Practical U.S. libertarianism -- is it possible?

[SShack]

I have a question for fellow smarty-pants libertarians on our forums. I actually have an agenda with this that I may or may not reveal later (insert spooky music). (No it's not for a research paper. I'm way too old for that.)

I think it's pretty safe to say that America has over the last fifty years truly developed into a "Something must be done!" society when it comes to social, economic and political issues. Obviously, this seriously ruffles the feathers of a lot of libertarians. Yet, it's probably also the explanation why full libertarian philosophy has such little sway in American politics any longer. Even the Republicans have abandoned small government philosophy. Libertarians are seen as freaks. One Republican pundit (who I believe is working for McCain now) told Ron Paul's supporters to go vote for Obama.

So, my question is this: If we accept that America has become a "Something must be done!" society, is there a way to work within this cultural framework and yet still bring about libertarian change in government, national, state and local? How would you go about doing so?

Edit to add: Odd, I thought I had posted this in the political forum. I apologize.

[Realpra]

Yes you could find a way for the forces of the free market to motivate the cooperations into serving mankind and then abolish the government in its original form completely.

[ArchonAlarion]

You will never destroy the system by working in the system

The best options are flight and agorism. I don't think with the events in action now there is a good chance for agorism. I think we've run out of time.

America is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, watch.

[phantasma]

It would be possible if a lot more people knew about libertartianism. I know of plenty of people who agree with its principles but aren't aware of the political party.

Also, you'd have to overthrow the 2 party system, and make both Republicans and Democrats look despicable in the public eye at the same time. Then they'd start looking for different parties and independents.

[PHS Philip]

I think it's possible. The problem is that, at least with the libertarians I have known, any practical considerations are viewed as an "evil socialist corruption" of their ideals. Many of them seem to think that being pissed off about things gives them the right to ignore practical realities and only deal in ideals. To me, it seems that that impairs their movement a lot.

The perception in America of libertarians (that they're all gun wielding anarchist lunatics) also hurts them, because it drives away people who actually agree with the libertarian philosophy. The stereotype also has some truth in America, mostly because of its own existence. Libertarians are perceived that way, so libertarians who aren't like that don't consider themselves libertarians, so libertarians are perceived that way...

Closely related to that is the perception of libertarians as being extremely conservative. This is actively promoted by many libertarians, too, because they confuse what libertarianism actually is. It's much, much broader than the American breed of libertarianism. It's not a left-right issue at all, but an up-down one. That is, however, unacceptable to a large portion of American libertarians. They can't untangle their conservative views and their libertarian views. Being liberal and being concerned with freedoms and civil liberties are in no way mutually exclusive.

[le Duc]

They can't untangle their conservative views and their libertarian views. Being liberal and being concerned with freedoms and civil liberties are in no way mutually exclusive.

I think that works both ways. I see a lot of friction between 'socially conservative' libertarians and 'socially liberal' libertarians who think that their opposition to each other on secondary issues somehow overshadows their mutual agreement to libertarian principles of economics, police action, and size of government. They work themselves into a useless frenzy and accomplish nothing. Frustrating.

[SShack]

I agree that there's an issue of what I call "libertarian purity tests" -- it can be the same sort of "if you call yourself a [blank] you must believe in [blank] or you're not really a [blank]" problem that plagues liberals, conservatives, and other political philosophies. I read several libertarian sites and there's definitely a huge rift between types of libertarians.

Jonathan Rauch, an INTJ who wrote about introversion in an Atlantic essay (I posted a link on another thread here on the forums) gave a lecture about how he wasn't quite a libertarian. I was in attendance. One of his very reasons is what you folks have mentioned -- there's a certain faction of libertarians who aren't interested in incremental change. It's all or nothing, as though we're going to suddenly abandon the public school system, and it's not rational or reasonable. And if you don't agree, you're part of the problem.

Note that I'm referring to libertarian philosophy, not the Libertarian Party. I'm not asking how to bring the party into power. I simply don't think that's likely, unless perhaps the GOP implodes. But consider a single issue, maybe even a relatively small issue, not something all-consuming like the drug war. Is there a way to convince people that "this isn't a problem government can solve" that would get past their preconceived attitudes?

[le Duc]

Is there a way to convince people that "this isn't a problem government can solve" that would get past their preconceived attitudes?

I've found I can convince most anybody on this issue or that issue, the hard time comes in convincing them of the general perspective. "Well, I guess you're right, the government isn't the best solution for this issue, but you can't say that everywhere." Of course, you could just keep going issue by issue until you've covered them all, but the average citizen has an attention span of about 1.5 issues...

[Supreme Dick]

So, my question is this: If we accept that America has become a "Something must be done!" society, is there a way to work within this cultural framework and yet still bring about libertarian change in government, national, state and local? How would you go about doing so?



Once governments start 'doing something' it gets tougher and tougher to stop 'doing'. The expectation of intervention grows... along with vested interest groups who get to be good at influencing the levers of intervention. So, it's pretty tough to change -- until the consequences of fiddling gets to a crisis point.

[SShack]

Jeez, and not long after I ask the question, Schwarzenegger signs a bill outlawing trans-fats out here in California. Sigh.

[xerigen]

I don't think so. As long as people continue to affiliate themselves with the Republican and Democratic parties blindly, there will be no chance for practical U.S. libertarianism. Maybe I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I think there are enough checks in place to ensure that the bipartisan system (with practically the same beliefs) will be a part of US gov't forever. I'm talking worldwide influence, media, corporate interests in government.

[le Duc]

I don't think so. As long as people continue to affiliate themselves with the Republican and Democratic parties blindly, there will be no chance for practical U.S. libertarianism. Maybe I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I think there are enough checks in place to ensure that the bipartisan system (with practically the same beliefs) will be a part of US gov't forever. I'm talking worldwide influence, media, corporate interests in government.

I don't think you have to believe in conspiracies to see that the dual-party system is pretty well entrenched. The founders of the US wanted to avoid it, but it was pretty well set in place even before the Constitution was ratified, definitely by the time the second President was elected. The only time a new party has come into play is when an old one has flamed out (e.g., Whig party). It gives us some stability, in a way, but even Jefferson was skeptical of order at the expense of freedom.

So then the big question is, what to do? Several times throughout history, one of the major parties has been transformed on one issue or another (or several), but I can't see libertarians infiltrating and taking over either party because of the conservative/liberal thing discussed earlier.

Alas, we have the party of big government and bigger corporations (GOP) versus the party of big corporations and bigger government (Democrats). It's hard being the little guy...

[eastman]

Have you guys ever heard of Libertarian Paternalism? Richard Thaler has been a big proponents of this philosophy. It's pretty interesting; its basically the belief that government should be focusing on choice architecture instead of mandated policies.

I think this is a good definition: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ArchonAlarion]

libertarians are supposed to adhere to the non-aggression principle. It's contadictory therefore, to be a minarchist libertarian and supposedly support the NAP.

You will not change the system by working within the system. Your victories will be small, fleeting, or illusionary.

[Tocsin]

...So, my question is this... is there a way to work within this cultural framework and yet still bring about libertarian change in government...

I do not consider myself a "libertarian," at least, not in the popular "government is best which governs least" sense, so the first thing I would want to know is what in particular you mean when you talk about "libertarian change?"

If I had a better idea of the type of change you want to consider, I might have a clearer opinion on whether such change is possible - or even desirable.

[Monte314]

The two party system, with all its flaws, is still probably preferable to the two HUNDRED party system in some European countries.

Even so, the parties themselves do change over time, as has been noted; their underlying principles are labile, and this offers some hope of change from within the system. For example, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but he held some significant policy positions that were more like the modern Democratic Party.

One thing that has made it difficult for the Libertarians, aside from the two-party "barrier to entry", is that fact that *every* voter hates something... prostitution, drug abuse, homosexual marriage, gun-control, environmentalism, etc. ... this makes Libertarians (fairly or unfairly) subject to a multitude of criticisms on a wide range of inflammatory hot-button issues. Funny, isn't it, how we love freedom... for ourselves.

[SShack]

I do not consider myself a "libertarian," at least, not in the popular "government is best which governs least" sense, so the first thing I would want to know is what in particular you mean when you talk about "libertarian change?"

If I had a better idea of the type of change you want to consider, I might have a clearer opinion on whether such change is possible - or even desirable.

Well, I don't intend this to be a thread about the type of change I want, which is why I left it purposefully vague. And since the thread is intended to examine ways to progress libertarian concepts, if they're not something that you want, then so be it.

Funny, isn't it, how we love freedom... for ourselves.

So funny I find myself beating my head against my desk in frustration. Siiigh.

[thod]

The two party system, with all its flaws, is still probably preferable to the two HUNDRED party system in some European countries.


Republican or Democrat, sometimes a man can have too much choice.

I would prefer 200 parties and proportional representation. The 200 parties lets me pick which one I like, the proportional representation means I am represented.

They will fight tooth and nail against this since both parties gain by the assurance that minority views have no platform. We get to choose one lot or the other which are almost the same. If libertarians represent 20% of Americans why are they not getting 20% of seats? Because the other 80% says we won and are taking every seat for ourselves. Winner takes all systems are unfair and only espoused by the group likely to win.

[le Duc]

Republican or Democrat, sometimes a man can have too much choice.

I would prefer 200 parties and proportional representation. The 200 parties lets me pick which one I like, the proportional representation means I am represented.

They will fight tooth and nail against this since both parties gain by the assurance that minority views have no platform. We get to choose one lot or the other which are almost the same. If libertarians represent 20% of Americans why are they not getting 20% of seats? Because the other 80% says we won and are taking every seat for ourselves. Winner takes all systems are unfair and only espoused by the group likely to win.

Go look at the multi-party plurality systems in Europe for a few minutes and then see what you think. You might have a voice, but having a voice in the midst of complete instability isn't really that great.

On the other hand, having a non-functioning gridlock all the time would keep bad bills from being passed... maybe...

[acyckowski]

I don't see the prospects as so bleak. Changing the political landscape enough to admit a viable third party is not something that will happen overnight, however, but things have happened which could point us there. Ross Perot demonstrated the ability of a third-party candidate to influence a national election, and Jesse Ventura demonstrated the ability of a third-party candidate to win at the state level. Joe Lieberman won as an independent after his party deserted him for his hawkishness. Ralph Nader consistently sucks up the far-left vote. Small victories, to be sure, but victories nonetheless.

As for the Libertarian Party, its problems are self-inflicted. In platforms and candidates, it chooses to send the message of "Total freedom for everyone, everywhere, right now." Since the erosion of liberties and expansion of government intrusion took over a century of incremental changes, suggesting that it be dismantled overnight is too radical for most people to stomach, even if they agree with the ideas.

They have also, as a party, co-opted some unrelated ideas into their banner. Pacifism/isolationism is not an issue of individual liberty, although the LP insists on making it one. A government must use a viable threat of force to secure the rights of its citizens; whether it does so by building a big wall or by projecting military power is a question for military strategists, not political theorists. The "average" American, whether Red or Blue, understands this intuitively; telling him otherwise is bound to appear nutty.

Further compounding the issue is the LP's inability or unwillingness to differentiate political ideals from political reality. As an example, even assuming the LP is right about the wastefulness and immorality of the War on Drugs, it remains popular. The geniuses at the LP keep trotting this one out as one of their key issues, and so will never win a popular election. If they'd just bury that one down at the bottom of the list, and focus on popular issues such as "abolish the IRS," they'd get more traction.

I am a small-l libertarian, until such time as the LP gets serious about winning in electoral politics. I register and vote Republican (for now) because only by influencing one of the predominant parties can I hope to change the status-quo. It's too simple and pat a response to say that it's impossible to change the system from within; the reality is that it is quite difficult, but I would challenge anyone to explain how to change the system from the outside, short of coup d'etat. By nipping at the heels of the GOP from within the pack, I aim to keep the big dogs somewhat honest about limiting the size and influence of government.

[SShack]

I don't see the prospects as so bleak. Changing the political landscape enough to admit a viable third party is not something that will happen overnight, however, but things have happened which could point us there. Ross Perot demonstrated the ability of a third-party candidate to influence a national election, and Jesse Ventura demonstrated the ability of a third-party candidate to win at the state level. Joe Lieberman won as an independent after his party deserted him for his hawkishness. Ralph Nader consistently sucks up the far-left vote. Small victories, to be sure, but victories nonetheless.

As for the Libertarian Party, its problems are self-inflicted. In platforms and candidates, it chooses to send the message of "Total freedom for everyone, everywhere, right now." Since the erosion of liberties and expansion of government intrusion took over a century of incremental changes, suggesting that it be dismantled overnight is too radical for most people to stomach, even if they agree with the ideas.

They have also, as a party, co-opted some unrelated ideas into their banner. Pacifism/isolationism is not an issue of individual liberty, although the LP insists on making it one. A government must use a viable threat of force to secure the rights of its citizens; whether it does so by building a big wall or by projecting military power is a question for military strategists, not political theorists. The "average" American, whether Red or Blue, understands this intuitively; telling him otherwise is bound to appear nutty.

Further compounding the issue is the LP's inability or unwillingness to differentiate political ideals from political reality. As an example, even assuming the LP is right about the wastefulness and immorality of the War on Drugs, it remains popular. The geniuses at the LP keep trotting this one out as one of their key issues, and so will never win a popular election. If they'd just bury that one down at the bottom of the list, and focus on popular issues such as "abolish the IRS," they'd get more traction.

I am a small-l libertarian, until such time as the LP gets serious about winning in electoral politics. I register and vote Republican (for now) because only by influencing one of the predominant parties can I hope to change the status-quo. It's too simple and pat a response to say that it's impossible to change the system from within; the reality is that it is quite difficult, but I would challenge anyone to explain how to change the system from the outside, short of coup d'etat. By nipping at the heels of the GOP from within the pack, I aim to keep the big dogs somewhat honest about limiting the size and influence of government.

Okay, say you had your way and got to decide what sort of issues/reforms libertarians as a whole would pursue. What would you pick that you think would have traction with non-libertarians?

[Beery Swine]

The two party system, with all its flaws, is still probably preferable to the two HUNDRED party system in some European countries.

I think if a 200 party sytem were tempered with instant run-off ballots it would be preferable. Okay, maybe just a 10 party system.

[deevee]

There are far to many people addicted to the socialist parts of our government. They will not give it up. The only change I see happening is another revolution once America goes bankrupt because of our socialists practices.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government." "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

[acyckowski]

Okay, say you had your way and got to decide what sort of issues/reforms libertarians as a whole would pursue. What would you pick that you think would have traction with non-libertarians?

I'm so glad you asked.

I would first start by stacking the courts at all levels with strict-constructionist, anti-federalist judges. The Constitution proscribes very specific authority to the federal government, so that the states and the fed are partners: in practice, the central government has far more power than the states. Some particularly bad rulings need to go away, Roe v. Wade being an excellent if controversial example. The courts are where States' rights were eroded, the courts will have to re-establish them. The population as a whole pays little attention to the courts, so that's a great place to start.

Next, I would allow a pork-laden budget to fail. In the 90's, government "shut down" for a while because no budget was approved...and the average citizen didn't notice the difference. Build on this and desensitize the populace to the importance of the bureaucracy.

Third, tort reform. I don't necessarily want to cap punitive damages, but the litigation culture is clearly out of control. This is not so much a matter of rights, but of personal responsibility: spill your coffee and get burned? Well, sorry, that's life.

The next few are long-term and incremental, occurring simultaneously:

1) Build on the welfare "reform" of the 90's and incrementally dismantle the entire welfare system...not only direct welfare payouts, but also eliminating agricultural and corporate subsidies. This will be a bit of a sell, since the same "everybody" who complain about government handouts to greedy corporations always seem to see their own line of work as somehow different. Up front, I would loudly and publicly eliminate the advertising budgets of WIC and other alms-agencies.

2) "Reform" Social Security with an eye towards helping it along towards a natural death. Allow citizens to opt out of the program, and further change the collection procedures for those who stay in: make them cut a check for the entire 15.2% of what their company pays them. When people are forced to see just how much they pay into a system which will only partially fund their retirement, more will opt out.

3) Reform the tax system by first reducing, then eliminating corporate taxes. As a native of Delaware, I've seen first-hand the consequences of being business-friendly: companies flock to low-tax areas, and that means jobs, jobs mean consumption, and all the economic activities results in higher overall revenues. The average voter pays little attention to corporate tax policy, so it's a natural start-point. After that, same thing with capital-gains tax. Despite my philosophical opposition, income taxes are specifically authorized in the Constitution, so it would remain to be seen whether we then need to muck around with a flat-tax, a federal sales tax, or what-not.

4) Dismantle the environmental-protection laws and agencies. People love the Bald Eagle, don't want toxic waste in their backyards, but they also like jobs and inexpensive consumer goods. The recent rise in sales of hybrids and high-MPG vehicles is consumer-driven: despite the anti-capitalist vitriol, in reality companies produce what consumers demand. Similarly, I would incrementally eliminate OSHA--labor unions were already demanding and getting the safeguards that OSHA was established to regulate, why would the government be better at it?

Once these steps are in place and taking hold (decades, if not years), then start giving the citizens back the freedoms they lost over the past century: let 'em smoke dope, eat Big Macs, and screw anyone or anything they want. By that time, they ought to be used to the idea of being responsible for their own actions.