[Conor Friedersdorf]
This post is sorta required reading if you're trying to stay engaged in the discussion about what exactly libertarianism is.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
That's nice, young man. I suppose you're the authority on such things.
Agreed, Conor. Of course, doing so and accepting its veracity takes a lot of the fun out of libertarian-bashing.
Will is undoubtedly one of the best voices of libertarianism on the net or anywhere else...much to the chagrin of many who like to cling to their misconceptions and use fringe and controversial figures to construct their straw-men.
I once posted a reply on Ezra Klein's blog urging him to consider the likes Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez and McArdle (fellow-bloggers whom he knows personally through various outlets like Blogging Heads and probably at bars for all I know) when he goes on some silly libertarian strawman screed. I said that if his uncharitable comments or characterizations could fit them, then fine because THAT'S the real mainstream face of it and not some imaginary extremist-sounding Rothbard/Rand disciple. Otherwise, he should reconsider what kind of red meat he throws to his posters.
From The Beacon.
Very pertinent.
I said that if his uncharitable comments or characterizations could fit them, then fine because THAT'S the real mainstream face of it and not some imaginary extremist-sounding Rothbard/Rand disciple.
I don't read Wilkinson or Sanchez, but Megan really is an extremist Randian, often enough. (She used to post as Jane Galt!) Libertarianism has been a niche ideology in American political life for a long, long time. Whenever you are in such a minority, you tend to achieve ideological clarity, but with the requisite downside of ideological extremism. It's the dorm room effect; people thinking and writing about ideas that have little salience in the real world tend to achieve respect and admiration from their peers when they push the envelope farther and farther. Inevitably you wind up with a fetish for rhetorical maximalism and absolutes. It helps that libertarians have never had to govern, and seen the effects of the law of unintended consequences. (Conservatives having 6 years of one-party rule certainly help demonstrate some of the fissures in their ideological movement, after all.)
Look, here's the thing: we obviously are facing an ascendant libertarianism. This scares me for various reasons. The obvious one is that I am not a libertarian. But less obvious is the way that this ascendancy threatens the things I love about libertarianism (and there are many). This is particularly true because on of the things I've long admired about libertarianism is its refusal to be utopian; it was the libertarians who used to always admit that, yes, if we don't enact social program X, there would be severe negative consequences. They didn't particularly care, but that was superior to those who argued in bad faith that, you know, the church would make things alright, or the poor would pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, or whatever. But lately, libertarians, I think driven by their widening influence and increased visibility, have taken a hard utopian turn-- call it Libertarian Triumphalism. I can't seem to read blogs lately without seeing some new argument about how, if we just cut government intervention down to zero, a particular problem would just disappear. It scares me, because it threatens the level-headedness and pragmatism that you could usually count on in most libertarian circles.
thinking and writing about ideas that have little salience in the real world
Such as? Seriously, if you mean the extreme conclusion that some libertarians would go to if given the chance, then you have nothing really. Given a carte blanche, many liberals and conservatives would institute many policies that are well outside the mainstream.
Thinking broadly without speaking softly does not equate to unworkable policies based in a libertarian POV...it happens all the time; just under the guise of the two-party system.
As a libertarian, I live and breathe it every day and I don't see the utopianism you describe...not at all.
There's a difference between philosophical arguments/ideals and pragmatic policies. Libertarians have them just like anyone else. Some are co-opted by Dems and called "liberalism", some are co-opted by the GOP and called "conservative", others get nowhere...just like many liberal and conservative policies.
Freddie,
Whether Megan is "Randian" in any way or degree, I don't really think it matters because she is not an extremist in policy discussions. I read her stuff and have seen her in policy discussions on Blogging Heads and what not. She isn't saying anything kooky, unheard of or off-the-wall.
Like I said, if you ask workable policy questions, you get workable policy answers. You ask broad, deep, idealistic questions, you get answers in kind.
Granted, asked about taxes, some libertarians will say "TAX IS THEFT! ABOLISH IT TOMORROW!!". So what? They're not being pragmatic and they're obviously not serious policy people and more importantly, as far as voting is concerned, they are going to vote for someone with more sensible and workable positions...so it really doesn't matter.
Go to DKos, I can show you some really unrealistic and tone deaf ideas as well. Everyone has them. And many have workable policies and a clue as well. All POVs do.
Of course, there are extremists on all sides. I'm probably one of them. My point, John, is that because libertarianism has been such a niche ideology for so long in American politics, its followers often get into "who's more extreme" contests. I certainly think that libertarianism is more prone to grand ideas and sweeping conclusions that the mainstream liberalism and conservatism. But then, much of that is the product of my own bias; the center is in a different place for me than for you.
Extremism is so...prole-ish. Why can't people sit down over some fine wine, and discuss the various ways a monopoly agency of force can take the resources of people?
Believe it or not, some people actually think they have a justified claim to self-ownership - how impractical!
Freddie:
I don't read Wilkinson or Sanchez, but Megan really is an extremist Randian, often enough.
Except that she rejects the gold standard and supports income redistribution and government funding of education (and roads, I would assume). And a heavy carbon tax. Which doesn't really leave many radical libertarian positions to take.
Really, there is a middle ground between the median Democrat and Ayn Rand (not that Ayn Rand's policy recommendations are any less sane than the median Democrat's).
(She used to post as Jane Galt!)
That doesn't mean what you think it means. She's stated repeatedly that she's not an Objectivist, and that she just made the name up to annoy someone who had a habit of...well...basicallydoing what you're doing above.
Brandon, if I posted here under the nom de plume Lenin, but I had some secret reason why it was ironic, or something-- would you particularly care? Do you think the people posting here would not mock me for it? Would you do some intense Googling to suss out my hidden motives for posting under that name? Or would you, you know, assume that I actually had a non-juvenile reason for choosing the name that I did?
Look-- compared to the vast majority of the people of this country, Megan is an extremist. As I have indicated above, the fact that you don't is a product of a differing definition of the center. And I even said that my definition of the center isn't more correct than anyone else's.
I honestly wonder why I try to be civil.
Freddie, relax. Do note that your phrase was "extremist Randian". Sure, the adjective there can be a product of a redefinition of the center, but "Randian" has an objective (no pun intended) meaning regardless of one's own position, and Megan really isn't one of those. I think that's all Brandon is trying to say here.
Freddie,
compared to the vast majority of the people of this country, Megan is an extremist.
compared to the vast majority of people of this country, Megan HAS A CLUE....regardless of ideology or biases. Extremist? That's kinda vague. Seriously. What makes her an extremist? Give me a policy or preference of hers that makes her an EXTREMIST. People who call for abolition of government (anarchists) or the nationalization of all major industrial sectors (devout socialists) are extremists. That's not Megan or most people for that matter. And no, it has nothing to do with where the center is...and I don't there would great disagreement on roughly where the center lies.
I honestly wonder why I try to be civil.
Why? Is anyone being uncivil or nasty? I just see a simple discussion.
Okay okay, points fair and taken.
Sheesh, I say!
Brandon, if I posted here under the nom de plume Lenin, but I had some secret reason why it was ironic, or something-- would you particularly care?
I would suggest a different Russian more apropros to your arguing style: Rasputin.
Freddie:
Given the amount of blood on his hands, I'd consider taking Lenin's name as a pseudonym to be in bad taste, but I certainly wouldn't consider it as proof that you were a Leninist, especially if you frequently endorsed positions contrary to Leninism.
It should be obvious to anyone familiar with Rand's political philosophy--arguably a prerequisite for using the term "Randian"--that Megan is not an objectivist.
Freddie - Megan isn't really "Randian", she took the name "Jane Galt" more as a joke than as an indication that she was a disciple of Rand. She has a post about it on her previous blog http://www.janegalt.net/archives/005832.html
I certainly disagree with your assessment that we "are facing an ascendant libertarianism". I would like that to be true, but in reality nothing of the sort is happening. Almost no one in DC seriously talks about slashing government, we get bigger government, more regulation, etc. each year.