I’m trying to remember the source of a quote, and the quote itself — roughly, it says “Individualism is a transitional stage between two kinds of social structure.” It sounds like something Simmel would say, or maybe Amos Hawley. Libertarianism has always seemed to me to depend for its realization on features of the social structure that it officially repuditates. It wouldn’t be the first ideology of which that was true. But I’m not going to defend that idea here. All I want to say is that I think we’d all be better off if Jim Henley got the kind of traffic that Glenn Reynolds gets, and maybe Julian Sanchez got Virginia Postrel’s job at the Times.
Can’t argue with you. Jane Galt of Assymetrical Info is not too bad either.
Is Postrel the Thorsten Veblen of her age? The kind of Libertarian who thinks the revolution has already happened.
Libertarianism is obviously dependent on a highly evolved system of government. I view my own aims as decreasing government involvement in large group projects, but increasing its protection of individual liberty. So EPA, maybe not; Legal Aid, 1000 times as much as now.
Well, dependent on a highly evolved culture, anyway. It amounts to the same thing, when you’ve had big government for quite some time; Government is remarkably effective at destroying the social institutions it replaces, so as to make itself genuinely indispensible, at least in the short run.
Glenn Reynolds may have once been a libertarian, but he’s been swallowed by the right.
I’m not sure he even realizes it yet.
The three pillars of libertarianism have traditionally been:
1. Free Markets
2. Individual Liberty
3. Limited Government
Libertarian ideology claims that, inevitably, these three intertwined: Some may rais or fall faster than others, but the trend is certain that, in the long run, all three will advance or retreat together. In the time since, say, the Libertarian Party was founded, what has been the results?
A. Markets have gotten considerably freer. (Debate whether this is good, but I think it is a fact.)
B. Personal liberty has increased beyond many people’s imagination. (We are debating gay marriage.)
C. Government has grown dramatically.
This has lead to two camps of libertarians: Optimists who see history on their side, and expect the state to wither away any time now, and pessimists who point to the growth of government and predict we are on the verge of a fascist/totalitarian take over.
I think this empirical evidence shows that big government is compatible with freedom. Libertarians need to deal with this empirical challenge to their philosophy.
Glenn Reynolds may have once been a libertarian, but he’s been swallowed by the right.
I’m not sure he even realizes it yet.
Right, which is why he still posts stuff critical of the drug war, sympathetic to music downloading, gay marriage, and abortion. Apparently on CT anyone who expresses the remotest skepticism that Israel might not be 100 percent absolutely responsible for the Palestinians’ unfortunate habit of blowing up nightclubs full of teenagers has been “swallowed by the Right.”
It’s too bad CT doesn’t support the “eye roll” emoticon so common on sports message boards.
So I went over to Instapundit to find some posts to prove asq wrong and, guess what? I couldn’t. There’s plenty there to criticize—from his frustrating tendency to link to things and then say “but don’t pay attention to this,” to his inability to tell the difference between running a campaign and running a country. But from an ideological standpoint, he seems to be fairly consistently libertarian, not right-wing. I’m not saying there’s nothing there that could be construed that way, but by and large I don’t see the evidence that he’s been “swallowed by the right.”
Apparently on CT anyone who expresses the remotest skepticism that Israel might not be 100 percent absolutely responsible for the Palestinians’ unfortunate habit of blowing up nightclubs
It seems the trolls are out today. Do not feed.
My mildly embarrassing anecdote is that when I first linked to Jim Henley, I described him (on the basis of limited reading, obviously) as a “left-liberal”. From me (and with reference to an American) it was a compliment, but not an accurate one.
More seriously, thinking about why I share Kieran’s approval of Henley and Sanchez compared to, say, Reynolds or Postrel, I think there’s more to it than agreement on particular issues like Iraq. As a first approximation, I would say that Henley and Sanchez argue like liberals (in the broad sense of the term) while a lot of libertarians remind me of the Trotskyists and other Leninists I used to argue with in my youth.
Jim or Glen, Julian or Virginia: libertarianism is way the hell over-represented in the blogosphere regardless. I honestly don’t see any significant reason why it should matter whether we’re innundated by it from one source or another.
I just went through the front page of Instapundit.com doing ctrl-f for “marriage”. Most of the stories are either about how Bush’s position is being unfairly represented or about how Kerry is no better on the issue. On this issue, Glenn Reynolds makes Andrew Sullivan look like Paul Krugman.
It seems the trolls are out today. Do not feed.
What’s weird is how asg immediately leapt to the conclusion that praktike MUST have been thinking about Glenn’s stance on Israel.
Denavda: You’re right to an extent. It’s an interesting empirical problem, one I’ve been thinking about a lot. One point to make is that, in addition to ways in which we would both agree that Americans are more free, there are all sorts of ways in which libertarians consider Americans have grown less free that liberals, rightly or wrongly, simply wouldn’t consider diminutions of liberty. Also, that bigger government that has been making us all free has given us the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, the PATRIOT Act of 2001 and its skulking successors, the widespread practice of civil asset forfeiture, continuing erosion of the posse comitatus act and the Bush Administration’s unilateral assertion of the power to revoke American citizenship and detain non-citizens without trial indefinitely. We have the statements of various defense lawyers in recent terror cases that they advised their clients to plead guilty because they feared the government throwing the case into our spanking new (and largely formless) military tribunal system. So long as the Bush Administration assertion on citizenship revocation stands, we are NOT a free society - we are a repressive country where the government has, so far, not deigned to deploy its full powers.
So I would say that, liberty-wise, the US is “filling a bucket with a hole in it.” The liberal response is “That’s just the evil Bush administration.” The libertarian says, rather, “That’s the welfare-warfare state. The same public demand for and government promise of perfect safety that leads to the banning of lawn darts and handguns directly feeds the national security state when threats like terrorism come along.” In the libertarian view, the best liberals do is keep the rhetorical seat warm for (authoritarian-wing) conservatives - assuming that liberals are much better at all, which is not a case I’d want to make based on the Clinton Administration’s drug policy and domestic security measures. (Keep in mind that Clinton asked for more in the 1996 law than he ended up getting.) Now, we could be wrong about this, but if so, we are far, I think, from self-evidently wrong.
All that said, one of the things I’ve been thinking about is possible revisions and qualifiers to Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” thesis - mindful that Hayek himself saw the RTS as possibly lengthy. (It took decades, on Hayek’s view, for Bismarck’s welfare state to evolve into National-Socialist government.)
Kieran: I certainly appreciate the kind words and the traffic. I’m not sure that either Julian or I would find much to disagree with in Postrel’s NYT article, though. My main disagreements with VP are in the area of current foreign policy, and while I can’t speak for Julian, I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the case for him too.
There are intuitive but difficult to explain reasons why Jim Henley is a must-read while most libertarians are not. One of them is that he argues like an adult. I don’t know why, but a large majority of libertarians encountered through the Internet argue like petulant children who have just discovered an ideology that they think must cover all situations and which can never be wrongly applied, much less wrong in theory.
But that’s a negative reason rather than a positive one. There’s no doubt that he has more original ideas and is a better writer than, say, Postrel, as well.
I don’t know why, but a large majority of libertarians encountered through the Internet argue like petulant children who have just discovered an ideology that they think must cover all situations and which can never be wrongly applied, much less wrong in theory.
Rich, do not imagine that the same does not obtain of many liberals on the internet. As a liberal yourself, you just may not notice it as much.
Actually, I do imagine that. Liberals may be on average equally bad arguers, but I think that when they are bad they tend to be bad for different reasons. Liberalism has no longer any central core body of ideological text, and liberals are used to having to exercise power pragmatically while being in contention with other long-running political tendencies such as conservatism and socialism. As a result, liberals may believe that everyone else is wrong, but they don’t generally expect to be able to prove it. Nor do they generally exhibit the same urge towards ideological completism that I often observe in libertarians; the drive to claim that every conceivable problem must be best solved through a liberal solution and that those problems that do not seem to must therefore not exist.
Whether you agree with its conclusions or not, Postrel’s NY Times article was a disgracefully shoddy piece of journalism. There was no real investigation of the facts she purported to be talking about and she didn’t take counter evidence seriously at all. This is what happens when you assume a priori that your argument must be correct, so you need take only the most cursory glance into the surrounding world to “confirm” it. It was real ideologue’s work.
As for Jane Galt and Instapundit, they both evidence a real tendency to front for the Bush administration, minimizing its faults in ways that have little or nothing to do with libertarian ideology. E.g. Galt had a long post about how Senate Democrats were racist for opposing the nomination of a conservative Hispanic to the Federal bench. Pure National Review spin and nothing but.
And yes, a consistent libertarian should be disturbed by Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, in particular collective punishment and denial of rights to a whole people for the actions of a few. Or is that now part of “liberty”?
And yes, a consistent libertarian should be disturbed by Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, in particular collective punishment and denial of rights to a whole people for the actions of a few.
Don’t forget the massive abuse of Palestinian property rights, pretty much from 1947 to this weekend.
For a great many values of “liberal”, Jim Henley is a liberal, though he might hate to hear that.
His site is certainly congenial
I mumble this under my breath every time a discussion of this sort arises: Anyone who is interested in culture or the arts should prefer conservatism to libertarianism. There is no art without tradition; there is no communication without shared understanding. Libertarianism transforms objects into empty vessels and words and images into illustrations. One extremely limited definition of practical functionality determines meaning, and the very ability to reason suffers as a result.
I disagree with conservatives. My response to Libertarianism is a violent, sort of contempt.
Libertarianism transforms objects into empty vessels and words and images into illustrations. One extremely limited definition of practical functionality determines meaning, and the very ability to reason suffers as a result.
Uh, riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Thanks for the warning about the violent part, though. Dangerous AND clueless is a combination to beware.
Insults are a pleasurable waste of time best suited to end of an argument. I made my points and then mouthed off. Give me something worth responding to and I will.
Insults are a pleasurable waste of time best suited to end of an argument.
Actually you took no part in any argument here. Just sort of crashed in from some eccentric orbit around your own misinformed preoccupations.
Give me something worth responding to and I will.
And this is desirable how?
The topic was the author’s preference, if given a choice, for libertarians over conservatives. I was arguing my preference as someone interested in culture and arts, for conservatives over libertarians. I’m not alone in this, (except perhaps on the web)
Jim - looking at the power that the government has arrogated to itself and comparing it to the everyday life of most Americans, it looks like on balance, people are freer than in, say, 1970, unless the government turns its attention on them. Then they’re much worse off.
Rich - “liberals may believe that everyone else is wrong, but they don?t generally expect to be able to prove it” probably explains the liberal tendency to assume that anyone who opposes them does so because they’re evil or venal.
What I don’t understand about libertarianism: if this is an accurate summation, per decnavda,
“The three pillars of libertarianism have traditionally been:
1. Free Markets
2. Individual Liberty
3. Limited Government”
But ‘free markets’ are legal artifacts. Consequently large amounts of Government are required to establish, maintain, and police those markets - without government there is no law. This seems to me a fundamental contradiction.
You don’t have to be libertarian to be appalled at the Bush assault on liberty. I grew up in a police state that had many of the powers that Ashcroft has arrogated to himself, and knew several people that were disappeared. I left that country to escape, but I find the police state is looming large over US.
The fundamental libertarian belief is that government should be limited to that required to defend the country from external enemies, defend people from internal predators, and assure the functioning of the market, which is mostly a matter of policing fraud and enforcing property rights and contracts. At least half of what the US government does is beyond that scope; probably more than ¾ is, though a truly libertarian state might require more government in certain areas than we currently have.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review