Libertarian Nation

Libertarian Nation?  We’re not quite there yet…

* 10% Self-identify as libertarian

* 23 % responded to questions about the role of government in a way that categorizes them as libertarian

A survey conducted by Zogby for the Cato Institute has put the libertarian vote at around 15 percent. Loosen the wording, and the pool expands. When the Zogby survey asked voters if they would describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian, the number rose to 44 percent. When it simply asked if they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal, a full 59 percent responded yes. (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/)

Libertarian Me

I have turned libertarian over the past few years. There are many strains, but I tend more towards the Hayek/founding fathers variety. That makes me an “impure” medium-core libertarian, although I’m an avid fan of anarcho-capitalist and modern-day libertarian patriarch Murray Rothbard. The man is brilliant and his logic is unassailable, but I still believe in a state as envisioned by the founders.


Christian Me

Social conservatives consider us turncoats and libertines, especially those of us who are conservative Christians. I make my moral decisions based upon my Christian beliefs, but I make political ones based upon our nation’s secular bible, The US Constitution. This leads me to personally oppose gay marriage, but to also declare that the state should not interfere. I also believe, based on the same constitution, that the state may not punish churches that refuse to conduct same-sex ceremonies.

“Libertarianism gets marginalized in American politics because it doesn’t fit into the two-party paradigm. Libertarians want less state intrusion into the market, which aligns them with Republicans, but also less interference in social choices, which aligns them with Democrats. As Massachusetts governor William Weld put it in 1992, I want the government out of your pocketbook and your bedroom.” (http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/)

The author goes on to note that “libertarianism is more internally consistent than the Democratic or Republican platforms,” which is what makes it so appealing to rational minded individuals. Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of which party wields it. If I oppose liberal democrats hijacking the power of the state in the name of social justice, how can I support George Bush’s Office of Faith Base Initiatives?

“At least the highwayman would take your money and leave you alone.  The government takes your money, then stands around and tells you what to do with it” -- Douglas French, President, Mises Institute

You may be more libertarian than you think.  Christopher Beam has written a pretty good article about libertarianism today entitled, The Trouble With Liberty.  He takes a skeptical view, but he's fairly even-handed, taking only a few gentle cheap shots.  If you're curious about libertarianism and the tea party tie-in, you should go read the whole article.

If you're hungry for more, here are my favorite libertarian links.  There are many, many more than these, but these best accord with my "brand" of libertarianism.

The CATO Institute is America's preeminent libertarian think tank.  CATO@Liberty is their blog.

Reason Magazine is my favorite libertarian publication.  Full of fun and interesting stuff updated daily, with writers such as Drew Carey, Penn and Teller, John Stossel and David Harsanyi.

The flagship of Austrian School Economics is The Ludwig von Mises Institute.  It's not just wonky economics, so don't be scared off.  Fresh articles on freedom and liberty daily, as well as classic writing from the past that are relevant to today's topics.

For a principled criticism of Austrian School Economics, you can read Professor Bryan Caplan's paper, Why I am Not an Austrian Economist

America in the Progressive Stranglehold

What is Progressivism? 

Progressivism springs from a basic human urge to sort, organize, and move the human lot along the road of progress.  Life is messy, and progressives are intent on cleaning it up, usually shouting "science!" to justify their latest assault on the sovereignty of the individual. 

Conservatism does not rule the day here.  We are living in a progressive age ushered in over 100 years ago.


Professor Thomas G. West explains progressivism's roots:

A growing body of scholars -- including John Marini, Charles Kesler, R.J. Pestritto and my colleague Tiffany Miller -- finds the origins of today’s liberalism in the Progressive era. Leading intellectuals of that day openly repudiated the principles of the American founding. In that group, Wilson is often highlighted because he was uniquely both a major politician and an academic.

Referring to his own time period, Wilson continues,

“Life is so complicated that we are not dealing with the old conditions, and that the law has to step in and create new conditions under which we may live.”

In other words, the Founders’ idea of protecting property rights is outmoded. We need a government that intrudes into and even micromanages the private sphere. 

Wilson anticipates today’s liberals by telling Americans to follow the example of Europe:

“In the city of Glasgow, for example (Glasgow is one of the model cities of the world), they have made up their minds that the entries and the hallways of [apartment buildings] are public streets. Therefore, ... the lighting department of the city sees to it that the lights are abundantly lighted.”

Glasgow is Wilson’s ideal. Government knows best. (NY Times - Government in Every Part of Life)

Think of Obama as a Wilson only without the professorship, scholarly writing, or intellectual firepower.  All he's got is a hopium-fueled cult of personality redolent of charismatic third world maximum leaders.  Nonetheless, he harbors the same Wilsonian belief in the power of the state over the petty concerns of the individual

George Will does an excellent job explaining why progressives persist in their pseudo-intellectual utopianism:

The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened - experts coolly devoted to facts and science.

The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers.

Of course the masses do not understand that the only flaw of the stimulus was its frugality, and that Obamacare's myriad coercions are akin to benevolent parental discipline. (George Will - Progressives)

Progressivism is not pretty, but like a car wreck or the face of a benevolent dictator, we must look upon it and learn what it is in order to save ourselves.  We must, before its practitioners declare the hallways of our houses a public thoroughfare that can only be lighted by government-approved means.

Oops!  Too late...  They've already banned the incandescent bulb...

Further reading
CSM - Progressives
Heritage Foundation - The Progressive Movement

Saving Liberalism from the Liberals

Walter Russell Mead asks, "Can the L-Word be saved?"

It's a good question, and one important to this nation, which was founded upon classical liberal ideals.  It's been all down hill since then for liberalism, with its path winding through Fabian Socialism, illiberal nationalism, elitist progressivism and ending up in the dark caverns of tribalism, identity politics, and because-we-say-so-ism.

I do not hate liberals. Some of those nearest and dearest to me are liberals.  I was saddened when a liberal coworker moved on to greener pastures, because he is a very intelligent man and we had some awesome conversations while leaning on our shovels.

The words liberal and libertarian both come from the word liberty, but they diverged long ago and we here in America have hopelessly tangled up our terms.  Mr. Mead explains...

Politically speaking, America may be the most confused country in the world.  Millions of people in this country are conservatives and even reactionaries who think they are liberals; we have millions more liberals and radicals who call themselves conservative.

It is an unholy mess and it needs to be cleared up.  It’s time for a language intervention.

Many find such conversations pedantic and insist that the terms are what they are in this country and who cares if we've got it backwards?  But if you are a thinker trying to get to the root of the matter, you must start by defining terms and tracing today's movements back to their philosophical roots.  Clarity demands it.

"Liberals" sneering at tea partiers who cite the constitution provides a clue that liberalism has gone off the rails; progressives voluntarily severed ties with such antiquities in the early 20th century, and liberals inexplicably fell in with them.  Progressive politicians greatly expanded the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, and progressive judges let them get away with it.  We were grappling with wars and economic crashes, you see, so the president and congress needed extraordinary powers.  And today's liberals, with a straight face, would have us believe George Bush's post-911 bureaucratic expansion and increased government powers was a singularly unprecedented even in our nation's history.  Sadly, it was just one more brick in the wall.

Know Yourself (Socrates).  Know Your Enemy (Sun-Tsu)
Most liberals cannot explain liberalism, because it is an incoherent hodgepodge of pollyanic aspirations, musty dogma and high dudgeon.  Worse for them though, is that they cannot explain conservatism, and they are blind to the evidence that the tea party has a strain of radical liberalism running through it, while they have become the entrenched fuddy duddies on so many issues.  I urge my fellow conservatives and libertarians to not make the same mistake.  You must understand the ideology you do battle with.

most of what passes for liberal and progressive politics is a conservative reaction against economic and social changes that the left doesn’t like.  The people who call themselves liberal in the United States today are fighting desperate rearguard actions to save policies and institutions that are old and established, that once served a noble purpose, but that now need fundamental reform (and perhaps in some cases abolition) ...

Liberals Started With Noble Ideals
I also urge everyone to study liberalism with charity in your heart.  Along the way you may find liberalism has some admirable qualities.  American liberalism is not communism after all.  Liberals and Progressives did not set out with the intent to enslave us.  They perceived real problems and set about trying to solve them:

The industrial revolution and associated phenomena (urbanization, mass immigration from non-English speaking, non-Protestant societies, the economic decline of small farmers and rural communities) presented liberals with new and very complicated problems. The problems of urbanization, class conflict (and the competition with socialism for the support of urban industrial workers), assimilation, and the regulation of a modern industrial economy gave 4.0 liberals new issues to worry about.

The development of a professional, bureaucratic civil service and the regulatory state were intended to preserve individual autonomy and dignity in a world dominated by large and predatory corporate interests – and split into classes with most industrial and agricultural workers subject to very low wages, long hours and poor working conditions.

At the same time the challenges of modernization and urbanization (public health, food safety, provision of newly necessary services like electricity and gas) could best be met through public services and, in some cases, heavily regulated private monopolies.  The professional and managerial classes were not just middle classes in the sense of standing between the rich and the poor in income and status; they were mediating classes who sought through the state, the universities and the learned professions to impose a balance between the interests of the wealthy and the workers.

Mead gives them their deserved props, but concludes that rather than take a revanchist approach, liberals need to move on, and realize that while their goals were noble, they snuffed human liberty and initiative in the process. Keep the goals but ditch the totalitarian tactics

Mead also looks forward to a new liberalism, which he calls Liberalism 5.0.  I recommend you go read the entire article.  He provides a concise history of American liberalism.  If the libs got their heads screwed on straight, they'd make common cause with the tea partiers.

Walter Russell Mead - Can the L-Word be Saved?

It's Saturday!

"Take a lesson," Westerners...


Christians are being murdered, persecuted and chased out of Muslim lands. If the roles were reversed, Christians attacking Muslims, the world would rightly be crying ethnic cleansing.

Here's what a "moderate" Pakistani imam had to say about the cold-blooded murder of a politician by his bodyguard.  The politician has defended a Christian woman against accusations of blasphemy:

They even went so far as to warn government officials and journalists that the “supporter is as equally guilty as one who committed blasphemy,” and so therefore they should all take “a lesson from the exemplary death” of Salman Taseer. (NY Post)

Are we able to take a lesson?

Pension and benefit packages threaten to collapse entire cities and states

Benefits packages for government workers are unsustainable, and we need to have a responsible discussion focused on the financial facts. The purported cupidity or sanctity of the pensioners has nothing to do with the facts on the ground. If someone opened the door to paradise, who among us would not walk in? So it's not about the people, it's about the fiscal mess we are now in.

We set up a system where people could grab with both hands while being completely insulated from the consequences.

What's the Answer?

Privatize it. City workers, teachers, auditors, logistics. This is not a knock against public servants. The good ones will get hired by the private sector and the bad ones will no longer be able to scam the system. End all government pensions and drive everyone to a 401K-type retirement plan. End all government health insurance plans and drive everyone to private insurance. End government disability programs; anyone who wants such protection can buy it in the public insurance market. These actions would put our federal, state and local governments on a pay as we go basis, reducing future unfunded liabilities.

Sound draconian? The private sector has already done it.

Further Reading:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/snowplow-slowdowns-might-become-american-way-commentary-by-kevin-hassett.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/politics/04fiscal.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/raging-against-them/?singlepage=true
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/12/where_i_differ.html

Nugent Schools Rosanne Barr


Go here and watch Ted Nugent school Rosanne Barr

Notice how every time he shuts her down she moves on to another issue?

My favorite line was when the host said Obama had accomplishments before becoming president; he helped the people of Chicago, to which Uncle Ted replied:  "The people of Chicago don't look very helped to me"

Have a happy weekend!

Cut Government - Start by Dumping the FCC

The FCC is an outmoded appendage of the past.  Time to shut it down.  As a bonus, we would save $325 million per year in the process

The same organization that forced all consumers to buy Ma Bell-made telephones for decades, the same FCC that enforced speech codes via radio "fairness doctrines," the same FCC that took two decades after its invention to OK cellular technology for the marketplace and acted similarly sluggishly with cable and satellite innovation has no business online.  (Harsanyi)

Jack Shafer sees the FCC's latest "Net Neutrality" power grab as a "solution" looking for a problem:

The FCC's sense of urgency may befuddle you. After all, the many-colored, hydra-headed, and infernally useful beast that is the U.S. Internet came into being without government demands and decrees. Without commandments from the FCC or anybody else, American broadband companies invested tens of billions of dollars to create an Internet infrastructure for their customers.

He also explains how the free market works:

Would any of the companies currently in the broadband game have built their systems without the expectation that they could "leverage" their investment? I doubt it.

Do they lust for an Internet environment that imprisons us in their "walled garden" and bleeds us for every penny during our stay? Of course they do.

But then why—in the absence of FCC regulatory powers to ban such Internet land-grabs—haven't the broadband providers erected such walled gardens?

Because 1) they face competition from another broadband provider and don't want to give their customers an incentive to leave, or 2) where they're the only broadband provider, they tend not to want to give a potential competitor encouragement to enter their market.

That's it in a nutshell.  This isn't about the Orwellian sounding "Net Neutrality" or "Open Internet."  As David Harsanyi warns us...

"... doublespeak is still flourishing [...] it reminds us that the FCC's institutional positions conflict with the vibrancy and freedom of the Internet." (Harsanyi)

It's about power and control.  The progressive urge to regulate every last corner of our lives is metastisizing and has spread to the internet

Even the staunchest net neutrality advocate will concede that net neutrality is a fuzzy concept. No network can be purely neutral. If the current Internet didn't prioritize some traffic at the expense of other traffic, the whole enterprise would grind to a halt like Manhattan's streets when the stoplights stop working.

So the basic question here is who will set the Internet's priorities, the government or the providers. (Shafer)

Jack Shafer - Who's Internet is it Anyway?

Harsanyi - Save the Net; Abolish the FCC

Grab their Guns and Shut them Up!

Why should it be more of a crime to threaten a politician than it is to threaten an ordinary citizen?

A threat is a threat, and all credible threats should be treated equally under the law regardless of who issues the threat or who is threatened.

"The president is a federal official," Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge." (The Hill)

You shouldn't be able to do it to anyone, congressman! A threat to my wife or a threat to Harry Reid; it doesn't matter. Both are criminal and should be punished.  This concept is a cornerstone of The Rule of Law. 

David Weigel at Slate explains better than I can why this is a bad idea.

Brady's proposed legislation is half unenforceable and half redundant. Threats against public officials are already illegal. A year ago, a Pennsylvania man was arrested because his interminable YouTube rants veered into threats against Eric Cantor, who's now the House majority leader.

Loughner didn't make any YouTube threats. (Slate)

Such proposed laws are really about controlling speech, but like gun control, the nuts and the criminals the law is directed at won't obey it anyway...

If someone like Jared Loughner wants to develop bizarre ideas about government based on obscure online theories—or based on nothing at all—no amount of civil dialogue will prevent it.  (Slate)

Here's the real agenda.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) suggested the Federal Communications Commission was "not working anymore," adding she would look at ways to better police language on the airwaves.  (The Hill-New Curbs)

Yes. All that criticism of failed, tired statist policies foisted upon us by a power-mad democratic party is getting out of hand. "Irresponsible speech" and free-thinking caused a turnover in the house of representatives and almost upturned the senate. We can't have that!

"What I'd like to see is if we could all get together on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and really talk about what we can do to cool down the country," Slaughter said.(The Hill-New Curbs)

Liberals want to cool down the criticism, take the heat off of themselves, their horrible agenda, and the multi-trillion dollar failures they have burdened us all with. "Cool down the country" means shut up criticism of liberalism and put off limits all this wild talk about shrinking our bloated, inefficient politburo-style government and the big fat Greek-style debt it has incurred. That's the kind of talk these failed statists in the Democratic party want to squelch.

To equate criticism of government with killing people is repulsive, but that's the stinking sewer liberals now find themselves mired in. They are completely repudiated and their policies discredited, so all they have left is to tell the country to shut up, and enforce their imperial mandate with the force of law.

Liberals Exploiting Death for Partisan Gain

Democratic Party 2011: Never let a bloody tragedy go to waste

Not one scintilla of evidence has yet been uncovered linking righwing rhetoric to the Arizona murders, but that hasn't stopped the rabid left from shamelessly exploiting death and tragedy for partisan political advantage. But the American people ain't buyin' it.  The Demagogic party is playing with fire, and they're going to get burned.

Of course, if fact and reason were their foundation, the Democratic party would have collapsed decades ago.

"They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers," said the Democrat. "Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people." (Politico)

Leftwing America: A Nutball in every Pot, a Moonbat in every Belfry

The leftwing wackadoos won't let it go and never will, but these are the nutty nutballs that tune into red-faced ranter Ed Schultz and pompous gas bag Keith Olberman. Garbage in, garbage out. They call this killing spree "The Tea Party Massacre" and say stupid things like this:

"Sorry, Klanbaggers. You drew the crosshairs, and then you drew blood."

How pithy. People who take comfort in such low and shallow sentiments must really suffer poor self-esteem and a sense of uselessness, probably for good reason...

Even the sane ones can't give it up...
What I find more insidious and disheartening is what is going on in the saner corners of the left. Using their heads and being intellectually honest, there are good liberals who admit there is no connection between anyone on the right (or left for that matter) and the shooter. The nexus is just not there. The typical thinking liberal will concede that Palin and the tea parties are not to blame, then in the same breath go right back to subtly casting blame by condemning their rhetoric as "dangerous" and "irresponsible." I don't think most who do this are even conscious of the illogic of it. Here's a typical example:

I'm not sure which response has been worse: the 'Hey, we had nothing to do with it' hand washing of the right, or the irrational lynchmob attitude of the left (are they really comfortable blaming Palin for this, when there's not a shred of evidence that this guy was even slightly inspired by her?).

Even the more fair-minded liberals just can't let the right off the hook. They can't help wagging their fingers at us, attempting to hold us in some kind of suspended probation. They scold us even as they admit there is no evidence: "We know you weren't behind this, but we've got our eye on you!"

Lefties are Nostalgic for a more obedient America
Their purpose is to cast a dim light upon a conservatism that now attracts twice the voting populace that the tired, flaccid liberalism does. The left's only hope is to cast aspersions and stand us in ill-repute with our fellow citizens. They want to put us on notice, to hector and shame us, to stuff us back in a box we broke out of back in the 80's. Liberals sigh with nostalgia as they recall the day when an Eric Severeid or Walter Kronkite told America what to think. It's all so messy now, with all those noisy opinions flying around!

So they retreat to tired old talking points about handguns, civility, the fairness doctrine, speech codes... The only common denominator to these splintered and incoherent ramblings is a desire to snuff more liberties.

Shameless Exploitation is all the Left has left
Never letting a good tragedy go to waste, the left has hijacked this horrible incident to score cheap points. They follow up a senseless tragedy with a senseless spasm of stupidity and demagoguery. It is sickening and craven, and we need to press them on it. A full 57% of normal Americans disagree with the unhinged left, and reject the notion that rightwing tea party rhetoric had anything to do with this.

The left has lost, folks
They lost their sense of good governance years ago, they lost power last November, and now they are losing their minds. This is not a time for tea partiers to retreat or sit back and take it. Now is the time to press the attack on those deranged collectivist morons who so warp and twist the national debate. They've come unhinged, and they need to be held accountable for their irresponsible behavior. The truth is on our side, and so are the American people.

Here are some antidotes to the unhinged liberal rhetoric. Read them and use the information to throw it back in the faces of the hooting baboons on the left.  The true beauty of these links?  Half of them are from liberal publications, and they side with the conservatives.

http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/09/loughner_not_though
http://www.salon.com/news/gabrielle_giffords/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/01/11/culture_violence_giffords_poll
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81168/the-arizona-shooting-not-product-right-wing-rage
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/256765/hypocrisy-unending-jay-nordlinger
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41087
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html