« What is wrong with Amtrak? | Main | A dialog »
Is libertarianism the new "in" thing?
Here is the story. Nick Gillespie says:
"We're the Sith Lords of American politics," he says, referring to the "Star Wars" baddies. "We can show up in any group. We're both terrifying and devilishly attractive."
Since I'm not either of those things, and I've made other claims about the Sith Lords, I said something different:
Libertarian economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University says the new breed of Swiftian commentary found on shows such as "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," though not explicitly libertarian, also has contributed to the current libertarian moment. "The way to be funny is to make fun of something," Mr. Cowen notes.
There is more by me at the very end of the article (yes, you too can look into my heart). In part libertarianism has become cool because Republicanism has become so uncool, thereby leaving a cultural gap which Hillary Clinton alone cannot fill.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 24, 2007 at 07:13 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
You forgot to mention South Park! By far the most fiercely libertarian show on television. So I guess Comedy Central can be credited in part with making libertarianism cool? Wait, do we want to be cool? I thought libertarianism was a "counter-signal"?
Posted by: Butter at Nov 24, 2007 8:38:47 AM
Oops, should have read the full story first...
Posted by: Butter at Nov 24, 2007 8:42:20 AM
I was surprised to see a fair sized Ron Paul demonstration on a street corner here in Orange County, California. (Any idea why it included a hot chick in a short nurse's uniform and high heels? She actually, literally, caused a traffic accident while I was waiting for the light to change.)
I guess I'm intrigued. I consider myself a lapsed Republican at this point. I've certainly had libertarian leanings over the years, but the Libertarian party was always pretty out there. (I think Luis Rukeyser said in a book, years ago, "I'd be Libertarian if Libertarians weren't all nuts.")
So I guess to make the deal, between me and modern libertarians, I'll ask this question ... where are they (you) on science? I could be a libertarian-with-externalities, and an environmentalism in that sense. I don't think I could be a libertarian-with-denial though.
Ron Paul's "environmentalism through property rights" seems to be totally silent on externalities.
(I've actually got a degree in the sciences, which 'ruins' me for a lot of conservative causes, these days. I have to 'unlearn' the science to get on board.)
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 9:46:09 AM
"The growth sparked by lower taxes and a more competitive economy in the 1980s onward paid for bigger government..."
A sign of bad journalism is the uncritical parroting of lines like this. I seem to recall large and generally increasing (10 out of 12 years) budget deficits under Reagan and Bush I. Bigger government during that period wasn't paid for, it was borrowed.
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 24, 2007 9:55:26 AM
I'd call myself libertarian, but I feel like the term carries a bit of baggage, as most others think libertarians don't believe market failures exist, that we're all in favor of a flat tax, want to abolish the Federal Reserve, etc.
I guess "economic conservative" would be more accurate.
Posted by: Bill at Nov 24, 2007 11:16:27 AM
Libertarianism, alas, is the flipside of socialism. Perhaps libertarianism will be to the 21st century what socialism was to the 20th -- a failed experiment that dies hard, though hopefully without socialism's impressive body count. Both look good on paper, but neither is robust in the face of fallible and corruptible human nature. For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.
Posted by: at Nov 24, 2007 11:18:07 AM
Libertarianism, alas, is the flipside of socialism.
Actually, there are plenty of libertarian socialists. They just don't get the press that the unlibertarian socialists do.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.
I agree. That wrong solution is "pass a law!".
Posted by: Joshua Holmes at Nov 24, 2007 11:38:42 AM
The main reason I consider myself a libertarian, former conservative who voted Republican, is that it seems a lot less divisive and the candidates a lot less susceptible to corruption. Essentially right now there are two big government parties that want to increase the size, scope, and power of the federal government, and that's the big thing I don't want. I'd say Bush has and continues to drive fiscal conservatives away from the Republican party because they feel the GOP is a lost cause.
Posted by: Jarick at Nov 24, 2007 11:40:28 AM
Ron Paul has indeed sparked a revolution. But it was a revolution that was waiting to be unleashed. The whole phenomenon could be explained as blowback from the Republicans getting into bed with the Religious Right.
Oh, and don't forget Harry Potter:
Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy
Posted by: Alan Coffey at Nov 24, 2007 11:48:14 AM
In part libertarianism has become cool because Republicanism has become so uncool ...
And who is to blame for that? I blame Osama bin Laden, who forced us to invade and occupy Iraq.
But just you wait! Once we nuke Tehran, the GOP will be cool again.
Posted by: Typical Neocon Hardliner at Nov 24, 2007 12:28:55 PM
I've adopted Richard Maybury's "Juris Naturalist" to more clearly identify myself as someone who believes in the Natural Law and the libertarian policy positions which emerge from that legal process.
Nathanael Snow
http://naturalaw.failuretorefrain.com
Posted by: ndsnow at Nov 24, 2007 12:41:30 PM
Young Lefties are only using Libertatianism as a front for their Anti War position. Somehow Liberals now trying to claim they are fiscal conservatives is laughable.
Posted by: Dennis D at Nov 24, 2007 1:04:54 PM
A leftist Libertarian is really a Democrat.
A rightist Libertarian is really a Republican.
A centrist Libertarian is really a Moderate.
And a libertarian Libertarian is really nuts!
Posted by: Macneil at Nov 24, 2007 1:30:34 PM
I'd call myself libertarian, but I feel like the term carries a bit of baggage, as most others think libertarians don't believe market failures exist, that we're all in favor of a flat tax, want to abolish the Federal Reserve, etc.I think some libertarians come off waaaay crazier than they need to. For example,
I think "Market failure" IS a poor term, because it implies that markets serve some purpose other than the wants and desires of the individuals involved in them. It often seems to be implied to any market certain economists don't like the outcome of. On the other hand, public goods and bads (externalities) do exist. Instead of promoting ways for externalities to be handled voluntarily, too many libertarians sound like crackpots and claim they don't exist at all.
Abolishing the Fed and going back to the gold standard is another one. I don't want a damn gold standard, nor do I want to force it on anyone else. What happened to just allowing legal competition in currencies and leaving the Fed alone? Why do we have to sound crazier by promoting a gold standard?
For every good point and interesting idea I read on Mises.org, I read another that makes me hope I don't get caught dead reading the site.
Libertarianism, alas, is the flipside of socialism.Huh? No its not. I'm a libertarian, and I've got no problem with socialism. As long as its not forced on me, I'm fine with it.
Posted by: G at Nov 24, 2007 1:37:48 PM
The GOP doesn't have the ability to satisfy the demands of its entire power base, including so-called "Republitarians." Once the GOP started selling out libertarian principles, it was inevitable that Republitarians would start dropping the Repub part of the label.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Nov 24, 2007 2:21:56 PM
Somehow Liberals now trying to claim they are fiscal conservatives is laughable.
The real tragedy is that liberals at this point have about as much evidence to claim the label "fiscal conservative" as conservatives do.
"The way to be funny is to make fun of something," Mr. Cowen notes.
Is there some missing context to this quote that demonstrates a little less obviousness?
Posted by: shecky at Nov 24, 2007 2:53:45 PM
From my perspective, in the 70s and 80s the republican party tended to have a quite libertarian outlook. That seemed to change when they hooked up with the religious right.
They started riding moral bandwagons and seemed to sell out some of the values of individual liberty in order to win votes from that group (mainly in the south it seems).
They also seemed to lose all perspective on fiscal responsibility (not that they ever really had it).
So now, the republicans represent fundamentalist christions, hawks, and people who belive that government should give businesses big tax breaks. Damn the deficit, full speed ahead!!
The democrats tend to be tax and spend types, but with a more libertarian social stance.
Neither is very satifying to what I would call the American concept of freedom. That leaves the libertarians.
Posted by: Tony K at Nov 24, 2007 3:07:21 PM
Libertarianism, alas, is the flipside of socialism.
No it's not. Libertarianism can work in practice, whereas socialismo can't, as Mises emphasized.
Actually, there are plenty of libertarian socialists.
No again. Libertarianism implies the acceptance of capitalism and the rejection of socialismo.
Whereas capitalism is both a valid theory and a set of institutions (property and markets), socialism is only a failed theory.
Socialismo doesn't work in the real world.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Nov 24, 2007 3:51:36 PM
My first reaction to the link was "cool, I'm like a Sith Lord".
Then I read Tyler's other link, and realized I was like a countervailing force to the dangerously powerful Jedi Council (even more cool) who fortunately had the right people in office, but clearly that didn't last, noting that it never does last, thus paving the way for tyranny.
< /geek>
By the way, the opposite of tyranny is liberty. If you're not a libertarian then you're a tyrant. Even if you are well intentioned, and do it for the children, you are still a tyrant if you attempt to impose via government force your agenda on innocent, nonpredatory adults.
Also of note (for odograph perhaps, who isn't sold on liberty it seems) is that just because profit seeking markets don't supply a desired social good doesn't mean it is logical to have government try to supply that social good instead.
First off, government has a lousy incentive structure so it usually sucks at producing anything, and sucks up more resources the more it fails to produce what it was intended to produce.
Second, there is a third alternative, namely charity. There is a clear tradeoff between big government and big donations to charity, with people from countries and states with big government donating significantly less than those in countries with more liberty. Part of this is no doubt due to the fact that taxes reduce the amount one can give. But more importantly, it seems that people refuse to be suckers. If the government is producing, or supposed to be producing, or thought to be producing, a desired social good, then people astutely use their money elsewhere. On the other hand, when there is a glaring social need, and neither the government nor the for-profit sector is providing it, then people tend to step up to the plate.
Witness the Gates Foundation doing things like financing a vaccine for malaria which governments never thought to do, despite a couple of trillion dollars worth of foreign aid to poor countries over the decades.
Thus big government is not compassionate, it is just the opposite, it detracts from private sector compassion, because people have less ability to give when they are taxed through the nose, and because they wrongly think "someone" (namely the government) is doing something about it with all the taxes they pay.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 24, 2007 4:10:32 PM
Also of note (for odograph perhaps, who isn't sold on liberty it seems) is that just because profit seeking markets don't supply a desired social good doesn't mean it is logical to have government try to supply that social good instead.As Mises, Hayek and others showed, government cannot, as an institution, spend money in ways which satisfy the demands of its citizens. I don't see why spending on public goods doesn't fall amiss of the economic calculation problem.
But charities basically serve public goods (usually subjectively public, and not as physically so as air pollution), so they will generally be underfunded. I don't think Alex Tabarrok's Dominant Assurance Contracts are the final answer.
Posted by: G at Nov 24, 2007 4:56:31 PM
happyjuggler0:
"By the way, the opposite of tyranny is liberty. If you're not a libertarian then you're a tyrant. Even if you are well intentioned, and do it for the children, you are still a tyrant if you attempt to impose via government force your agenda on innocent, nonpredatory adults."
I thought that the opposite of liberty was government - i.e. the basic idea is that either people make their ideas themselves or other people make them for them. Is every case where someone doesn't get to decide something for themself tyranny?
I thought that the idea behind a well-ordered society/government was simply that the right people are making the decisions concerning the appropriate things - so that if people aren't free to make decisions about what is understood to be other people's property/refuse cooperation in the maintenance of a minimal state/etc. that is properly understood to be a surrendering/limitation of freedom (a giving up of liberty - to a certain extent, people get to make decisions about things concerning things other than themselves), but really isn't what is meant when people use the word "tyrrany."
Posted by: hrh at Nov 24, 2007 5:05:04 PM
"Also of note (for odograph perhaps, who isn't sold on liberty it seems) is that just because profit seeking markets don't supply a desired social good doesn't mean it is logical to have government try to supply that social good instead."
Don't we have functional free market according to the libertarian ideal in the international Tuna fishery? Isn't that heading for an eradication of the Bluefin in a decade or two?
What do you do, define "liberty" in a way that it is more important than Bluefin? I'd guess you do, and I think I'd find that very sad.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 5:33:51 PM
oh, sorry, sluggish brain after the most excellent mountain bike ride on public lands ... feel free to comment on next-gen 'liberties' in a curtailed world.
Posted by: odograph at Nov 24, 2007 5:35:01 PM
hrh,
From dictionary.com:
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
2, 3 and 6 are tautological from the point of view of our debate.
From the other four definitions, we get words like arbitrary, abuse, unrestrained, oppressive, unjustly, undue, all with regards to power, and frommy point of view, power of government. You can also have a tyrant of a boss, but you can also leave your job when you find a new one.
All those words have one thing in common, they are relative. They are in the eyes of the beholder. I find them all to be applicable to what happens when liberty is chained by government, excepting liberty to harm another, such as in murder, rape, or theft. But murder, rape and theft all reduce or eliminate the liberty of others, so a law that prevents that from happening is an enemy of tyranny, not an ally of it.
Similarly one could argue that genuine defense forces are an enemy of tyranny as well, and thus an ally on liberty.
Beyond things of that ilk though, all government then is about usurping one's liberty via coercive force (trust me, if you don't allow government to enforce its will against you, coercive force will be applied against you, and likely against your dog [i.e. they'll shoot it dead] as well for that matter) for the benefit of another. If taking something that belongs to you via force and giving it to someone who has done nothing to earn it doesn't fit the definition of arbitrary, abuse, unrestrained, oppressive, unjustly, undue, then I don't know what does.
Same goes for using government to prevent consenting adults from doing what they like with each other simply because someone with government influence doesn't like it also surely falls within the category of arbitrary, abuse, unrestrained, oppressive, unjustly, undue.
I stand by my statement that tyranny is the opposite of liberty.
P.S. I don't want to come off snarky here, but I had a hard time following your long sentence after the right people are making the decisions concerning the appropriate things. In my mind, if you aren't hurting anyone else (again, examples are all things predatory, such as murder, rape, theft, assault etc.), then the only right people are the people themselves. Only they can say what is in their own business, not some one-size-fits-all government functionary sitting in an office in a land far far away who hasn't even met the people he thinks he knows what is best for.
If your long sentence agrees with that, then I apologize for wasting your time. But if you disagree, then keep in mind that it is inevitable that "the right people" in office, even if they are omniscient, and they're not, get replaced with "the wrong people". Surely you'd agree that having "the wrong people" in charge is tyranny? Note again that I think the only right person in charge of me is me.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 24, 2007 5:38:52 PM
odograph,
The reason tuna is in peril is lack of property rights. If fishing rights were owned the same way that farmland is owned, then the owners would take care of it for the long run, the same way they do with their cattle or pigs. There would be no such thing as an impending shortage or tuna crisis, only a shortage at a price.
The lack of property rights is surely in the realm of government failure.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 at Nov 24, 2007 5:44:01 PM
