Twice this year this blog has been described as 'right wing,' once in print and once on-line. No, I won't provide a link, as I'm sure it's just an oversight.
I'm a libertarian. If you really think libertarians are right wingers, or conservatives, it's probably a reflection of your own view of the world, as if anyone who isn't on the left side of the political spectrum must be on the right.
Here's a handy, wallet sized guide for distinguishing conservatives and libertarians.
-Conservatives believe society needs moral guidance from government.
-Libertarians think government is ill-suited to provide moral guidance to anyone.
-Conservatives like government to protect and sometimes fund societal institutions, such as schools.
-Libertarians say we can do just fine on our own, thank you.
-Conservatives see no problem with individuals being forced to serve society, if government thinks it's necessary.
-Libertarians hold that individuals shouldn't be legally obligated to serve society.
If you read these points you may conclude that both major parties in the U.S. are conservative, and you might be right. That's a discussion for another time. Instead of looking at political differences as a single left-right dimension, it's helpful to add a second measure. That's what the famous Nolan Chart does. You can find that here, along with a little quiz to help explain the differences between political points of view.
Hey Walter, thanks for posting the link to the Nolan Chart. I had a sociology prof once who drew the diamond on the board during a lecture, and I thought it made a lot of sense. But he didn't give attribution to whoever came up with the "political diamond" (as he called it), and so I never was able to find it again.
Well said - the typical left/right paradigm no longer fits, if that is it ever fit.
I think the problem is that a lot of people call themselves "libertarian" but then go around supporting things like the invasion of Iraq, massive spending on a government mission to Mars, or the USAPATRIOT Act. On the liberal side, I think a lot of us have become cynical about libertarians because so many seem to be willing to support Bush so long as he cuts taxes, no matter how much intrusion on personal freedom goes on in his administration. I think a lot of people who really are "conservatives" or at least Republicans in the American political discourse go around calling themselves libertarian because they think it sounds cooler or more intellectual, and giving the rest of you a bad name. I don't know if you read MaxSpeak, but he has a list of links to "Real Libertarians" and I think he agrees there are a lot of people running around calling themselves libertarians who are really just Republicans.
People like that are the reason for the joke, What's a libertarian? A Republican who smokes pot.
Great. The Libertarian purity test, with Colorado Luis and MaxSpeak providing the litmus... yea, that sounds about right.
Libertarians will all agree on most issues, the same cannot be said for the republicans and the democrats. Sure we have our differences but not near as many as the republicrats. I agree with Luis that some people (on both sides of the isle, however) use the term libertarian to describe themselves when they feel like it benefits them and it does have a degrading effect on the meaning of the word. I consider myself a libertarian, but I know that Walter and I disagree on several issues, still it doesn't mean that we are not both libertarians. Anymore I prefer to call myself an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist as David Friedman would say), just because I don’t hear pundits like Mike Rosen saying “well I have some Anarchist tendencies”, even though I have heard him say “well I have some ‘libertarian’ tendencies”.
Does anyone else here see the irony in a couple of self-styled libertarians trying to take ownership of the appellation and dictate the boundaries for inclusiveness in the club?
No?
Okay then. But vee must keep our moofment pure!
Jeff, I'm not sure which couple you're talking about, but what do you see as the differences between conservatives and libertarians, if any?
See, that's just it. I think there are plenty of intersections. I think the category "South Park Republicans" nicely encapsulates the middle ground between conservatism and libertarianism, yet I'm sure a couple of the commentors here would take issue with that characterization.
My problem with libertarianism has always been that I perceive libertarians to be dangerously weak and reactive on defense. And yet I'm a very loud critic of nanny-statism, and on most social issues I'd describe myself as classically liberal. The PATRIOT act doesn't bother me one bit; smoking bans bother me terribly.
Tell me: IS there an official (using winkingly_ position on overseas wars and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare?
There is some intersection between American conservatives and libertarians. It's a happy accident of history that the U.S. has a strong liberal tradition, and conservatives are 'conserving' liberalism. That's a subject for a future blog post.
As for postions on the war, libertarians aren't of one mind on the subject. The membership of the Libertarian Party is mostly against the Bush Doctrine, it seems. I imagine there will be some kind of platform fight on that subject at the convention in Atlanta this summer. Neal Boortz, a strong war supporter, is one of the featured speakers.
Philosophy-wise, libertarians have both pro and anti war arguments.
Thanks, Walter. According to one or two of the commments above, being pro-Bush Doctrine and pro-PATRIOT Act is enough to get you labeled a boutique libertarian, which is presented as a debased, inauthentic thing to be -- the kind of thing people call themselves in order to sound cool. Which, as you know, would be redundant in my case ;)
Me, I think I actually AM one of those animals, though; as I say, I'm very strongly pro-Bush Doctrine, and I don't accept the contention that the USA PATRIOT Act has seriously undermined our collective freedoms.
I don't believe government should legislate morality, but I do think there are valid cases to be made against, say, gay marriage or full drug legalization. Which isn't to say I'm against either -- just that I like to look at issues on a case by case basis and balance personal freedoms against compelling state interests.
Up until I started blogging (a month or so after 9/11) I would have called myself a liberal. Now, I'd say I'm a classical liberal, because the left-liberal elites in this country (my context for this is my extended stay in academia) are becoming more and more authoritarian as the days go by.
I was thinking I had something to say, but after reading Jeff, maybe not...I think he has said it well enough.