For all of you libertarians who are hearing new calls from Democrats saying that they, not the Republicans, are now the party of smaller, less intrusive government, I say to you, do not believe it.
Especially do not believe Markos Moulitsas, who, despite getting some undue attention for his fatally flawed “Libertarian Democrat” idea, is still, by his own admission, a socialist authoritarian at heart.
The Cato Institute has published an essay from Moulitsas in this month’s Cato Unbound, a monthly series of essays by invited guests on various topics. This month, the topic is, Should Libertarians Vote Democrat? I say the answer is a resounding no — unless, of course, you want to compromise your libertarian principles.
Moulitsas, in his lead essay, The Case for the Libertarian Democrat, proves that he still isn’t a libertarian, and fails to show any substantive difference between a so-called Libertarian Democrat and the garden-variety socialist authoritarian Democrat with which we’re all familiar.
The problem is that Moulitsas sees “government as a good, not an evil,” while all libertarians know that government is always an evil, most seeing it as a necessary evil which must be tightly restrained, and some seeing it as an unnecessary evil which, once humans are more civilized, we can eventually dispense with altogether.
In fact, nothing has changed since he made these same arguments back in June, and my responses still haven’t changed.
Moulitsas still cites corporate power over people as a problem, and still fails to recognize that corporations gain their undue power from government. Government is the enabler, empowering corporations to step on individuals and small businesses through both regulations and subsidies. It’s only by restraining government that corporations can be held in check, and it’s unfortuate that Moulitsas hasn’t figured this out yet.
He also says that some government programs are good things, such as “the most important ingredient of all: education, from the lowliest kindergarten to the highest post-doc program.” Those of you who have been following education closely should be quite afraid of what has happened to it under federal control. And if you aren’t, go peruse the Education category at Homeland Stupidity and you’ll quickly find out why government control of education is counterproductive at best and destructive to society at worst.
“This isn’t a question of equality, it’s one of opportunity,” he writes. “Some people will take advantage of those opportunities, and others will not. That will be up to each individual. But without opportunity, there is no freedom.” And he thinks that opportunity should be created by government, apparently not realizing that where government “creates” an opportunity for someone, it must destroy it for others. Libertarians know that everyone already has the opportunity who wants it, except those to whom it’s been foreclosed by government programs to “create opportunity,” “level the playing field” and other such blatant lies.
Finally, Moulitsas cites several Democratic campaigns where the politician in question is running on a smaller-government platform, and posing a serious threat to the Republican incumbents. This is not surprising, nor is it some indication that Democrats have suddenly become the new libertarians. What it really means is that Democrats have gotten their act together since 2004 and learned what words to say which will play well to those districts. It doesn’t mean that the Democrats, like most politicians before them in both of the parties at issue here, will actually keep any of their promises.
If you want libertarians in office, vote for libertarians, not Democrats pretending — poorly — to be libertarians.
This eesay has been cross-posted to Hammer of Truth.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Tropical WeatherLast week, in the wake of another uptick in the official unemployment rate, the administration continued to claim that their economic policies were working, just not fast enough. Not only does the administration have a funny way of ending a war, but now they claim their economic policies are successful. For whom, I wonder?
Gardner Goldsmith teams up with Brett Veinotte, of the excellent School Sucks Project and the School Sucks podcast. Gard and Brett discuss the impetus of the series and project, and why public education must be stopped.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
sjk
Oct 02, 2006
While I agree with some of what you have said, I do take some issue with the general tone. There are many of us who are, perhaps the term is, moderate libretarians — who believe that government does have a place in regulating certain market aspects — ie. public resources, communications, power infrastructure, etc. — as these elements allow for a competative free market to flourish, unembumbered by monopolistic interests. These are issues which goom men may disagree on and have intelligent debates about. To simply label Markos a “socialist authoritarian’ is both inaccurate and pre-emptively stifles discussion. To the best of my knowledge, Markos has not called for land redistribution, a state contolled economy, nor has he suggested that some industries be nationalized. All of these are hallmarks of socialist authoritarianism. Markos has stated that government has a role to play — you and I may disagree upon the scope of that role, but this is and has been an ongoing debate in this country prior to the ratification of the constitution. But neither of our positions make us authoritarian.
Michael Hampton
Oct 02, 2006
I only go by what he himself has said. As another blogger put it:
Whenever anyone claims that government is needed for something, I’m highly suspicious of the claim, and for good reason: government is usually the worst way to accomplish any particular public good. When it’s the only way, then fine. But for nearly anything you can think of, there’s bound to be a better way, even if it’s one we haven’t yet discovered.
Michael D. Bryan
Oct 02, 2006
The duality of our political system is not an assumption but historical and game-theory-based fact. Duverger’s law, which states that a single-member first past the post districting system will inevitably produce a two major coalitional parties who overwhelmingly dominate the system, describes Americans politics perfectly. So the assertion, if not GOP, then Democrat, isn’t faulty at all. Libertarians have no power in American politics except by alliance with one of the major parties. Kos is simply pointing out that Libertarians will reach more of their policy goals by coming into the Democratic tent.
There is a hierachy of liberty interests. Arguably, political rights against state intrusions are superior to mere economic liberties, such as the right to pollute the commons, or defraud customers, or even to use one’s property in an unrestricted manner. You may feel differently, but history has demonstrated over and over that political rights, once lost, are much harder to restore than economic rights, and that economic rights are inevitably lost once political rights are destroyed. Kos therefore posits that Libertarians should be far more alarmed, and organize to oppose, those restrictions on political rights which the GOP is currently pursuing, even though they may disagree with some or all of the limitations on economic rights which are attendant to Democrats’ desire to regulate and police free markets.
In short, Kos is asking Libertarians to accept the lesser evil.
Michael Hampton
Oct 02, 2006
Since when do committing fraud or destroying someone’s property through pollution constitute economic liberties? You’ll find libertarians almost universally opposed to these.
Improving one’s property hardly deserves to be lumped into the same sentence, let alone the same chapter, as committing fraud or knowingly destroying the environment.
As for the lesser evil comment, I can’t accept the lesser evil and look myself in the mirror. I don’t know how the rest of the country manage to live with themselves.
Oct 03, 2006
Libertarian Democrats or Liberalism Reborn - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought
Jason
Oct 03, 2006
Should Libertarian’s vote Democratic?
No.
Libertarian’s should vote for their own party.
Mr. Moulitsas is trying to appeal to the people who know that third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) parties never have a chance vs. the big Republicans and Democrats.
When will people learn that the world is not black and white…
Oct 06, 2006
Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » Best of the Blogs: State Power and Corporate Power
Eric Hamilton
Oct 07, 2006
I believe that Utah is fairly Libertarian, compared to many other states, but Libertarians have no real power here. If you want to get inside government and actually participate fully in the legislative process, you have to align yourself with Republicans or Democrats. There’s just no getting around that in a pragmatic sense.
Judging by the current administration, I’m certainly more inclined to lean towards the comparatively moderate Democrats in my district. This year, I will vote Libertarian on most of the ballot (to help Libertarians stay on the ballot), and democrat in key races, such as Hatch vs Ashdown for U.S. Senate.
Why not vote Libertarian across the board? Because, realistically, they have little chance of winning, and I’d rather support a candidate who has a prayer of winning, and in many cases, the moderate Democrats are more closely in line with my views than the extreme Libertarians running against them.
Oct 10, 2006
Divided We Stand United We Fall
Sam
Oct 11, 2006
The key phrase in your response to Moulitsas’ article is “unless you
want to compromise your libertarian principles.” Whoever said that
compromising principles was a bad idea for libertarians. This is how
coalitions are built–the small party in the coalition lends support to
the larger party who cannot go it alone, and in return gets a piece of
the pie. Democrats will never be libertarians, but that does not mean
libertarians should not vote democrat. If Republicans continue to act
as they do, Democrats will take advantage and split the coalition.
Idealogical purity is not worth losing, as smart libertarians understand.
Oct 15, 2006
Homeland Stupidity Voter’s Guide - Homeland Stupidity