There’s always some set of government action/restrictions/regulations (abortion, drugs, military policy, corporate welfare) that they support.
Why again do we spend 100 comments discussing them as if they were serious? Can’t we just say something like, “No. SASQ” every time a libertarian says something?
gnomedad
@J sub D:
Have you ever voted for a Democrat who was good on civil liberties over a Republican who promised tax cuts?
Lowkey
@J sub D: This is the part where I come waving the olive branch. I have two dear friends who are libertarians. We argue, good naturedly, all the time. They bust my chops on policy failure and government excess, and rightly so. I crack most of their arguements with political implication and environmental impact, and rightly so. This is the point. Like it or not, Libertarianism is finally being discussed in the national sphere. Any Libertarian that sits back now won’t have the chance to shape the debate. The idiots and sellouts will attempt to do it for you. Take it from a big libtard, it’s the fights I didn’t fight and the fights I didn’t fight well that I regret. I never felt as bad about the fights I went down swinging true.
Lowkey
@jcricket: Honestly, I have three libertarians that are dear, longtime friends. Two of them are furious, quite literally, about the state of politics and the national direction. As I said above, I do have libertarian leanings, along the maximization of civil liberties, primarily. I’m giving J sub D the same advice I’m giving them: this is not like the past. Regardless of who claims to carry the standard and who actually does, Libertarianism is on the national stage like never before. The impression on the public is going to be made by whoever makes it, and makes it convincingly. I’m willing to discuss Libertarianism honestly if that person is willing to talk about policy with no pixie dust. Right now, Paul is sprinkling pixie dust, getting kicked in the teeth for it, and rightly so. I have heard some libertarians, who are serious about applying workable policy based on their ideals. These people facepalm about Paul, he having attempted to make their case in the absolute worst way at all possible. I’ll be the first to poop on Galtie bullshit. But I’ll invite a serious Libertarian to the conversation, because they make a few good points.
slightly_peeved
To quote a Despair.com demotivational poster:
Quitters never win,
Winners never quit,
but those who never win and never quit are idiots.
NoFanOfAyn's
@AhabTRuler: May I recommend Edith Grossman’s edition? It does a far better job of expressing the meaning of the text. Don Quijote works on a number of levels beyond being a story of an addled old man.
NFOA
mclaren
How did the oxymoron “opinion journalism” ever gain currency to begin with?
The term “opinion journalism” is like “psychic surgery”…a meaningless self-contradiction.
DaddyJ
@FlipYrWhig: Recently saw a high school (!) production of Man of La Mancha that made me realize why you don’t see many revivals: it’s a really awful show!
Not the fault of the kids involved; they struggled heroically. Although seeing a bunch of teenagers perform a theatrical gang-rape has to rank as one of my personal worst entertainment experiences.
The problem is the relentlessly dark, depressing and mostly humorless script. The big inspirational song–which I’m old enough to have heard hundreds of times in elevators and waiting rooms–seemed completely fatuous once I heard it in context.
Tried reading the Cervantes book in high school; maybe I’ll take another crack at it!
asiangrrlMN
@licensed to kill time: No! The proverbial rusty pitchfork comes from ME, and I’ve never read Don Quixote.
@J sub D: You were sounding very reasonable in your previous post when you weren’t in a snit, but then you had to come with this post. This is similar in thought to the question of voting for the Civil Rights Act or not. In a perfect world, affirmative action would not be necessary. We do not live in that perfect world.