The evolving libertarian

So, as I wandered in to Vloggercon last week, I was met by my hosts who asked, “So you’re here representing the Republican side?”, to which I responded, “Well, I am more of a libertarian really”. Their unexpected response was “Sure, we all are”.

It seems like that’s what all the cool kids are calling themselves these days, and the term has become something of a catch-all. Many serious people are loathe to identify themselves with the baggage of the major parties, and prefer to transcend it by implying that they are more sincere in their pursuit of individual freedoms. “Libertarian” seems to be just the ticket.

What’s going on here? I think we are discovering that the left-right spectrum is a bit of a fallacy in modern politics. After all, traditional Democrats see themselves as fighting for individual rights on the social side, while arguing for more restrictions on the economic side. Conversely, traditional Republicans argue for greater economic freedoms while showing a greater willingness to impose social restrictions.

(Personally, I don’t think we can separate the two so easily.)

A couple of weeks ago I was accused by Ali of moving to the “left” as my distrust of government grows. Add this to my conversation with Charles Hope — a much more studied libertarian than I — and I’ve come to realize that left-to-right is a meaningless continuum. A more enlightening and durable one is statist (pro-government collectivism) vs individualist (preferring ad hoc, self-organizing systems).

Recently, Markos Moulitsas came out with something of a manifesto for a new breed of left-libertarian. In it, he posits that libertarians should apply their mistrust not only to governments, but also to corporations. Thus, traditional lefties can persist in their usual instincts — capitalism is bad — while laying claim to the idea of fighting for individual freedoms.

There is some intellectual precedent for this, but all I can say is, bunk. (A Kossack agrees, but for reasons entirely opposite mine).

If Kos’ goal is to reduce the power of corporations, how do we do so? The only organization that has the power to do it is the state. If corporations are to be penned in, the only way to do this is to increase the power of the state, and that is hardly a libertarian position.

(Psst: Kos is moving to the center, by the way. His audience notwithstanding, he’s a political animal before all else, and therefore cares more about winning than ideology.)

As I’ve said before, however powerful you believe a particular corporation to be, they are much more accountable than government. After all, the government only needs to please 51% of its customers every 4 years or so. A business that performs at that level ceases to exists.

Both types of organization need your money, but only one can force it from you. Understanding the difference is quintessentially libertarian, IMHO.

In any case, expect more people on the left to start calling themselves libertarians, and for people on the right to call themselves classical liberals. It is a fun semantic game, enlightening on a certain level, but it is a poor substitute for articulating a real point of view.

Comments

[Debbie_S]

It's fear of being shunned or ridiculed that keeps people from using the word, "Republican." Also fear of being associated with the Republican stereotype so prevalent on the Left -- you know, stupid, bigoted hillbilly with an American flag on the radio antenna.

I called myself a Libertarian for many years, but when the movement didn't go anywhere, I decided to admit I'm a Republican. I really do agree with most of the party platform. I have some disagreements regarding social issues but they're not that important. Sometimes I say I'm a classical liberal, but I also think this is a cop-out.

[Ali Massoud]

>>(Psst: Kos is moving to the center, by the way. His audience notwithstanding, he’s a political animal before all else, and therefore cares more about winning than ideology.)>>

Yes, and that is what identifies him as a power hungry statist poseur, and (therefore) not a libertarian.

>>..libertarians should apply their mistrust not only to governments, but also to corporations. Thus, traditional lefties can persist in their usual instincts — capitalism is bad —">>

State capitalism is bad. A truly "free market" cannot exist in a state environment where monied interests can buy privileges, monopolies, and constrict market conditions to their advantage. Adam Smith spoke of that 250 years ago.

Debbie: The GOP isn't going anywhere (good that is) either, unless you advocate huge deficits, inflated currency, endless war and ever dimishing civil liberties either.

[Patrick Ross]

There is plenty of logic in a thinking person resisting a party label; after all, is the world really so simple that we can divide all ideas into two parties, and then can decide that only one has all the right answers? And what do we do when parties shift?

So it's understandable that the libertarian label is appealing, since the Libertarian party plays no significant role in politics and thus a "libertarian" isn't bound by that party's beliefs.

But what is clear is that many libertarians today wish to apply litmus tests for others who would call themselves libertarian. One of your commenters declares that Kos isn't a libertarian. Don't know that he is or isn't, but he has the right to call himself one.

I find it interesting that, since the core of libertarianism in the literature is generally the defense of individual liberty, any one individual can grant or deny the label "libertarian" to another individual. When did libertarianism gain gatekeepers, and who appointed them?

[mark]

"As I’ve said before, however powerful you believe a particular corporation to be, they are much more accountable than government. After all, the government only needs to please 51% of its customers every 4 years or so. A business that performs at that level ceases to exists."

No, many large corporations are completely unaccountable. They are accountable (in public corporations at least), to their shareholders, not the public. In large companies individual middle-class people often don't even have a say, a majority of the shares (or at least enough) are held only by a relatively small number of people sometimes not even in America. Even then, the only technical goal of a corporation is to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. Most investors and many businessmen are in it for the money only, they don't care about what effect their company has on the public, the environment, with lobbying the political process, etc.

"If Kos’ goal is to reduce the power of corporations, how do we do so? The only organization that has the power to do it is the state. If corporations are to be penned in, the only way to do this is to increase the power of the state, and that is hardly a libertarian position."
It's possible for a government to respect the rights of its citizens, while limiting corporate power to exploit them. There's no reason that having laws against, say, pollution, violating privacy, or for living wages will result in a police-state. The last six years have seen the opposite.

Furthermore, if corporations can do whatever they want, they will become much more powerful and take on some of the roles government previously did. Libertarians do of course talk about contracting government functions like even the police to private companies. Ideally citizens should have guaranteed rights, and limits on the abuse of power, by both the state and private entities. At least an elected, transparent government is accountable to the voters.

Also, the problem many have with self-described libertarians and Republicans who supposedly care about freedom, is that freedom seems to only mean "free enterprise." That is, they don't seem to care too much about things like the NSA scandal and the fact the government has essentially repealed the Bill of Rights, but then they get agitated whenever someone brings up issues like, say, forcing car companies to improve efficiency. Some of course mention is, but they spend far more time on the evils of minimum wages, and trying to rationalize that things like global warming don't really matter.I think that's a big reason why denying global warming is almost like a religion for some. It's like an insult to them in that it goes against free-market absolutism (the idea that completely unregulated markets and the most natural and desirable, and that they improve society and always yield the best outcome). Here is a problem that the beloved so-called "free market" is causing, and not only that, but it will take government action to fix it (as even a group of CEOs recently agreed).