Libertarians

[Brad Sallows]

>There would not even be scope within the Libertarian ideal for most peacekeeping missions, as those missions are usually focused on enforcing the will of the wider world upon the warring factions within a given territory.

"Peacekeeping" implies there is a peace to be kept and that the mission has the consent of the belligerent parties.  A libertarian government with a (presumably) volunteer army should not find any irreconcilable contradiction in serving as a peace broker and monitor.

So consider instead "peacemaking", which has this problem: that the cost of intervention will not necessarily be less than the cost of letting the belligerents sort out their own differences, and determined belligerents can easily make even the most powerful nation regret a choice to intervene.  I should not have to cite the contemporary examples.

Regardless, it would be unlikely for a hockey sock of nations to all suddenly turn libertarian.  There would be other ways for a libertarian nation to have influence, not the least of which would be to serve as a good example.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>But how far do we go in a libertarian society

How far I would go would certainly end well short of subsidizing the preferences of people manifestly able to serve their own needs.  There is plenty of public spending and governmental interference to trim before we risk eroding the protections of the truly desperate among us.

There are some things that can reasonably be argued on the grounds of compassion - public catastrophic health insurance for example - and some that can not - such as use of aforementioned public health insurance as an excuse to regulate risks people may or may not take with their own lives.

 

[Reccesoldier]

>There would not even be scope within the Libertarian ideal for most peacekeeping missions, as those missions are usually focused on enforcing the will of the wider world upon the warring factions within a given territory.

"Peacekeeping" implies there is a peace to be kept and that the mission has the consent of the belligerent parties.  A libertarian government with a (presumably) volunteer army should not find any irreconcilable contradiction in serving as a peace broker and monitor.

So consider instead "peacemaking", which has this problem: that the cost of intervention will not necessarily be less than the cost of letting the belligerents sort out their own differences, and determined belligerents can easily make even the most powerful nation regret a choice to intervene.  I should not have to cite the contemporary examples.

Regardless, it would be unlikely for a hockey sock of nations to all suddenly turn libertarian.  There would be other ways for a libertarian nation to have influence, not the least of which would be to serve as a good example.

Brad, while i understand your argument the ideal and reality of peacekeeping are the same as the complaint often voiced by communist idealists that "it's not supposed to work that way"  That fact that does not change the reality that it is often exactly that way.  A libertarian government never would have stayed in Bosnia for 10 years monitoring a "ceasefire" that was never a ceasefire.  A libertarian government would not have sat on the green line for 30+ years to monitor two factions who although not actively fighting can not reach a lasting peace. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

For either of those to be likely, I would have to believe that the libertarian government would either 1) not be a UN member state; or 2) be a highly indifferent UN member state.  We can't rule out the latter but it would make that libertarian state no worse than many of the so-called progressive states.  I see no reason why a libertarian state should have to meet a higher standard of international participation than most of the Eurozone.  As a point of persuasion against libertarian government, to me it doesn't wash.

 

[a_majoor]

Some of the more unpleasant ways the "progressives" try to frame the debate:

http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-to-argue-with-libertarian.html

How To Argue With A Libertarian Wednesday, June 07, 2006

This list is based on my own observation of the most astute critics of libertarianism.

1. Attack libertarians for their motives. Advertise your own in the process.

Example: "You just recite propaganda against high taxes and social programs because of greed! I support such things out of a concern for those in need." This particular example is most effective if "need," "greed" and "propaganda" are left undefined.

2. Arguments are like taxicabs. Take them as far as you actually plan to go and pay no mind to wherever else they might lead.

Example: "When you drive on government roads, you enter into a social contract with the government and that contract obligates you to pay any tax that the government demands." Don't worry about the implications of this argument when an IRS agent drives on a privately paved road or pulls up in a privately paved driveway.

3. Conflate the positive concept of capability with the normative definition of rights. This way, you can deny most libertarian claims about rights.

Example: "If there were a natural right to absolute ownership of property, there would be evidence of it. But what makes it possible for you to own anything is the reality of government force that can be used to defend your property." Continue as though this undermines any and all normative arguments based on people's rights.

4. Criticize capitalism by its worst cases. But do not (ever!) compare these to the worst cases of statism.

Example: "The Enron scandal was the product of unfettered profit seeking under capitalism." If a libertarian replies that Stalin's brutality was the product of a statist program, change the subject or claim that your brand of statism precludes such abuses. Better still, try to argue that Stalinism was actually a kind of capitalism.

5. Always interpret any criticism of government programs as a demand for perfection and attack such a demand as unrealistic.

Example: A libertarian might argue that the benefits of the FDA keeping some drugs off the market are outweighed by the costs of keeping other drugs off the market. Engaging this argument directly can be a real quagmire. Instead, accuse the libertarian of using perfection as the standard for evaluating government activities.

6. Be a pragmatist. Avoid "theory" in favor of what "works."

Example: "Theoretical arguments for libertarianism are no basis for policy selection. We have to go with the policies that work in practice, the ones that are most productive." Do not get caught up in discussing the ends toward which any policy ought to work or the outcomes that productive policies out to be producing.

7. Diversity of beliefs about a subject imply that no beliefs about that subject are objectively true.

Example: "Libertarians argue that taxation is immoral. But countless groups claim to know what true morality is but their beliefs vary widely." Continue as though this shows that claims about ethics are a poor basis for policy selection.

8. Criticize libertarians for whatever interaction or noninteraction they have had with the state.

Example: "Yet another libertarian that went to a state school. What a hypocrite!" Alternately: "Yet another libertarian that went to a private university. Of course the super rich can afford to be libertarian." Since the government is involved in just about every aspect of our lives, it should be easy enough to find a similar charge to make against any libertarian. Whatever the personal activities of a libertarian may be, be sure to find fault.

9. No policy should ever be tried until it has already been tried.

Example: "Let libertarians point to a successful example of their policies being implemented before we consider implementing them." Be sure to use this argument like a taxicab, however, as it implies that no government program should ever have been implemented in the first place.

10. Claim to favor whatever policies generate the best outcomes. Never explain the method by which you make the comparison.

Example: "A purely free market in health care might result in the development of better technologies, but they would only be available to those who could pay for them. A system where everyone had guaranteed access would be better even if it meant less development of new technologies." With regard to either availability or technological advancement, more is better than less so avoid these simple comparisons. When there is a tradeoff, insist that the option involving government invention is better. But never explain your method of comparison.

11. The complexity of the world is always and everywhere an argument in favor of government intervention.

Example: A libertarian might argue that price ceilings will lead to shortages. Do not waste time discusing the interplay of supply and demand. Istead, try an argument like "Society is too complex for simplistic supply and demand arguments to be taken seriously. So the government should implement price ceilings." Characterizing libertarian arguments as simplistic is helpful too, as it makes statists seem to be the more sophisticated group.

12. When all else fails, claim that a government intervention is justified because it promotes some unquestionable goal.

Example: "This tax increase may seem unpleasant, but we have to remember that taxes are necessary as a way to promote the greater good. Sometimes individuals need to sacrifice for the benefit of society." Sometimes it helps to define "greater good" and "benefit of society." Other times it's better not to do so. Decide based on the particulars of the situation.

13. Make whatever mixed behavioral assumptions best support your claims.

Example: "Private theft is bad not because of any libertarian argument based on rights. It's bad because if people are free to just take the belongings of others, the consequences would be terrible." Alternately: "The government must be able to collect taxes because the consequences are so good." Do not be afraid to have it both ways.

14. Disregard the possibility that libertarians make tradeoffs in their own lives.

Example: "You claim to oppose taxation but you live in a place with taxes." The libertarian in question will argue that he opposes taxation but remains in his present place of residence to avoid other things that are worse than taxes, such as even higher taxes or the costs of leaving the country. Disregard any such protest. Call the libertarian a hypocrite.

15. Use logic, but do so with discretion.

Example: If a libertarian points out that there is an inconsistency in some statist argument, argue that, "Libertarians are too axiomatic. That's fine for mathematics but not for real world issues that don't fit precisely into neat logical categories." Needless to say, the same kind of thinking need not apply if a libertarian even appears to be guilty of some inconsistency.

16. Call policies by names that presuppose their effectiveness.

Example: "I can't believe that libertarians oppose Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). How could they be against programs that aid these people?" The same approach is suitable for "anti-discrimination" laws, "foreign aid," "affirmative" action, price "controls," "guaranteed access" to health care, "fair lending" laws and so on.

Have I missed any?

 

[evil drunken-fool]

Guys, I know I am quite late to this debate but this is a topic that really interest me and I don't see the point of starting a new topic.

I read through the whole thread and I had a question to ask. I have just really started to get interested in politics, and the philosophy around it.  So I have been doing some reading and have basically come the conclusion that I think I am somewhere around a Left-Libertarian.  However, I am not sure if I really anywhere in that area.

The thing is I have been having a hard time grasping an economic policy that would fit my views.  I started reading up on views such as those as economic egalitarianism.  However, it seems as though that system is its purest form takes it way too far. Maybe I can explain my view and if there is another name for it then just tell me. The thing is that if you take a company that pays taxes, then in theory that goes to say ACOA, to pay for start-up of a company that is their competitor.  It is like shooting themselves in the foot, or well handing someone the gun and saying, ""Hey you don't mind shooting my foot do you?"  It seems so stupid in principle, but to me, it gives everyone the equal the opportunity to their own choice.  I mean, without things like ACOA, some people may not have the opportunity to start a business.  I know some people will say go to a bank or what not, but this institutions have shown their worth in my opinion.  Now, I have heard of some cases where people simply went to ACOA to just get a cheap loan for a new boat, truck, or what have you, with no intentions of starting a business, but as I say, to me these things, when run properly have their worth.  They breed competitions, which is good for the market.

The thing is without competition you get monopolies. Now in this thread there were references to windows, wal-mart, and some Atlantic Canadian companies, such as those of the Irvings to name a few.  The thing is, I think that people look at the market too quickly, I can still remember the many small mom and pop stores here and there.  Then the big box stores came in and everyone was like, "oh no", they basically destroyed a lot of these smaller stores.  The thing is I have seen a resurgence in a lot of these smaller stores lately.  I will take a small ski shop that I know well.  A couple big box sports stores came in the man city in the region, say about 50,000 in the area, and everyone thought it would kill the little store.  I am sure at first everyone enjoyed the cheap prices, but the big stores lacked customer service and high quality products, choosing to stock the more cheap products that sold much better.  However the small ski shop started to pick up on this and started increasing their sales by adding excellent customer service and quality products.  You take windows for example, the market is starting to go towards Mac now finally.  Wal-mart has had some easy times, but the internet is just getting started and will cut into there sales. Logistics are so much better then they were before that companies can get products to your door for almost the same cost as sending a truck pack to the top with 10,000 of the same thing.  My point is the market has been changing ever since the industrial revolution at a ridiculous pace.  Nobody really knows where it is going, I think the government should still be the grand overseer of the market and adjust interest rates and what not to control the market. Free trade is another area that countries don't play fair with each other, so the government must protect its citizen in making sure that trade deals will not cause a drain of jobs away and leave the economy in shambles.  However, when it comes to the individual local markets, let supply and demand run the show.

Then there is the foreign affairs. My thoughts are simple on this, obviously, in the World we live in there are countries much poorer then ours.  I feel that foreign aid is very important to help these countries out.  Though, I think were possible we should not just hand money out as a giveaway but as a way for country to grow.  For example, you give a man a $1 and he spends it on food, then he has been fed for a day.  If he takes it and grows it into a profitable business, you fed him for a lifetime.  We shouldn't be running all around the world doing this though.  It should be cases where we are asked, and want to go into.  Then there is the issue of the military.  Obviously for self protection of the nation, this to me includes such things as Afghanistan, as we went there with the intention to protect our nation.  Oh how some have forgot that.  What we shouldn't being doing is running around the world playing police man, unless as with the aid issue, if we are called in and wish to go in on our own accord.

Anyway, after reading through the posts in this topic, I really thought I could relate to what was said in the post below.

I do believe that people should be the master of their own destiny and that government does not know best.  I believe that people should be responsible for their actions.  I also believe that unfettered self-interest can lead to a break-down of the society in which individuals live, especially as those societies grow larger and become impersonal.  It can be argued that the West (read English speaking countries) avoided revolutions because of a compromise between free-will/free trade and some form of socialism.  The welfare state annoys me, but I also don't like the idea of a family being sunk if the bread-winner loses his job.  I don't come from a rich family, but my knee got fixed by the same guy that fixes NHL players and my folks didn't have to go into debt.  I don't want the governent to tell my how to raise my kids or decide what movies they can watch, but I do appreciate them checking on the safety of the foods that I eat and the hygiene of restaurants I eat in. 

Now, I do think that we've gone a little too far down the welfare state road.

As I said earlier with foreign aid, "you give a man a $1 and he spends it on food, then he has been fed for a day.  If he takes it and grows it into a profitable business, you fed him for a lifetime."  I think our state, and even the organizations such as the UN have decided the way to go is with hand outs.  It only benefits people in the short run.  Welfare should only be there for worst case scenarios, leaving in Newfoundland, I can tell you this is by no means the case.

I have to say that all-in-all, I like the way most of the government is structured in theory.  From what I have seen, many of the social programs are good in principle and should stay in place.  My thought of the whole situation is that if you have more then enough, then you should be taxed to spread some of the wealth and give the poor a fair shake at things.  Obviously everyone should pay something to the nation for the cost of infrastructure, police, military and any required government services.  I don't think health care should be touched, it would be absolutely crazy at this point in history for anyone to touch, in fact I think we pay too much for it as it is now.  For example, I had to pay for physiotherapy recently, it is crazy to think that without insurance I would have never received this.  My thoughts are also, that education should be free in trade school and university. Again, as I say, it gives everyone a fair shake at things in the end.

Then there are the touchy subjects such as homosexuality, which I have a liberal view on, abortion, I like the libertarians for life view on this.  I see no point for the government to be dealing with killing people as is the case with the death penalty.  However, there should be a  jail system that rehabilitates those who will eventually rejoin society and keeps those locked away who are deemed a threat to public safety and cannot be rehabilitated.  I don't feel the need to regulate such things as drugs (to a certain extent), prostitution and other issues such as this which are crimes that do not hurt anyone, other then possibly the parties involved, but who do this on their own accord.  These are the things that waste valuable government agencies time and resources.


I guess to sum things up, I feel as though as long as the government takes a little off the top of those that have a lot to give to those who do not, then all my other views are somewhat libertarian in nature.  Then again, some might be all over the place.  Remember, I am still just figuring things out and I found this thread very interesting to read, expect for one poster who seemed to want to start a war.

Again, sorry for digging this up but I noticed that most of the main posters, still post regularly on this form and might be able to give me some insight into what I have said and set me straight on anything that I have said that is out of place, or out their in left-field.

 

[a_majoor]

Welcome aboard Steel horse, you will be in for an interesting ride!

The thing is I have been having a hard time grasping an economic policy that would fit my views.  I started reading up on views such as those as economic egalitarianism.  However, it seems as though that system is its purest form takes it way too far. Maybe I can explain my view and if there is another name for it then just tell me. The thing is that if you take a company that pays taxes, then in theory that goes to say ACOA, to pay for start-up of a company that is their competitor.  It is like shooting themselves in the foot, or well handing someone the gun and saying, ""Hey you don't mind shooting my foot do you?"  It seems so stupid in principle, but to me, it gives everyone the equal the opportunity to their own choice.  I mean, without things like ACOA, some people may not have the opportunity to start a business.  I know some people will say go to a bank or what not, but this institutions have shown their worth in my opinion.  Now, I have heard of some cases where people simply went to ACOA to just get a cheap loan for a new boat, truck, or what have you, with no intentions of starting a business, but as I say, to me these things, when run properly have their worth.  They breed competitions, which is good for the market.

The idea that you can be forced to subsidize your competitors is completely against the views of libertarians. The active element is the use of force (i.e. State power compelling you through taxation) to subsidize anything that is counter to your interests. As for providing funds for start ups, you could suggest that the reason more people don't have the resources to start their own business is their wages and savings are heavily taxed to begin with (the vicious circle argument). Most start up business in the United States are the beneficiaries of "angel" investors, private individuals who provide start up funding from their own resources in the expectation they will have a good return on their investments, so government or private institutions are not the only source of capital.

The thing is without competition you get monopolies. Now in this thread there were references to windows, wal-mart, and some Atlantic Canadian companies, such as those of the Irvings to name a few.  The thing is, I think that people look at the market too quickly, I can still remember the many small mom and pop stores here and there.  Then the big box stores came in and everyone was like, "oh no", they basically destroyed a lot of these smaller stores.  The thing is I have seen a resurgence in a lot of these smaller stores lately.  I will take a small ski shop that I know well.  A couple big box sports stores came in the man city in the region, say about 50,000 in the area, and everyone thought it would kill the little store.  I am sure at first everyone enjoyed the cheap prices, but the big stores lacked customer service and high quality products, choosing to stock the more cheap products that sold much better.  However the small ski shop started to pick up on this and started increasing their sales by adding excellent customer service and quality products.  You take windows for example, the market is starting to go towards Mac now finally.  Wal-mart has had some easy times, but the internet is just getting started and will cut into there sales. Logistics are so much better then they were before that companies can get products to your door for almost the same cost as sending a truck pack to the top with 10,000 of the same thing.  My point is the market has been changing ever since the industrial revolution at a ridiculous pace.  Nobody really knows where it is going, I think the government should still be the grand overseer of the market and adjust interest rates and what not to control the market. Free trade is another area that countries don't play fair with each other, so the government must protect its citizen in making sure that trade deals will not cause a drain of jobs away and leave the economy in shambles.  However, when it comes to the individual local markets, let supply and demand run the show.

At least you have an understanding of how markets work. One thing which many people find difficult to understand is the market is much bigger than your neighbourhood or even city, so the establishment of monopolies without the sanction and backing of State power is almost impossible; there is always a competitor somewhere! The State should primarily serve as an equal arbitrator in disputes (i.e. the enforcement of contracts) so competition does run smoothly.

I guess to sum things up, I feel as though as long as the government takes a little off the top of those that have a lot to give to those who do not, then all my other views are somewhat libertarian in nature.  Then again, some might be all over the place.  Remember, I am still just figuring things out and I found this thread very interesting to read, expect for one poster who seemed to want to start a war.

The major failing of your thinking is the idea that it is the responsibility or duty of governments to redistribute wealth. The primary difference between that and a home invasion is the people helping themselves to your property and wealth work for the State! There is nothing at all in the philosophy of Libertarianism that prevents you or other civic minded individuals and groups from providing assistance or charity to the less fortunate, and many of the community groups and aid societies that exist today spring from that very purpose, although many are now corrupted to seek funding for their projects from the State as opposed to their neighbours. Similarly with business start-ups and patronage of companies, you are a much faster and better arbitrator of what is good and right than some uninvolved bureaucrat.

There are issues which are difficult or even impossible to solve in the libertarian context of small scale association, hence the need for some form of government, the trick is to strictly define and limit the powers of government so it does not encroach on your rights and liberties. "Progressives" have managed to discover the formula of inverting and perverting language and meaning; so "human rights" become the cover for grotesque political show trials here in Canada (see the current "hearing" by the BCHRC against McLean's magazine and Mark Styen, Ezra Levant's reporting is astonishing to read as the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of the process is laid out for the public to see), while "progressive" taxation punishes hard work and effort, to cite two examples.

Re read the posts, and if you believe that the libertarian philosophy is worth persuing and implementing, then you can begin to work towards implementing it.


**Fixed quotes for you Thucydides

 

[evil drunken-fool]

The idea that you can be forced to subsidize your competitors is completely against the views of libertarians. The active element is the use of force (i.e. State power compelling you through taxation) to subsidize anything that is counter to your interests. As for providing funds for start ups, you could suggest that the reason more people don't have the resources to start their own business is their wages and savings are heavily taxed to begin with (the vicious circle argument). Most start up business in the United States are the beneficiaries of "angel" investors, private individuals who provide start up funding from their own resources in the expectation they will have a good return on their investments, so government or private institutions are not the only source of capital.

The more and more I have thought about this over the past couple of days, I think I am starting to see the light.  I like the vicious circle argument you mention, seems to make a lot of sense to me.  The government should get its hand out of the back pocket of all citizens, just so one individual or group can start a business with my tax dollars and I see none of the return directly back to me.

The major failing of your thinking is the idea that it is the responsibility or duty of governments to redistribute wealth. The primary difference between that and a home invasion is the people helping themselves to your property and wealth work for the State! There is nothing at all in the philosophy of Libertarianism that prevents you or other civic minded individuals and groups from providing assistance or charity to the less fortunate, and many of the community groups and aid societies that exist today spring from that very purpose, although many are now corrupted to seek funding for their projects from the State as opposed to their neighbours. Similarly with business start-ups and patronage of companies, you are a much faster and better arbitrator of what is good and right than some uninvolved bureaucrat.

Maybe I went to far with this point, I think what I am getting at is that I believe in free schooling, health care, snow clearing, etc...
These are all government provided services, that should benefit all equally and should not be privatized.  I guess my idea would be how do we pay for these services.  Would a true Libertarian agree that a flat tax or a regressive tax would be best?  I just cannot agree to that, maybe a proportional tax, but I think I would have to side with those who agree to a progressive tax.  Then again it all depends on the circumstances.  For example, on a local level (snow clearing, water and sewer, etc...), I think a flat tax, or something close too, might be best.  Whereas, with the progressive tax, I would agree to that on a national level.  Then another thought I have if what if a company, without government backing, finds a huge oil deposit and makes a large amount of money on it.  I mean they are entitled to some of the profits, but I feel I own this country just as much as the next person and I think I deserve my share, as the profit was made with natural resources from my country (I believe this last statement has lead to some debate between Libertarians and it all depends on your viewpoint).  I look at it as the company paying me for taking something from what everyone and I own. However, that opens up another can of worms, because I then basically say that I should pay to live on the land I own because I impede others from using it.  There seems to be a thousand different ways to view this whole argument, so I will leave it at that until I do some more research and get a bit more insight into the whole issue.

As for charity, my thoughts are in principle it works.  However, there are certain cases where a recipient may not receive the necessary funds to meet their needs to survive.  I think people deserve a safety net for when they fall on hard times, however, the whole "welfare state" thing has gone too far in my opinion.  It handicaps the whole economic system.

I just can't see a system where there isn't a little bit of redistribution of wealth.  I think Canada has done well for itself in obtaining a high standard of living while not diving too far into the whole socialism system.  I think we currently have one of the best set-ups out there, but it could be better.


Again, thanks for the quick reply and I am going to start reading up on a few more things.

 

[RangerRay]

Then another thought I have if what if a company, without government backing, finds a huge oil deposit and makes a large amount of money on it.  I mean they are entitled to some of the profits, but I feel I own this country just as much as the next person and I think I deserve my share, as the profit was made with natural resources from my country (I believe this last statement has lead to some debate between Libertarians and it all depends on your viewpoint).  I look at it as the company paying me for taking something from what everyone and I own.

Actually, the company will have already paid the Crown for that resource through royalties.  Timber companies pay for Crown timber by paying stumpage, and oil and gas companies pay for rights to drill for oil by paying royalties.  Governments make huge sums of money by issuing tenures to companies to develop Crown resouces.  That oil deposit in your example is owned by the Crown, and the Crown sells the rights to develop that oil to the company.

In Canada, most sub-surface resources (oil, gas, minerals) are owned by the Crown.  There are a few instances where land owners own the sub-surface rights, but that is rare.  In those rare cases, companies would enter into an agreement with the owner to develop those resources at a price agreeable to the owner.

The companies DO pay for the profits in developing resources.  They can't just develop raw resources without paying the owner (i.e The Crown) for them.

 

[evil drunken-fool]

I should have clarified my point more.  I did realize there was payouts in the form of royalties but after a quick look on the royalties paid out to Alberta I was wrong on the actual percentage of revenue that is paid out to the province.

Sorry about that.

 

[a_majoor]

Maybe I went to far with this point, I think what I am getting at is that I believe in free schooling, health care, snow clearing, etc...
These are all government provided services, that should benefit all equally and should not be privatized. 

Besides emotional attachment, is there any empirical data demonstrating that government provided services are better or more efficient than free enterprise delivery of the same? As a military instructor, I have had the misfortune to teach the products of our educational establishments (and I have taught national level courses, so I see students from all over Canada), and the bulk of them are bright and hard working, but have been poorly prepared to deal with real world issues like literacy and numeracy, much less more esoteric subjects like Canadian history....My own children have been sent to private school, and on one to one comparisons with their public school educated peers, they are way ahead. (Personal bias aside, people like their coaches, music teachers etc. say the same thing).

Public service delivery of services falls under Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

A real life example:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/06/02/the_bankruptcy_of_mass_transit

So do you really want to turn over your (and your familiy's) health, education and saftey entirely over to the State? As Mark Styen notes in "America Alone", the FAA runs the closest thing to a European nanny state in America, taking total control of the passenger, their saftey and welfare. On September 11, 2001, three aircraft's collective crews and passengers waited for some sort of response by the State (in the form of the FAA in this case) and were immolated along with 3000 other human beings.

The fourth plane broke the mold: the individual passengers took action and at the cost of their own lives saved countless of their fellow human beings on the ground.

We can agree that there are certain sets of problems that might be better dealt with through pooling resources, but in many cases we find that when we pool and direct our own resources (through the formation of charities, groups, organizations, corporations, co-ops etc.) we can gets results faster and with the expenditure of fewer resources than turning things over to impersonal bureaucratic State power. The subset of problems that really need the application of State power to provide protection or act as an impartial arbitrator are quite limited, given the choice between having the streets plowed or patrolled by the police, I will choose the police and shovel my own snow, thanks.

Once again, the arguments regarding unequal access are entirely false; there is nothing at all to prevent you from lending a helping hand, volunteering etc. to assist the less fortunate in getting better educations, healthcare or even plowed streets, should you feel strongly enough to take positive action.

Freedom is a self help project.

 

[a_majoor]

The economic meltdown, and especially the politician's roles behind it have triggered a wave of dissatisfaction among many people. Perhaps the most extreme position (short of armed revolt) is this proposed response to a putative Obama administration. Many Canadians have already answered this question in the affirmative over the years by relocating to the United States, but where could Americans go to to escape? Read the comments at the link as well:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-is-it-time-to-go-john-galt/

As Ayn Rand foresaw, productive Americans are fed up with supporting the unproductive and may not take it anymore.

Ask Dr. Helen: Is It Time to ‘Go John Galt’?
October 15, 2008 - by Helen Smith

I recently wrote a post on my blog asking readers to react to the creeping socialism and expectation in our society that those who are productive must pay for the cost of our society:

Do you ever wonder after dealing with all that is going on with the economy and the upcoming election if it’s getting to be time to “go John Galt”? For those of you who have never read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, the basic theme is that John Galt and his allies take actions that include withdrawing their talents, “stopping the motor of the world,” and leading the “strikers” (those who refuse to be exploited) against the “looters” (the exploiters, backed by the government).

Perhaps the partisan politics we are dealing with now is really just a struggle between those of us who believe in productivity, personal responsibility, and keeping government interference to a minimum, and those who believe in the socialistic policies of taking from others, using the government as a watchdog, and rewarding those who overspend, underwork, or are just plain unproductive.

Obama talks about taking from those who are productive and redistributing to those who are not — or who are not as successful. If success and productivity is to be punished, why bother? Perhaps it is time for those of us who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less, and let the looters of the world find their own way.

My question to readers is, what are some ways to “go John Galt” (legally, of course) — that is, should productive people cut back on what they need, make less money, and take it easy so that the government is starved for funds, or is there some other way of making a statement?

The comments to the question posed ranged from “It’s not time to ‘go John Galt’ yet” to “Cut off the money!” to everything in between. Here are some examples:

Paul Hsieh, MD says,

I’m not quite ready to give up in America yet and “go on strike.” Yes, we are going to be in for a rough ride, regardless of who is elected president.

But rather than going on strike, I’d rather try to advocate for laissez-faire capitalism and individual rights, and work to make things better. We still have free speech in this country and we still have a culture that (for the most part) values reason, success, and prosperity.

The next few years will be critical for this country, with respect to both domestic and international issues. If the better people choose now to “go on strike,” then we may simply be ensuring the victory of the bad guys, whereas if we speak out (in whatever capacity we have), then we still have a chance.

Pete says,

I sold my business.

I sold several properties, two of them to my children at a significant “loss.” (Ka-Ching!)

I’m raising a great deal of my own food and have taken to raising sheep and poultry. All for personal consumption, not sale.
I live in a rural area, so while Andy and Bob and Charlie might buy some sheep to be raised by me, Andy is buying swine, Bob is buying beef, etc.

Canning. Freezing.

Buying bulk.

Locomotivebreath1901 says,

Until the electorate demands the abolition of the insidious withholding tax nothing will change because the only way to kill the nanny state beast is to starve it.

Cut off the money!!

On the other hand, reader James Racicot at Instapundit would welcome our new socialist overlords should Obama win the presidency:

A Democrat president, a Democratic Congress, and perhaps a filibuster-proof Senate is all the public needs to hold the entire Democratic Party apparatus fully and completely accountable for the next few years. It’s a good thing! As a frequent reader of “right-wing” blogs (and less frequent commenter), I look forward to hectoring from the sidelines, opposing for the sake of opposing, and generally making an ass of myself. Hell, the Kos kids seem to have had a ball these past few years: all the fun with none of the responsibility.

So many decisions, so much fun with the upcoming elections! So PJM readers, if you are a conservative or libertarian, what do you think? Is going John Galt the answer? Would turning into the Kos kids float your boat? Or is rationality and critical thinking going to get us anywhere?

 

[a_majoor]

Libertarians now have a hard two to four years work ahead of them in the United States. Libertarians need to be thinking along these lines here as well, since the "C" on CPC is rather indistinct...

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_02-2008_11_08.shtml#1225992400

Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?
[Ilya Somin, November 6, 2008 at 12:18am] Trackbacks

It's no secret that the Bush years have severely strained and perhaps broken the conservative-libertarian political coalition. Most libertarians were deeply disappointed by the Bush Administration's vast expansion of government spending and regulation, claims of virtually unlimited wartime executive power, and other departures from limited government principles. As a result, many libertarian intellectuals (and to a lesser extent, libertarian voters), actually supported Barack Obama this year, despite his being a very statist liberal. Republican nominee John McCain had opposed some of Bush's excesses, including rejecting Bush's stance on torture and being one of the very few GOP senators to vote against Bush's massive 2003 Medicare prescription drug program. But McCain had numerous statist impulses of his own, including the most famous piece of legislation that bears his name. Even those libertarians who voted for him (myself included) did so with grave reservations.

With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats enjoying large majorities in Congress at a time of economic crisis, it is highly likely that they will push for a large expansion of government even beyond that which recently occurred under Bush. That prospect may bring libertarians and conservatives back together. Many of the items on the likely Democratic legislative agenda are anathema to both groups: a vast expansion of government control of health care, new legal privileges for labor unions, expanded regulation of a variety of industries, protectionism, increased government spending on infrastructure and a variety of other purposes, and bailouts for additional industries, such as automakers.

Even if conservatives and libertarians can find a way to work together, it would be naive to expect that they can block all the items on the Obama's agenda. Many are going to pass regardless of what we do. However, a renewed libertarian-conservative coalition could help limit the damage and begin to build the foundation for a new pro-limited government political movement.

Obviously, a lot depends on what conservatives decide to do. If they choose the pro-limited government position advocated by Representative Jeff Flake and some other younger House Republicans, there will be lots of room for cooperation with libertarians. I am happy to see that Flake has denounced "the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration." Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others. It is even possible that the latter path will be more politically advantageous, at least in the short term.

Much also depends on what the Democrats do. If Obama opts for moderation and keeps his promise to produce a net decrease in federal spending, a renewed conservative-libertarian coalition will be less attractive to libertarians. However, I highly doubt that Obama and the Democrats will actually take the relatively moderate, budget-cutting path. It would go against both their own instincts and historical precedent from previous periods of united government and economic crisis. If I am right about that, we will need a revamped conservative-libertarian alliance to oppose the vast expansion of government that looms around the corner.

Reforging the conservative-libertarian coalition will be very hard. Relations between the two groups have always been tense, and the last eight years have undeniably drawn down the stock of goodwill. But if we can't find a new way to hang together, we are all too likely to hang separately.

 

[evil drunken-fool]

The United States badly needs a third party.  It seems as though the religious right has grown its roots deep into the Republican Party.  It really grinds my gears to see people who tell others how to live their lives have such a prominent role in the country's political system.

I mean to throw a name out there like Mike Huckabee is just crazy, he seems like a nice guy but I don't like where he would lead things, I mean his roots are in the religious right. I just think it is time to
stop trying to always patch things up and start a new party that cares a lot less about how people live their own lives and gets government out of controlling the business systems as much as it has been.

My hope for now is that when Obama gets in and realizes the situation the country is in, that he will look to cut a lot more than he first thought he would.

 

[a_majoor]

There is a Libertarian party in the United States, but like its Canadian counterpart, it is very small and has little influence in the general election.

Based on what I know of the US system (and I hope an American poster can correct me here), Libertarians would have to start organizing from the "bottom up" at the precinct level, convincing people to join, soliciting donations and registering voters. Once they reached some sort of critical mass of registered voters, their presence would begin to be felt as a known political force, having the ability to split the vote and otherwise affect elections (although initially in a "negative" way, much like Ross Perot split the vote in the elections he contested).

From a practical point of view, Libertarians (in any nation) should start to organize and contest elections at every level of government, concentrating on cities, towns and counties initially; given the lower "cost of entry" to these races. This would begin the learning curve as a party to contest larger elections, as well as demonstrate to voters there is a workable alternative and create a pool of potential candidates for higher office. Sarah Palin ran for and became Mayor before she ran for and became Governor, so although she is not a Libertarian, she is an example that this is indeed possible.

The real difficulty is Libertarians as a whole are about as easy to organize as a bunch of cats, and indeed the philosophy of Libertarianism isn't conducive to this sort of thing.  The voluntary association of like minded people is often interpreted as a market, where "we" associate to exchange resources and ideas on an individual basis; the sort of voluntary association that is good to deal with short term goals and immediate problems (think of a market transaction where you buy groceries; you solve todays problem [what's for dinner], the grocer solves his short term problem [meeting the payroll], the suppliers solve their short term problems and so on up the supply chain).

This isn't to say it is impossible; Libertarians need to think of themselves more as the volunteer fire department rather than only individual consumers. Steel Horse; that might be your calling: volunteer "fire captain" of the Libertarians in your area!

 

[a_majoor]

Libertarianism in action: holding the line against the New Deal

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130054.html

Reason Magazine
Progressive Insurance
Why libertarianism matters more than ever in Obama's America

Damon W. Root | November 12, 2008

Does the election of Barack Obama represent the triumph of progressivism and the end of libertarianism? Many on the left seem to think so. Obama's victory, argued blogger Matthew Yglesias, represents a "resounding victory for progressive ideals." The "old assumptions of free-market fundamentalism," declared The New Yorker's George Packer, "have, like a charlatan's incantations, failed to work."


.

Consider the Jim Crow South. As historian David Southern has written, disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, and lynching all "went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court decision that enshrined the doctrine of "separate but equal" and serves as perhaps the most potent symbol of the Jim Crow regime, dealt with a Louisiana law forbidding railroads from selling first-class tickets to black customers. That's not the free market making life worse. It's the government.

Moreover, as economist Tim Leonard points out, progressives believed in a "powerful, centralized state, conceiving of government as the best means for promoting the social good," a belief that directly contributed to the widespread progressive support for eugenics, racial collectivism, and various coercive "reforms." Progressive darling Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, held notoriously racist and imperialist views, including the notion of "race suicide," which held that the white race faced the risk of being out bred by its "little brown brothers." He also believed that the 15th Amendment should never have been ratified since the black race, in his words, was "two hundred thousand years behind" the white.

In opposition to all that stood libertarians like Moorfield Storey, the great lawyer and activist who helped found both the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Anti-Imperialist League. A proponent of the gold standard and laissez-faire economics, Storey argued and won the NAACP's first victory before the Supreme Court, a 1917 decision that relied on a defense of property rights to squash a residential segregation law.

The New Deal-era saw some heroic resistors as well. Among them was Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland, one of the "Four Horsemen of Reaction" (along with Justices James McReynolds, Pierce Butler, and Wiliam Van Devanter), so named for reliably voting against New Deal regulations. An advocate of property rights and liberty of contract, Sutherland was also an outspoken defender of women's rights who, as a U.S. Senator from Utah, introduced legislation that became the 19th Amendment.

In his majority opinion in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923), one of the precedents later overturned by the New Deal Court, Sutherland struck down Washington, D.C.'s minimum wage law for women, arguing that it violated their liberty of contract under the 14th Amendment. As historian Jim Powell observed, this law had thrown numerous women out of work, including elevator operator Willie Lyons, one of the figures in the case, who was promptly fired and replaced by a man willing to work at her old wage. In his majority opinion, Sutherland denounced the law for encouraging such perverse consequences. "Surely the good of society as a whole," Sutherland wrote, "cannot be better served than by the preservation against arbitrary restraint of the liberties of its constituent members."

Sutherland's most famous vote, however, arguably came without comment in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the 1935 decision that struck down the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which at that point was the centerpiece of the New Deal. Specifically, NRA price controls and other "codes of fair competition" had made it illegal for the Schechter brothers, who maintained a small Kosher slaughterhouse in New York, to set their own prices and let their customers pick out their own chickens. (Similarly, dry cleaner Jacob Maged would spend three months in jail in 1934 for charging 35 cents to press a suit, rather than the NRA-mandated 40 cents.)

"Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies," Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes held for the unanimous Court. "But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers." The NRA was finished.

But Roosevelt, who denounced the ruling for its "horse and buggy definition of interstate commerce," would have the last laugh. Two years later (two months after FDR threatened to "pack" it with more sympathetic justices, in fact) the Court overruled Sutherland's Adkins decision to uphold another minimum wage law for women, arguing this time that the state had a duty to "preserve the strength and vigor of the race" by protecting current and future mothers—a line that hasn't exactly sat well with feminist legal scholars. As historian William E. Leuchtenburg put it, "the Court was now stating that local and national governments had a whole range of powers that this same tribunal had been saying for the past two years that these governments did not have."

From that point on, the Supreme Court proved ready and willing to defer to FDR's vision for the country. Which might sound great to today's progressives, until they recall that FDR ordered the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, an executive action that the pliant Supreme Court upheld in Korematsu v. United States (1944). Sutherland, who died in 1942, at least did what he could to oppose the Rooseveltian juggernaut.

Indeed, as Sutherland and Storey's careers demonstrate, libertarian ideas have long served as a crucial check against the illiberal impulses of progressive majorities. The Jacob Weisbergs of the world notwithstanding, libertarianism matters now more than ever.

Damon W. Root is an associate editor of Reason.

 

[evil drunken-fool]

The real difficulty is Libertarians as a whole are about as easy to organize as a bunch of cats, and indeed the philosophy of Libertarianism isn't conducive to this sort of thing.  The voluntary association of like minded people is often interpreted as a market, where "we" associate to exchange resources and ideas on an individual basis; the sort of voluntary association that is good to deal with short term goals and immediate problems (think of a market transaction where you buy groceries; you solve todays problem [what's for dinner], the grocer solves his short term problem [meeting the payroll], the suppliers solve their short term problems and so on up the supply chain).

This isn't to say it is impossible; Libertarians need to think of themselves more as the volunteer fire department rather than only individual consumers. Steel Horse; that might be your calling: volunteer "fire captain" of the Libertarians in your area!

I think we had a discussion recently about exactly where I stood in the political spectrum.  After some long thought and research, I don't think I fall under the heading of a true Libertarian.  My big things are public education and healthcare, I just feel as though, these are what I consider essential services in any developed nation. I mean most "Libertarians" adhere to the "Night Watchman" principle (Though I may have a very broad range of what the "Night Watchman" principle can include).  However, there are those still still considered to be in the realm of a "Libertarian" that have some of the same views as I do.

Though, I consider myself to be all ears open if someone can explain to me a viable way that the free market can supply everyone with what I consider to be essential services.

I think one of the big problems is that we as a society don't know how to live our lives as individuals, we look to government to do way too much for us.  People look to government to do everything for them, people need to start taking control of their own lives. The problem with this is we see people migrate mostly to bigger government ideology. I think, and maybe this comes from my business background, we should get government out of the business world and let the market run itself. I like to say that government has it's hand way too far in the cookie jar.

With all that said, I still don't see where I fit in the whole political spectrum, maybe I am a Libertarian, maybe not, I know a lot of my friends are politically active, within the conservative and liberal parties and I do not see eye to eye with most of them.  I feel government should stay out of my life as much as possible, though it is there almost every step of the way.

But yeah, I feel as though I finally have a clear path in front of me, something I can pass on to others to start some sort of "grass roots" movement.

Ha, maybe I am rambling a bit, but I am all open to any suggestions.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT "public" education, look at Alberta's experience with charter schools, where the educational bureaucracy is pushed aside and parents run the schools. Charter schools are also popular in the United States, where there is a huge waiting list for places (Since teacher's unions in many States have forced governments to place caps on the number of charter schools). Educational vouchers is a related concept where the money is directly attached to the student (through vouchers to the parents), who may use the voucher to pay for the type of education they think appropriate (Montessouri, Waldorf, Performing arts school, traditional, parochial....). Ontario offered a tax credit for parents who sent their children to private school, but the McGuinty government axed it as one payoff to the teacher's unions.

Parents want their children to be educated, and will go to great lengths to do so.

Medical services should be payed for through a combination of Medical Registered Savings Plans (where you accumulate the unused portion tax free) and disaster/catastrophy insurance for major accidents and diseases. It should be noted that even in the United States, victims often receive assistence from charities to offset medical bills.

The issue with "public" provision of services is the "service providers" see the public as an unlimited resivour of funds. See:http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_blue_america.html

 

[Reccesoldier]

Steel Horse my question for you is this.  Can you think of a single service that you and most other people want but is not provided by private industry?

From babysitters to poop scoopers if people need it someone will find a way to do it and make money at it.

Most people consider the government run school system as being the best, when you ask them why they point to standards and the fact that all children are treated equally.  Most answers come back to some form of "Well the poor kids get the same education/opportunity as the richer ones"  But is it true?

If you look at separate "public" schools one in a middle class neighbourhood and one in a poorer neighbourhood I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the school in middle class Canada is better, has overall better teachers and better resources than the school in lower class Canada.  Is that equality? 

Paying an equal share of what it costs to put your kid in school does not guarantee equality of conditions.  It only ensures that they both get a "public" education, however widely divergent the experiences of the kids in those two different schools.

Now lets look at the truly rich, they pay their school taxes as well but because they can afford to a good number of them don't send their kids to that public school, they go to private schools, because they have the money and they want a better education for their kids (and rightfully so).  They have a choice, and in spite of the public system they exercise it.

On the other hand without a good reason you child, by virtue of his residence goes to the school in a particular catchment area.  There is no choice.  You can't in most cases say I'm going to send Johnny to "Ohmygodwhatagreat Public School" because you live in the catchment area for "Institutionalizedconcretejail Public School".

What about what your kids are being taught?  How much say do you have?  I remember being appalled by the amount of Canadian History my daughters were taught in Ontario, but with a top down provincially mandated curriculum there was diddly squat I could do about it.  Parent teacher meetings almost always were reduced to "I'm sorry Mr. Zip, we don't have the time to teach that sort of thing because we have to teach X,Y and Z first."

In a private school system you would have the ability to decide which school your kid goes to.  And if that school didn't provide a proper education then you could vote with your cash and send him/her to another one.  Good schools would get good teachers, and perhaps good teachers would be paid in proportion to their ability and not some egalitarian union wage that lumps them in with the ones who destroy many more young minds than they nurture. The opposite is also true. Bad schools would go out of business as people refused to send their kids to them. 

Whether the education received would be any better on average than what our kids get today is a question that hasn't been answered but I believe that everyone would be served at least as well as they are now, and without a single dime taken in Taxes.

Hmmm,anyone know just how much of the taxes you spend on schools goes into the schools themselves, not to mention teaching your kids?

 

[a_majoor]

It is interesting to see how "Conservatives" see Libertarians:

http://thenextright.com/jon-henke/mike-huckabee-and-libertarians

Mike Huckabee and libertarians
View What links here by Jon Henke | November 20, 2008 at 3:36 AM

We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).

Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.

This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." 

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."

Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts.  Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)

So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me").  This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.

Huckabee makes little distinction between religion and politics: It's not that he's religious.  It's that Mike Huckabee appears to be incapable of drawing a meaningful distinction between religion and politics.  For instance, in 1997, Governor Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for weeks because he objected to its description of floods and tornados as "an act of God".  He explained his position on another bill by saying "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."  He has asserted a Christian duty to support other policies.  The Right desperately needs to remember that where the government intrudes, church recedes.


Huckabee accepts the Democratic framing: Mike Huckabee seems to have far more complaints with Republicans than with Democrats.  Worse, he embraces liberal or Democratic caricatures to attack Republicans.  Whether it is his attacks on libertarians, business or the Club for Growth, Huckabee almost invariably misrepresents their views, portraying them in the same cartoon terms that Democrats like to use (see the examples quoted earlier in this post).

This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives.  So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives.  Cry me a river.  We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition.  The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition.

Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.