Every libertarian gets it: "even Megan McArdle doesn't support the bankruptcy reform bill. . . " or some variant thereof. This is supposed to prove that the idea being attacked is so malignant that even libertarians, who are normally opposed to all that is right and good, can't stomach it. Annoyingly, I almost never get this for voicing an opinion that is actually outside the libertarian mainstream. It's generally in response to something--like abortion, or the proper method for liquidating unpayable debts--where no obvious answer is dictated by libertarian theory. People are so wrapped up in their own irrational bundles of ideas that they seem unable to conceive of any bundle that isn't
a) theirs
b) the exact opposite of theirs
And since I don't agree with them on national health care, naturally I must disagree about every single other thing they hold dear, from foreign policy to the eternal question of whether thank you notes may properly be started with the words "Thank you"1. This becomes downright maddening when someone says "even the libertarians . . . " about people who are voicing the conventional libertarian line. And Tim Lee has had enough:
On the one hand, I appreciate the link from Crooks and Liars to my recent C@L blogging on the FISA issue. But on the other hand, the implications of the “even the CATO Institute” comment stings a little. The implication, I guess, is that it’s surprising that Cato scholars would be in favor of civil liberties. Which is a little strange. Here is my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch attacking the president’s civil liberties record in 2006. Here is Cato’s 1999 books attacking Pres. Clinton for his poor civil liberties record. Here is Cato’s 2006 amicus brief opposing the president’s stance in the Hamdan case. Here is Cato’s brief in the Padilla case. Here are the dozens of pro-civil-liberties op-eds Cato scholars have written since 1991. Here are the op-eds of my former colleague Radley Balko, who wrote extensively about police misconduct and the futility of the drug war and gambling bans.
And yes, we occasionally have Cato scholars take what I would regard as the anti-civil-liberties position. Cato’s doesn’t tell its scholars what to think, and as a result they sometimes reach what most of us regard as the wrong conclusion. But the overwhelming majority of Cato’s work in this area has been on the side of civil liberties and the rule of law. And so the idea that we should be surprise that “even the CATO Institute” (and please note that “Cato” is not an acronym”) is opposed to the president’s agenda on this issue is a little silly.
Unfortunately, partisanship seems to have so poisoned our political culture that people have trouble wrapping their brains around the idea that not everyone falls neatly onto the left-right spectrum. Because Cato scholars take “right-wing” positions on taxes, spending, and regulations, it becomes disconcerting when we take “left-wing” positions on civil liberties, war, immigration, or other social issues. I suppose this is helpful to the extent that it makes right-wingers more likely to take our views on civil liberties seriously (and hopefully left-wingers will take a second look at what we have to say about economic policy). But it’s also frustrating.
1 The answer, obviously, is "Hell, no, what on earth could you be thinking?
Unfortunately, if you oppose higher taxes and more government regulation, then you cannot be a civil libertarian in good standing. Indeed, it must be assumed that you want to waterboard the children and the pets of terrorists.
Of course, I run into this sort of nonsense all the time. If I had a dime for every time someone assumed my position on some issue based on my stated belief that taxes and government spending should be lower, I wouldn't have to work.
Wait, how are we supposed to start thank you notes?
Libertarianism: It'll blow your squishy underdeveloped partisan minds!
My favorite eternal question is "why do hot dogs come in packages of ten but hot dog buns come in packages of eight?"
TFA:
Wah. "Even the Liberal Brookings Institution" is a favorite accusation from the conservatives when Brookings "liberals" Ken Pollack or Michael O'Hanlon spout off on how well the Iraq operation is going. If AEI or Heritage had any liberals working for them, I'm sure we'd talk about how "even the Conservative Heritage Foundation" opposed this or that cherished Conservative position.
Not partisanship. Human nature.
What does this have to do with being vegan?
;-)
Damnit, I write Thank You notes on "Thank You" letterhead. I won't even read notes that aren't similarly formatted.
Fine. Ever since you started hanging out with those damn hand-wringing elitist pantywaists you've totally gone over to the dark side. Pretty soon you'll be advocating we all be brought up in Skinner boxes with piped in Emily Post.
Now we know who you truly are and the dark, sinister meaning of these supposedly "casual" or "tossed-off" comments.
Buh-bye! PLONK!
Note for the humour-impaired: Being humour-impaired can cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, liver disease and, in some cases, death. As they say on the Olestra packaging, wear dark-coloured pants when treatment for humour-impairment.
And the classic example is "Even the liberal New Republic," which got used so often that people jokingly suggested that should be the magazine's name.
Megan,
You've said it many times, but I've never seen you explain what you find wrong with the bankruptcy bill. If there's a link somewhere to a post where you did so, could you provide it?
I've studied the law from the perspective of actual bankruptcy law, and I don't see what's so odious about it. I've seen liberals rant about it on general "irrational bundle of ideas" grounds -- that if a credit card company supports something, a good liberal should oppose it -- but I haven't seen an argument from someone treating the law as an actual statute rather than as a symbol.
Humans like to form groups of like-minded individuals, ascribe all good to their own group, emulate and fetishize individuals the group perceives as superior or iconic, and shun the Other as being suspect or outright evil.
When preening school children do it, we call it a clique and smile obligingly at their immaturity and naiivette. When adults do it, we call it politics and build secular religions around it.
You've said it many times, but I've never seen you explain what you find wrong with the bankruptcy bill. If there's a link somewhere to a post where you did so, could you provide it?
She did, it was a while ago on the other site. The short version is basically that entrepreneurs provide positive externalities that benefit society even when they don't actually see gains, so society should have fairly generous bankruptcy laws even for the upper middle class and wealthy in order to encourage creative destruction.
Basically, rejects the Elizabeth Warren premise that bankruptcy filers are because of medical expenses, but still opposes the bill.
John, thanks for that. The problem I have with that -- and I'm not criticizing you, because that's indeed what I asked for -- is that Megan doesn't explain why she thinks/thought that the bankruptcy reform was so bad. I mean, I agree with her statements as general principles, but I don't get any good sense from the column you linked to why she thought the bill violated those principles.
If one listened to the activists opposing the bill, one would have thought that it outlawed bankruptcy, but if one actually read the bill, one would have found relatively small changes to the bankruptcy code. (That's why I tried to draw a distinction between the law as an actual statute, with actual statutory provisions, and the law as a symbol of evil credit card companyness.)
For what it's worth, my socialist far-left New York friends' position on libertarians tends to be, "Well, they're half right." So I don't think people on the left are really so incapable of understanding that principled libertarians don't fall neatly into current left-right political divisions as shaped by the Bush administration.
Libertarians would probably get more respect if they managed to squelch the obviously nitwitted section of their group--the section that thinks All Taxes Are Evil and All Government Is Evil and Leave It Up To The Market And It Will Automatically Correct Itself No Matter What.
I've asked self-proclaimed libertarians over and over again to tell me why Somalia shouldn't be a libertarian paradise. Or Iraq, for that matter. Weak or non-existent government, no gun control, no regulations, no nasty stuff like socialistic health care or anything like that, let the Market Rule.
(If "an armed society is a polite society", Baghdad should be an Edwardian tea-party.)
When I was working for a conservative organization years ago, a guest lecturer came in to talk about tax-funded needle-exchange programs.
Toward the end of her talk, she launched into a scold/argument that went something like this: If you're a libertarian--not that I think anyone here is really a libertarian, but just in case--you should oppose tax-funded needle-exchange programs, because you oppose tax-funded just-about-anything. So even though the advocates of these programs are pro-drug, just like you, you should oppose them for the sake of your own philosophical purity.
Now, I don't know a libertarian who needs to have it explained why he should oppose tax-funded needle-exchange programs. The speaker's assumptions seem obvious: Libertarians really want to encourage drug use, because nobody would want something to be legal if they didn't want to encourage it. But--got 'em!--we'll play the consistency card and force them to wave a tearful good-bye to tax-funded needle-exchange programs in the name of ideological integrity.
Just one of the perils of a mind high on the State.
I've asked self-proclaimed libertarians over and over again to tell me why Somalia shouldn't be a libertarian paradise. Or Iraq, for that matter. Weak or non-existent government, no gun control, no regulations, no nasty stuff like socialistic health care or anything like that, let the Market Rule.
I understand your frustration, and share it quite frequently when discussing public policy with self-proclaimed Republicans and Democrats. Interestingly enough, most people really don't think that deeply about the opinions they hold, political or otherwise. It's not a particularly libertarian affliction.
I've asked self-proclaimed libertarians over and over again to tell me why Somalia shouldn't be a libertarian paradise. Or Iraq, for that matter. Weak or non-existent government, no gun control, no regulations, no nasty stuff like socialistic health care or anything like that, let the Market Rule.
Read some of libertarian Ron Paul's old newsletters and you'll get your answer.
Your mention of regulations and socialized medicine are red herrings, because they have nothing to do with the problems facing Iraq and Somalia. These are nations at civil war. It's hard to maintain much semblance of normal commerce and civic life when car bombings and beheadings are an everyday occurrence. Those countries are not examples of "letting the market rule", because markets can't really function without things like property rights, courts, and police. Libertarians are not anarchists. Nor are they necessarily against gun control (something that "even" Ayn Rand favored). Libertarian theory no more asserts that the conditions in Somalia and Iraq should have led to paradise than communist theory asserts that being stranded alone in a desert must be paradise, because there are no capitalist oppressors around.
One problem with "self-proclaimed libertarians" is that a lot of people seem to be attracted to the label, regardless of what they actually believe. Lyndon Larouche. Bill Maher. Even Megan McArdle seems like quite a stretch sometimes.
Strawman. Said Libertarian, described Anarchist. Who, exactly, is saying this, and where (as opposed to so many opposing specific taxes and growth of government and having you generalize from that)?
There's delicious and yet sad irony that this post follows one in which Megan wrote:
Does anyone read this stuff before it gets posted? Including...oh, you know, Megan?
One problem with "self-proclaimed libertarians" is that a lot of people seem to be attracted to the label, regardless of what they actually believe. Lyndon Larouche. Bill Maher. Even Megan McArdle seems like quite a stretch sometimes.
OK, this is a serious peeve of mine. Lyndon LaRouche is not, nor has he ever been, a libertarian. He's a Democrat with a history of being a communist.
Check our interview tonight Wed. Feb. 27th at 8pm EST with the Vice President of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, David Boaz and author Johnnie B. Garmon II. Feel free to call in and speak with him live on-air. You can listen to it at http://thirdrailradio.com by clicking the listen live banner or the on air lights at various bitrates.