Comments on: Libertarians and the Democratic Party http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:52:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Misanthrope http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10244 Misanthrope Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:42:07 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10244 Sorry to double post, but I failed to discuss Raj's comments: Raj, I have to agree with Jason. I think your broad brush dismissal of small "l" libertarians goes way beyond being an over-generalization, and proceeds into just plain wrong territory. I think the pro-gun generalization has a kernal of truth for active Libertarian Party members, but I do not see it reflected in either the libertarian blogosphere or published writings of the small "l"s. A perusal of well known libertarian bloggers reveals Second Ammendment discussions to be rare. They are deeply concerned, and write extensively about, a broad array of government intrusion, civil rights issues, property rights, etc. To add to Jason's list, <a> Nobody's Business</a> , <a> The Agitator</a> (Radley Balko), and Cato Online. Look, even liberal detractors seeking to parody/strawman libertarianism don't use your gun example, because good parody should have a core element of truth. They use things like "libertarians are Conservatives who like porn." Or "liberals want a Mommy state to take care of them, conservatives want a Daddy state to tell them what to do, and libertarians want a divorce from from Momy and Daddy so they can stay up late and eat icecream." (It was funnier when I read it months ago, I am sure I have screwed it up a bit.) Or "libertarianism is philosphy for thirteen year-olds." But my absolute favorite libertarian parody is the one PZ Myers has posted more than once, <a> the theoretical conversation</a> between a libertarian and a liberal driving in a car, bearing down on a lake. Priceless. What's missing? Gun parody. Sorry to double post, but I failed to discuss Raj’s comments:
Raj, I have to agree with Jason. I think your broad brush dismissal of small “l” libertarians goes way beyond being an over-generalization, and proceeds into just plain wrong territory. I think the pro-gun generalization has a kernal of truth for active Libertarian Party members, but I do not see it reflected in either the libertarian blogosphere or published writings of the small “l”s. A perusal of well known libertarian bloggers reveals Second Ammendment discussions to be rare. They are deeply concerned, and write extensively about, a broad array of government intrusion, civil rights issues, property rights, etc. To add to Jason’s list, Nobody’s Business , The Agitator (Radley Balko), and Cato Online.

Look, even liberal detractors seeking to parody/strawman libertarianism don’t use your gun example, because good parody should have a core element of truth. They use things like “libertarians are Conservatives who like porn.” Or “liberals want a Mommy state to take care of them, conservatives want a Daddy state to tell them what to do, and libertarians want a divorce from from Momy and Daddy so they can stay up late and eat icecream.” (It was funnier when I read it months ago, I am sure I have screwed it up a bit.) Or “libertarianism is philosphy for thirteen year-olds.” But my absolute favorite libertarian parody is the one PZ Myers has posted more than once, the theoretical conversation between a libertarian and a liberal driving in a car, bearing down on a lake. Priceless. What’s missing? Gun parody.

]]> By: Misanthrope http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10242 Misanthrope Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:07:15 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10242 John T, Don't want to address the substance at all, just repeated the 9% thing? Its not the pollers who alledge that that the respondants consistantly oppose active gov, its the pollees who, shock, appear to have entirely human contradictory positions. By the logic of your argument, I have to dismiss or significantly reduce the 15% evaluated as conservative because nearly half of them do not favor greater abortion restrictions. The poll data shows that those evaluated as libertarian are statisitically less likely to support minimum wage increases than a liberal, populist, or the overall respondant. This makes sense, and supports the evaulation of libertarian percentage. John T,
Don’t want to address the substance at all, just repeated the 9% thing? Its not the pollers who alledge that that the respondants consistantly oppose active gov, its the pollees who, shock, appear to have entirely human contradictory positions. By the logic of your argument, I have to dismiss or significantly reduce the 15% evaluated as conservative because nearly half of them do not favor greater abortion restrictions. The poll data shows that those evaluated as libertarian are statisitically less likely to support minimum wage increases than a liberal, populist, or the overall respondant. This makes sense, and supports the evaulation of libertarian percentage.

]]> By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10241 Jason Kuznicki Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:02:08 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10241 <em>Regarding libertarians, from what I have seen, the people who claim to be “small-l” libertarians have made their peace with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives who comprise the tail that wags the Republican party dog. </em> I beg your pardon. Small-l libertarians are deeply divided here. A number of them have done just as you say. But then there are others who have not. I'm one of them, as are the others at this site. None of us are firm supporters or affiliates of the Libertarian Party, and we may only occasionally vote for its candidates. Yet we are all libertarians, and we have all been deeply critical of the Republicans for betraying libertarian principles. The same is true of a great many others, including many in our blogroll (start with Unqualified Offerings, for instance; from there, go to Coyote Blog, Tom Palmer, Marginal Revolution, then Liberty and Power...). Please, spend some time reading these sites. And reconsider, because you're terribly mistaken here. Regarding libertarians, from what I have seen, the people who claim to be “small-l” libertarians have made their peace with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives who comprise the tail that wags the Republican party dog.

I beg your pardon.

Small-l libertarians are deeply divided here. A number of them have done just as you say. But then there are others who have not.

I’m one of them, as are the others at this site. None of us are firm supporters or affiliates of the Libertarian Party, and we may only occasionally vote for its candidates. Yet we are all libertarians, and we have all been deeply critical of the Republicans for betraying libertarian principles. The same is true of a great many others, including many in our blogroll (start with Unqualified Offerings, for instance; from there, go to Coyote Blog, Tom Palmer, Marginal Revolution, then Liberty and Power…).

Please, spend some time reading these sites. And reconsider, because you’re terribly mistaken here.

]]> By: raj http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10226 raj Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:03:39 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10226 <i>The controlling principle among Republicans seems to be expediency. </i> No, the controlling principle among Republicans is staying in power at the national level. They learned a long time ago that, if they really followed through with their rhetoric about smaller government, that wouldn't go over well with the electorate. The electorate might <i>say</i> that they believe in a smaller <i>federal</i> government (more on that later) but they don't really mean it. That should be obvious. Neither Reagan nor Bush I nor Bush II reduced government spending--even government spending that was not directly related to "defense" activities--and Reagan had a Republican senate for the first six years of his administration, and Bush II has had a Republican Congress during his entire administration. People want their welfare. And the federal government--even under Republicans--is going to give it to them. To stay in power. So the Republicans can dole out more welfare goodies, some to the people, but more than a bit to their corporate benefactors. Regarding libertarians, from what I have seen, the people who claim to be "small-l" libertarians have made their peace with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives who comprise the tail that wags the Republican party dog. Why? Because most of the "small-l" libertarians are not really libertarian--certainly not in the social sense, and very little in the fiscal sense. They just want the Federal Government to keep its hands off their guns. I've seen it too often among self-described libertarians. They will go along with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives because the RTCCs believe the same, and the Democratic party has obtained a reputation as being anti-gun-rights. It really is as simple as that. I would not expect many "small-l" libertarians to vote Democratic any time soon. The controlling principle among Republicans seems to be expediency.

No, the controlling principle among Republicans is staying in power at the national level. They learned a long time ago that, if they really followed through with their rhetoric about smaller government, that wouldn’t go over well with the electorate. The electorate might say that they believe in a smaller federal government (more on that later) but they don’t really mean it. That should be obvious. Neither Reagan nor Bush I nor Bush II reduced government spending–even government spending that was not directly related to “defense” activities–and Reagan had a Republican senate for the first six years of his administration, and Bush II has had a Republican Congress during his entire administration.

People want their welfare. And the federal government–even under Republicans–is going to give it to them. To stay in power. So the Republicans can dole out more welfare goodies, some to the people, but more than a bit to their corporate benefactors.

Regarding libertarians, from what I have seen, the people who claim to be “small-l” libertarians have made their peace with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives who comprise the tail that wags the Republican party dog. Why? Because most of the “small-l” libertarians are not really libertarian–certainly not in the social sense, and very little in the fiscal sense. They just want the Federal Government to keep its hands off their guns. I’ve seen it too often among self-described libertarians. They will go along with the religio-Taliban Christian conservatives because the RTCCs believe the same, and the Democratic party has obtained a reputation as being anti-gun-rights.

It really is as simple as that. I would not expect many “small-l” libertarians to vote Democratic any time soon.

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10089 John T. Kennedy Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:51:38 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10089 <blockquote>Which makes perfect sense.</blockquote> Sure, it makes perfect sense to say 9% of the population consistently oppose active government when 80% of them favor increasing minimum wage. Obviously.

Which makes perfect sense.

Sure, it makes perfect sense to say 9% of the population consistently oppose active government when 80% of them favor increasing minimum wage. Obviously.

]]> By: Misanthrope http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10050 Misanthrope Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:13:19 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10050 John T, Context is pretty critical to interpreting poll data. You sited a figure, but failed to put the relevant data into play: yes 80% of these supposed libertarians favored raising minimum wage, but compare it to the rest of the results! Its entirely consistant: 86% of those polled favored raising it. Predictably, the lower percentages were conservatives and libertarians, then ambivalents, then liberals and populists. Which makes perfect sense. You The poll was not designed to deteremine who ought ot run off and join the LP-USA, but to better explain the terrain of American politics beyond the right-left, lib-con terminology. What I really don't understand is your questions (paraphrase): one vote doesn't make any difference" comments. No kidding. Same goes for a conservative, liberal, whatever. The point of the discussion seems more about what direction libertarain oriented voters ought to, o will, go in upcoming elections. John T,
Context is pretty critical to interpreting poll data. You sited a figure, but failed to put the relevant data into play: yes 80% of these supposed libertarians favored raising minimum wage, but compare it to the rest of the results! Its entirely consistant: 86% of those polled favored raising it. Predictably, the lower percentages were conservatives and libertarians, then ambivalents, then liberals and populists. Which makes perfect sense. You The poll was not designed to deteremine who ought ot run off and join the LP-USA, but to better explain the terrain of American politics beyond the right-left, lib-con terminology.
What I really don’t understand is your questions (paraphrase): one vote doesn’t make any difference” comments. No kidding. Same goes for a conservative, liberal, whatever. The point of the discussion seems more about what direction libertarain oriented voters ought to, o will, go in upcoming elections.

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10038 John T. Kennedy Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:41:12 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10038 Jason, <blockquote>First of all, I think it’s fairly clear that divided government is a relatively good thing, when compared with the one-party rule we have right now. Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population.</blockquote> And what does any of that have to do with your individual vote - the only one you get to cast? Jason,

First of all, I think it’s fairly clear that divided government is a relatively good thing, when compared with the one-party rule we have right now. Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population.

And what does any of that have to do with your individual vote - the only one you get to cast?

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10033 John T. Kennedy Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:52:25 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10033 Jason: <blockquote> Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population.</blockquote> Are you mad? Misanthrope: <blockquote>Pew Research Center published some results in April this year indicating that 9% of the respondents fell into this category, ...</blockquote> And of those supposed libertarians <b>80% favor increasing the minimum wage</b>. It's right there in the <a href="http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=17" rel="nofollow">survey results</a>. According to the authors Keeler and Smith these 9% <i>"consistently oppose an active government in both the economic and the conservative spheres"</i>. Give me a break. You guys are dreaming. Jason:

Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population.

Are you mad?

Misanthrope:

Pew Research Center published some results in April this year indicating that 9% of the respondents fell into this category, …

And of those supposed libertarians 80% favor increasing the minimum wage. It’s right there in the survey results. According to the authors Keeler and Smith these 9% “consistently oppose an active government in both the economic and the conservative spheres”. Give me a break.

You guys are dreaming.

]]> By: Misanthrope http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10010 Misanthrope Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:15:53 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10010 Primarily in reply to John T, How is Hilzoy's argument much different than a "lesser of two evils" voting decision? I suspect that a great many voters in the 2004 election entered the booth with this attitude. My take: - I tend to view small "l" libertarians in the USA as an amorphous group that do not even self-identify themselves as libertarian, but whose views on civil liberties, economic rights and the role of government would be catagorized as "libertarian leaning" given a neutral, issues based poll. Pew Research Center published some results in April this year indicating that 9% of the respondants fell into this catagory, based upon a six question survey (three questions on civil and three questions on economic rights.) This 9% figure is meaninful when you consider that this poll identified 42% as amibivalant, 18% liberal, and 15% conservative. - While the potential numbers are large; unlike liberals, conservatives, or any voting minority group, there is no cohesive force or organization that coordinates large scale libertarian voter registration and pushes them towards any given party. Indeed, two of the most famous libertarians I can think of operating in todays media are the wingnutty Neil Boortz and the hack John Stossel. Not good. This normally results in a (very) rough split of the libertarian vote in most elections, depending on individual candidate appeal and whether the libertarian in question places more value on civil or economic liberties. - In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Republicans will be fighting against a big voter backlash, and libertarians will probably be swept up into voting Democrat, like a whole lot of normally moderate/independant voters. - While we can point to smoking bans or nanny state food police, I think it is either willfully ignorant or hackishly partisan to suggest that Rebublicans win on civil liberties. Repebulicans have been able to suck libertarian into their sphere with the notion that their party stands for small government and strong property rights, but I don't think the historical evidence backs them up. Looking at growth in goverment spending over the last 40 years, Republicans have done no better, and in several presidencies significantly worse, than Democrats. Indeed, I think the era of most responsible government was the Clinton/Gingrich era. A rather strong argument for split government. - The 2006 elections will give libertarians the opportunity to vote Dem and recover the balance in goverment, and then give them two years to reassess before the 2008 election cycle. And I think this should be a consistant message coming from the libertarian bloggers Primarily in reply to John T,
How is Hilzoy’s argument much different than a “lesser of two evils” voting decision? I suspect that a great many voters in the 2004 election entered the booth with this attitude.
My take:
- I tend to view small “l” libertarians in the USA as an amorphous group that do not even self-identify themselves as libertarian, but whose views on civil liberties, economic rights and the role of government would be catagorized as “libertarian leaning” given a neutral, issues based poll. Pew Research Center published some results in April this year indicating that 9% of the respondants fell into this catagory, based upon a six question survey (three questions on civil and three questions on economic rights.) This 9% figure is meaninful when you consider that this poll identified 42% as amibivalant, 18% liberal, and 15% conservative.
- While the potential numbers are large; unlike liberals, conservatives, or any voting minority group, there is no cohesive force or organization that coordinates large scale libertarian voter registration and pushes them towards any given party. Indeed, two of the most famous libertarians I can think of operating in todays media are the wingnutty Neil Boortz and the hack John Stossel. Not good. This normally results in a (very) rough split of the libertarian vote in most elections, depending on individual candidate appeal and whether the libertarian in question places more value on civil or economic liberties.
- In the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Republicans will be fighting against a big voter backlash, and libertarians will probably be swept up into voting Democrat, like a whole lot of normally moderate/independant voters.
- While we can point to smoking bans or nanny state food police, I think it is either willfully ignorant or hackishly partisan to suggest that Rebublicans win on civil liberties. Repebulicans have been able to suck libertarian into their sphere with the notion that their party stands for small government and strong property rights, but I don’t think the historical evidence backs them up. Looking at growth in goverment spending over the last 40 years, Republicans have done no better, and in several presidencies significantly worse, than Democrats. Indeed, I think the era of most responsible government was the Clinton/Gingrich era. A rather strong argument for split government.
- The 2006 elections will give libertarians the opportunity to vote Dem and recover the balance in goverment, and then give them two years to reassess before the 2008 election cycle. And I think this should be a consistant message coming from the libertarian bloggers

]]> By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-10004 Jason Kuznicki Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:47:12 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-10004 I wouldn't be so sure, John. First of all, I think it's fairly clear that divided government is a relatively good thing, when compared with the one-party rule we have right now. Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population. If they were a bit more disciplined, they could be the kingmakers. I know it's a bit of a speculation, but I don't think it's a "terribly weak" one. I wouldn’t be so sure, John. First of all, I think it’s fairly clear that divided government is a relatively good thing, when compared with the one-party rule we have right now. Second, people of a libertarian political bent are around 20% of the population. If they were a bit more disciplined, they could be the kingmakers.

I know it’s a bit of a speculation, but I don’t think it’s a “terribly weak” one.

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-9948 John T. Kennedy Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:15:03 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-9948 <blockquote>The single strongest reason for libertarians to vote Democratic in any election is simply to divide the government. </blockquote> That's a terribly weak reason. I'll bet you $1000 dollars against $20 that your individual vote will have no effect whatsover on whether or not government is divided. Your vote will also have no effect on whether or not libertarians vote as a bloc.

The single strongest reason for libertarians to vote Democratic in any election is simply to divide the government.

That’s a terribly weak reason.

I’ll bet you $1000 dollars against $20 that your individual vote will have no effect whatsover on whether or not government is divided.

Your vote will also have no effect on whether or not libertarians vote as a bloc.

]]> By: If I Had Energy to Blog . . . § Unqualified Offerings http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/06/libertarians-and-the-democratic-party.html#comment-9939 If I Had Energy to Blog . . . § Unqualified Offerings Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:55:26 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1566#comment-9939 [...] Jason Kuznicki [...] [...] Jason Kuznicki [...]

]]>