A story in the outgoing issue of The Economist, “Gary Johnson for Liberty” (September 3, 2018), describes a political meeting of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2016, who is now running for the U.S. Senate in New Mexico. After the meeting, the reporter suggested to Mr. Johnson that he seems to dislike campaigning, to which the candidate replied:
The bad part is you find yourself with people that have really bad breath. What comes out of their mouth is just as bad.
The second sentence is often true. It’s even truer for politicians. And Gary Johnson is not exactly the boy next door.
The first issue raised by the piece is to which extent libertarians are a bit crazy. The magazine also quotes Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky), talking about his putatively libertarian supporters:
After some soul-searching, I realized that when they voted for Rand and Ron [Paul] and me in these primaries, they weren’t voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a bitch in the race.
There are certainly more eccentrics among libertarians than among adherents of mainstream political philosophies (or non-philosophies), if only because individuals who are most critical of the status quo will naturally appear strange. But isn’t there is also a large libertarian fringe of strange ideologues defending views that are not characterized by their realism and nuances? (As I have sinned, I am not casting the first stone.)
The second issue raised by the story is the political future of libertarianism in America. For sure, “we,” or some of us, have not always been very politically astute. The magazine recalls how many libertarians fell for the Tea Party movement, a precursor of Donald Trump’s populism. As usual, the magazine is a bit confused about liberty, but at least they know that libertarianism exists and their criticisms are not always wrong.
After further comments, mostly positive, about Mr. Johnson, The Economist adds, in relation to electoral politics:
Yet he may be the most prominent advocate of libertarian principles left standing. That illustrates how badly the ideology has recently fared.
READER COMMENTS
Lucidides
Sep 20 2018 at 9:40am
No. But the purest unvarnished form of libertarian philosophy is just not realistically possible. I admire aspects of the “just do it yourself” foundation that is the basis of libertarianism. Frankly, we would all be better more capable people for it, although potentially more anti-social, for obvious reasons.
Libertarianism falls apart when social groups are confronted with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Just like communism, pure libertarianism hasn’t ever been tried because the only place it can exist is in a vacuum.
Mark Bahner
Sep 20 2018 at 11:25pm
It is really amazing how often I see this demonstrably false argument being made.
It is very easy to list all the countries in the world from “most libertarian” to “least libertarian.” Simply look at the most definitive indices of human freedom across the world, such as the Freedom House rankings for political and civil liberties freedoms, and the Heritage/Frasier Institute rankings for economic freedom…or the Cato Institute freedom rankings.
If one looks at *all* those rankings, and looks at the countries that are near the top for *all* those rankings, it’s very clear that those are some of the best countries in which to live on the entire planet. And the countries that are at the bottom of all those ranking–the least libertarian countries in the world–those are the worst places in the world to live.
In contrast, if one ranks countries from “most communist” to “least communist” the countries that are “most communist” are without a doubt some of the *worst* places to live in the world, whereas the countries that are least communist are the best places to live in the world.
Robert EV
Sep 21 2018 at 11:44am
Well, yeah. You get shelled by the world’s strongest superpower for years, or put into an arm’s race with half their population and far less of their easily extractable resources, and it will take decades to become a nice place to live again.
Ron Warrick
Sep 22 2018 at 8:54pm
But if we take the most free countries, all of which are still far from the libertarian ideal can we say that even more freedom will be an improvement? Or is there possibly a mix of freedom and imposed obligation that is optimal? Who really knows what would happen, for instance, if banking were to go unregulated or if all recreational drugs were legalized? I count myself as libertarian-leaning, but anyone who is certain that these things would turn out well deserves to be mocked.
Mark Z
Sep 25 2018 at 12:00am
If a man convicted of murder is found out to be innocent, we can’t be certain releasing him will turn out well. He may yet murder someone after he’s released. Is that a good argument for not letting him out?
Hazel Meade
Sep 20 2018 at 11:11am
Let’s be perfectly honest here. Libertarianism has an embarrassing racist fringe. When people talk about “crazy” they are mostly using that as a euphemism for “those embarrassing people who keep complaining about the civil rights act and public accommodation laws”. I’m pretty sure that’s what Gary Johnson was referring to. Not the guy with the ideas about legalizing heroin or the guy who wants to privatize all public education. The “bad breath” guy is the guy who approaches you to earnestly discuss the evidence that black people are genetically less intelligent.
David Henderson
Sep 21 2018 at 10:16am
Hazel Meade,
It’s important to distinguish between libertarians “who keep complaining about the civil rights act and public accommodation laws,” that is, libertarians who defend freedom of association even when it’s unpopular to do so, and libertarians who are racist. There’s certainly an overlap: it’s hard to imagine a racist libertarian who favors public accommodation laws. But it’s easy to find examples on non-racist libertarians “who keep complaining about the civil rights act and public accommodation laws.” Milton Friedman was one; I’m another.
Hazel Meade
Sep 21 2018 at 10:35am
Yes, there are libertarians who will argue against public accommodation laws as a technical point. Unwisely, in my opinion, because it makes it easy to marginalize us, and they aren’t going away any time soon. More than any other single issue, being opposed to public accommodation laws is a distasteful position to most Americans. And my sense is that isn’t really not important to most libertarians – it’s just a technical point. We wouldn’t want people kicking black people out of restaurants anyway. We would want to do something private and informal to prevent that from becoming commonplace. The people who really really care about it, are almost exclusively the racist fringe. I would rather that racist fringe go away and stop identifying as libertarians and stop alienating my non-racist friends. I would rather not be so easily marginalized. So why keep arguing about something that is (a) a lost cause and (b) alienates people and marginalizes libertarianism as a political philosophy?
Sam Grove
Sep 21 2018 at 11:43am
Minority movements have always been “easy to marginalize”, just take any idea not of mainstream thought and take it to an absurd conclusion.
The rhetorical game is rigged by the existing narrative, which in the US has been constructed by pro government majorities and in the past century, by the left.
Don’t ever expect altering the common narrative to be easy.
Hazel Meade
Sep 21 2018 at 12:31pm
Altering the narrative on whether it should be ok to throw black people out of restaurants isn’t that important to me.
The narratives I’m interested in altering are the ones regarding free markets, capitalism, and free trade. And immigration for that matter. Maybe someday after markets have eliminated racism we can get around to dismantling public accomodations laws.
Mark Z
Sep 21 2018 at 9:50pm
Hazel,
“Maybe someday after markets have eliminated racism we can get around to dismantling public accomodations laws.”
This is like a Catholic saying, “I’ll consider acknowledging the rights of protestants once everyone is finally Catholic.”
Hazel Meade
Sep 24 2018 at 10:45am
Except being Catholic isn’t socially harmful, and being actively racist (i.e. running whites-only lunch counters) is.
In a larger sense, we don’t actually think being racist is an ok thing. Catholicism is a private belief that has no effect on others. Discriminating against black people isn’t private – it affects other people. It’s not something that should be socially acceptable. Or at least, it should be more socially acceptable to walk around being a black person, than it is to walk around being openly racist. When it comes to social tolerance, the default state should be that it’s ok to walk around in the skin you were born in. Being rude to people because they have the wrong skin color is a choice.
Mark Z
Sep 25 2018 at 12:24am
“Except being Catholic isn’t socially harmful.”
Many would (and have) argued it is. And can you really be so miffed that some of us would find the idea of the state purporting to decide what voluntary behavior is or isn’t “socially harmful” (and outlawing it accordingly) so repugnant? How does this argument not also apply to pornography? Videogames? If one were to outlaw ‘being a jerk’ would this be something we should countenance as not worth fighting?
“Catholicism is a private belief that has no effect on others. “
This is false. How people publicly behave is often greatly affected by their religious beliefs. Being Catholic is also every bit as much a choice as being racist.
And what does whether something ought to be socially acceptable have to do with this? I don’t think it should be socially acceptable to be a communist. If the state decides to ban voluntary communist behavior, should I shrug my shoulders and say ‘eh, they deserve it, so I’ll look the other way?’
“Discriminating against black people isn’t private – it affects other people”
So? Every economic decision you make effects people. Every time you choose to shop at one store instead of the other you’re negatively affecting the latter. Ironically, you yourself have emphasized the importance of things like boycotts for enforcing social acceptability; but boycotts negatively affect people too; they’re the mirror image of discrimination by a store owner. If the government were to step in and decide which boycotts were not justified or were too ‘socially harmful’ and suppress them by force, would it not be an egregious action? Or should people be allowed to boycott whomever they want regardless of how dumb their reasons are?
In essence, I see laws restricting freedom of association of racists along the lines of McCarthyism in the early 50s. In either case, the repugnance of the ideology doesn’t make outlawing voluntary activity by the state tolerable. You seem to feel that if state non-intervention fails to achieve a desirable outcome, then we may as well tolerate intervention to achieve that outcome. I believe that the price of freedom as learning to coexist with people who hate you and who you hate without trying to impose your will on them or theirs being imposed on you. I mean, wouldn’t you rather a racist be a libertarian racist who is obsessed with keeping the state out of his racism, than a statist racist who is intent on imposing his views on the public down the barrel of a gun? Because the more the state takes on the role as legislator of morality, the more people with rival moralities have the incentive to make sure theirs is the morality that gets legislated before someone else’s does.
Hazel Meade
Sep 25 2018 at 11:09am
Lots of people think lots of things are socially harmful. But some thing actually objectively involve doing things that are harmful or rude or impolite to others. Thinking racist thoughts in the privacy of your own home doesn’t involve other people. Practicing Catholicism in a private church doesn’t involve other people. Kicking a black person out of a restaurant? that is a public act that involves another human being.
How people publicly behave is often greatly affected by their religious beliefs.
Sure and how people behave in public has social consequences. If your religious beliefs force you to be a jerk to other people, that doesn’t exempt you from the consequences of your actions.
If the state decides to ban voluntary communist behavior, should I shrug my shoulders and say ‘eh, they deserve it, so I’ll look the other way?’
Again, voluntary communist behavior doesn’t inflict harm upon others. Actively being a racist – i.e. insulting someone for their skin color or kicking them out of a restaurant does.
Ironically, you yourself have emphasized the importance of things like boycotts for enforcing social acceptability; but boycotts negatively affect people too; they’re the mirror image of discrimination by a store owner.
What do you think should be more socially tolerated? A) being a black person, or B) being a racist? I choose A. And racists , if they are actively being racist in public, make black people not socially tolerated. So if you want black people to be able to just be black in public and not be treated like social pariahs, then you HAVE TO not tolerate racism.
Again, I’m not saying that anti-discrimination laws are right and just. I would prefer a private informal was of suppressing racism. But because the laws are already there, and they aren’t going anywhere, and they are nearly universally supported by all non-racist people, I’m just not going to argue about it, because there are lots of more important issues and more important liberties currently at stake. Including some which the very same racists I would be defending are threatening.
Mark Z
Sep 21 2018 at 9:45pm
It’s hard to reconcile your scorn for anti-immigration sentiment in the libertarian movement while demanding libertarians abandon their principles on freedom of association.
And it’s not a ‘technical’ point. It’s a moral one. It’s clear we have different priorities, but, personally, I find the sentiment “I don’t want anything to do with you people” less offensive than the sentiment, “I want the state to do violence to people who want nothing to do with me.” I’m not going to defend the latter position for fear of being conflated with the former.
Would you also say that the only people who really cared about defending the civil liberties of communists in the early 50s were must’ve communists? That anyone who wasn’t a surreptitious communist would be willing to just let it slide?
Hazel Meade
Sep 24 2018 at 10:38am
Mark, we aren’t in a situation where there is a question about whether public accomodation laws are going to exist. They are going to exist, and they aren’t getting repealed in our lifetimes. My sentiment is precisely “I want nothing to do with those people”, with regard to the racists who hang onto the libertarian movement. I wish to disinvite them to our party. I do not wish to associate with them for one minute longer.
Moreover, these same people have recently proven that even if I went out on a limb and defended their right to be rude to black people for absolutely no reason, they would not return the favor. The people whose rights you are willing to expose yourself to extreme social disapproval in order to defend, are not going to turn around and defend your right to hire an immigrant or buy a car made in China. They do not believe in individual property rights. They do not believe in free markets. They do not care about your rights in the slightest, and they are busy working to take them away from you.
Mark Z
Sep 25 2018 at 12:50am
There are plenty of people, for example in the Mises institute orbit, (Tom Woods come to mind) who have been pigeon-holed as racists by many libertarians that actually are steadfast defenders of free markets. I think Charles Murray is probably more likely to defend my individual rights than, say, Ezra Klein or Paul Krugman. So I don’t see it as quite so clear I guess who my ‘allies’ are.
And you’re right that public accommodation laws are probably never going away. But this is the internet and I’m anonymous, so why should I not voice my disapproval them.
Yes, obviously I wouldn’t publicly take this position in public because most people are too closed-minded to openly discuss such things with. But then again in my social circle such things are dime a dozen. I wouldn’t publicly admit my disagreements with feminism, my not supporting the BLM movement, my belief that love of country is irrational. But then reminding me that I live in a milieu where the Overton Window is so small and getting smaller by the day that I have to conceal opinions that were just a few years ago mainstream is not a great way to convince me to gleefully jump on the bandwagon to constrict it further. To be very specific: when people say, “let’s make it socially unacceptable to be racist,” I can’t applaud that sentiment, because I know I’m probably one of the people they have in mind; I don’t take it for granted, for example, that every ethnic group, controlling for all social/cultural factors, will necessarily have the same average IQs, for the same reasons they don’t have the same average height, incidence of various diseases, and other largely genetically determined characteristic. Again, obviously not an opinion one can state in public these days, but it’d be rather insincere of me to support efforts to marginalize a category in which I would probably be lumped if I didn’t conceal my opinions.
Hazel Meade
Sep 25 2018 at 11:17am
And you’re right that public accommodation laws are probably never going away. But this is the internet and I’m anonymous, so why should I not voice my disapproval them.
Well the libertarian movement as a group isn’t anonymous. And if the libertarian movement as a group is associated with racism, then anyone who identifies as a libertarian gets associated with racism. And I personally don’t want to associate with racists, or be associated with racism. Spending time and energy arguing about anti-discrimination laws is not only a waste of time, it invites racists to the party, so to speak. And in a way, it also implies that libertarians think it should be socially acceptable to be racist.
That is what this thread is about: Why is the libertarian movement doing so poorly. And I’m telling you – that because of the public stances many libertarians have taken against anti-discrimination law, and because of the open invitation to racists to ally with the movement, that has severely damaged the reputation of libertarianism as a whole, with a large portion of the public that otherwise might agree with many of the things we say.
Mark Z
Sep 25 2018 at 7:59pm
Being actively communist most certainly does cause harm. Communist strikes and boycotts against companies that fail to meet their standards cause harm; communist lobbying for harmful policies causes harm when successful. And I see no reason why we should exempt political activity from this consequentialist analysis.
And if it’s strictly about tactics, then I don’t think your case is very strong either. According to Pew polls, the majority of black and hispanic people have more favorable views toward socialism than capitalism, so it’s not likely such groups are going to be very responsive to libertarianism unless it starts compromising on free markets as well. It’s quite likely the most adament anti-racism in the world won’t cause a dent in minority attitudes toward libertarianism; after all, there’s always going to be someone on the left who is positioning themselves as just as anti-racist while simultaneously offering generous redistribution, special treatment, and indulging some ethnic minorities’ own racial animosity toward white people. If libertarians will always be outflanked among ethnic minorities, it likely doesn’t make any difference either way (at least at the national level). One can of course also just as easily argue that libertarianism has more potential from being less adamant in support of immigration and more adamant about opposition to affirmative action, since white people tend to be more receptive to libertarianism a priori and therefore may be the most reasonable ‘target’ group? The point being, there’s no guarantee that optimal allocation of emphasis will line up with your priorities.
Link to Pew poll on attitudes toward capitalism and socialism: http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/
Hazel Meade
Oct 1 2018 at 1:31pm
there’s always going to be someone on the left who is positioning themselves as just as anti-racist while simultaneously offering generous redistribution, special treatment, and indulging some ethnic minorities’ own racial animosity toward white people.
Which you appear to think is a knock-out argument in favor of socialism. What black person wouldn’t want generous redistribution, special treatment, and racial animosity towards whites?
I don’t think it is nearly as convincing as you do. As people who defend individual liberty, I think that people whose individual liberty has been as abused are our natural allies. There’s no other group in America who has suffered injustices at the hands of the state more than African Americans. African Americans suffer daily at the hands of government via police abuse, the war on drugs, and the entire criminal justice system. Right now, there are millions of Hispanics living in America who can’t legally work, because they are undocumented, including millions of them who were brought here as children. Economic liberties are essential to liberty in general and not allowing someone to work legally is as devastating an abuse as you can get short of killing or imprisoning someone.
I think it’s quite possible that if libertarians were to articulate a vision of libertarianism that recognized the injustices that minorities have suffered at the hands of the state, if we explained them within a libertarian philosophical approach, that would be an excellent way to explain libertarian philosophy to them in a way they would be receptive to.
And ultimately, if the alternative is to write off ethnic minorities and ally with white racists over public accommodations laws, I think that is a losing strategy. There’s no quicker route to marginalization and irrelevance.
Jon Murphy
Sep 20 2018 at 12:24pm
Libertariansm seems to attract a lot of the “shock-jock” types. In my own experiences with the Free State Movement and PorcFest in NH, there are a lot of folks who don’t really care about the philosophy or the idea of liberty for others, but just want the freedom to be as big a jerk as possible.
Ron Paul and his ilk may have initially attracted me to the political side of libertarianism, but it was ultimately thinkers and writers like our hosts here, Don Boudreaux (in a major way), Adam Smith, David Hume, Frederic Bastiat, Dan Klein, Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, and Armen Alchian who shaped my thoughts and philosophy.
I think there is a philosophical crisis within the libertarian movement right now, and unfortunately the crazies may be winning.
Hazel Meade
Sep 20 2018 at 1:47pm
Agree. There is a battle between the alt-right/nationalist-libertarian crossovers and the more principled libertarian intellectual core. It’s always dangerous for a tiny minority to try to ally with a larger and more powerful political group, because they risk being taken over from within. My belief is that as long as the intellectual core of the movement hangs onto it’s principles the alt-right insurgency will eventually fade away. Right now it’s sort of amounts to commenters attacking the writers on major libertarian blogs. But you can’t really claim to represent libertarianism if you have no libertarian intellectuals on your side. So these guys can keep going around insisting that the true libertarianism is nationalist and anti-immigration, but if they can’t point to any libertarian intellectuals who agree with them they’re going to have trouble with that claim.
robc
Sep 21 2018 at 9:02am
I think the battle is between the principled libertarians and the beltway libertarians who will sell out the principles for access or cocktail party invites or power or whatever. Niskanen, Cato, reason have all drifted that way in the last few years (well, Niskanen has never been anything but that). Its the kind of thinking that gets William Weld an LP nomination.
Hazel Meade
Sep 21 2018 at 9:36am
I don’t know anything about cocktail parties, but it seems to me there are a lot of “libertarians” selling out their principles on free trade. For the sake of a tribal alliance with Trump and friends.
Robert EV
Sep 21 2018 at 11:51am
The core needs to make an alternative to the current “World’s smallest political quiz”, because that landmark of libertarianism started going in the crazy direction when it removed the question about individual freedom of movement across borders and left in the evangelical “666” question about national ID cards.
And honestly, in this era, the draft question could probably be replaced too. Possibly with a question about graduation requirement “community service” for students.
Hazel Meade
Sep 21 2018 at 4:46pm
Not a bad idea. The political landscape has shifted over the last 30 years, and especially recently.
I recall a few years back Krugman made up his own version of the political quick with what he called “Hard Hats” squarely located in the corner that we would label “authoritarian”.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/rand-paul-and-the-empty-box/
Krugman comments with regard to hard hats:
“I’m putting in “hardhats” to show my age, because I remember the good old days when rampaging union workers — who presumably supported pro-labor policies, unemployment benefits, and Medicare — liked to beat up dirty hippies. But it’s hard to find anyone like that in today’s political scene.”
But it strikes me that that is exactly what Trump and his supporters are- Krugman’s hard hats.
If we revamped the quiz for today, it would be important to differentiate between traditional conservatives, traditional liberals, libertarians and Trumpists. So the quiz should probably ask questions about immigration and trade today.
john hare
Sep 20 2018 at 7:44pm
@Jon
I have seen the jerk types unfortunately. At a small 20+-people Libertarian meeting, one of the speakers went on an anti Christian tirade. I left right behind a Christian couple from a far right group that was curious. A few months later, the couple tried to persuade their group to not give podium time to a Libertarian candidate.
Though I disagree quite strongly with the way some Christian concepts are presented, I see no reason to attack the beliefs of others, though disagreement on relevant issues is fine with me.
Mark Z
Sep 21 2018 at 3:13am
Well, it’s likely an inevitability that a movement rooted support for individual liberty and less government is going to attract extremists just because they’re on the fringe of what is socially (and often legally) acceptable and therefore share (for the moment, at least) the libertarian’s suspicion of the hostile central authority. As such, it’s perhaps unavoidable that while in a communist state, the fascists line up alongside libertarians, in a fascist state, the communists line up alongside libertarians; as do atheists in a Christian state and Christians in an atheist state. So it’s not unlikely that it will often happen that most of the people favoring libertarian policies in practice aren’t principled libertarians but people of other ideologies who are, at the time, prospective targets of marginalization by the state.
Dylan
Sep 22 2018 at 5:48pm
I think in general my problem with many of those that identify as libertarians is just the fact that they are too principled. In many ways I’ve got an idealistic streak, but when it comes to politics I think pragmatism is the order of the day. I lean libertarian because I think moving in that direction will generally lead to better outcomes for more people. But that only works if those policies have a chance of actually being implemented.
I’d like libertarian politicians to focus on the lower hanging fruit of policy, and build coalitions with people that they agree with on some issues, even if they violently disagree with them on others. Working with liberals on criminal justice reform or immigration for example, and conservatives on trade, taxes, and smarter economic policy. Gary Johnson and others like him appeal to me for this reason. But my experience has been that the typical “principled” libertarian is typically not very interested in the kind of compromises needed to build those big coalitions.
Mark Z
Sep 22 2018 at 8:11pm
I think part of the problem though is that politicians can’t afford to appear to be pragmatic. A principled libertarian may be willing to put goal B on the back-burner to accomplish goal B, but a politician can’t say, “I support B but I’m not going to do anything about it because I don’t have the political capital.” That alienates people who oppose B almost as much as trying to accomplish it, while doing little to appease people who support B. So, instead, the politician says “I don’t support B.” Or, in a more Darwinian scenario, the politician who takes the latter position earnestly is more likely to survive. And that’s hard for a principled libertarian to swallow; he might tolerate putting one thing above the other on the priorities list, but stated opposition to a key (if not 1st on the list) goal makes him feel like this politician isn’t really ‘one of us’ at all.’
Then of course there’s also the differences in priorities. I’m pretty much a dogmatist on freedom of speech. Any impingement on freedom of speech is severe to me; I’d probably sooner tolerate policies others consider harmful than I would an impingement on free speech that most others would see as fairly innocuous. I’m more worried, for example, about people who want to jail Richard Spencer than I am about Richard Spencer himself. It may be that I (or libertarians in general) have certainly hills they’d die on that aren’t the same as those other would die on, so to speak. Or maybe just have more hills they’d die on.
Dylan
Sep 23 2018 at 10:34am
It’s a good point about politicians not being able to appear pragmatic, or at least too pragmatic. But of course almost all politicians are pragmatic anyway, they have to be to get where they are. Good politicians deflect those questions they don’t want to deal with in a way that can leave most people imagining the candidate supports the same thing they do. Take the CRA that Hazel talked about earlier, a good Libertarian candidate should be able to say something like “I fully support the goals that the CRA was trying to achieve, now as a Libertarian I might have preferred a different approach to solving what were real and persistent racial discrimination problems in the U.S., but what I’d like to focus our energy on today are continuing issues with our criminal justice system and the disparate impact this has been shown to have on racial minorities and low-income households…”
Obviously, I’m no politician, and a good one should be able to do a much better job than the above. But that’s a general strategy that usually works well for mainstream pols, but not so well for the Ls. I don’t know that this is because the Ls are just more idealistic/stubborn than your average voter, or if it is because their views tend to be a lot further out of the mainstream…but whatever it is, Libertarians who want to nudge government in their preferred direction probably need to be a lot more pragmatic than the average partisan, but instead they come off as much less pragmatic.
For me, my personal dogmatic position is on immigration, where I’m pretty staunchly an open borders guy. For me it’s primarily a moral question, so while I think it would on average lead to better outcomes for the planet…I think I’d still probably support it if it could be shown that it would lead to the end of the world. But that’s fine for me to say as a guy no one listens to on an internet comment board. I certainly don’t expect my politicians to come out and say they want open borders, since there’s no way in our current climate one could get even halfway to elected with that position. Instead I look for politicians who praise the contributions that immigrants bring to our country and who do things that suggest they would support somewhat more open immigration than what we currently have. If a candidate I supported was asked point blank if they support open borders, my ideal answer would be something with nuance that addresses the good and bad trade-offs…but given how well those kinds of answers would play in attack ads, my more realistic expectation is that they lie and say absolutely not. And this is for something that is, if not my number one issue, at least in the top 3.
B Cole
Sep 20 2018 at 10:17pm
What libertarians?
There are no atheists in fox holes, and there are no libertarians when neighborhood property zoning is under review.
The American Libertarian movement is a confederacy of hypocrites.
Let’s talk about free-trade and how those people making minimum wage are holding America back.
robc
Sep 21 2018 at 9:07am
You are wrong.
Some of us are principled opponents of zoning.
The fact that you are 100% right about zoning and such a jerk about it everywhere you post is a prime example of what a number of people are talking about.
Or I am being the jerk for pointing it out. But probably not.
David Henderson
Sep 21 2018 at 10:19am
B Cole,
You wrote:
There are no atheists in fox holes, and there are no libertarians when neighborhood property zoning is under review.
You’re wrong on both counts. I’ve never been in a fox hole but I was in a situation once where I had good reason to think I was about to die. My atheism remained intact. I also have been a strong opponent of using zoning to prevent people from building what they want.
Marvin
Sep 21 2018 at 2:51pm
There are atheists in foxholes, just not many. There are citizens who value principle over tribe, and there are small groups of principle-first people in most tribes (including the R and D parties in America). There are a decent proportion of principle-first people who hold libertarian beliefs, including some in the L party. About as many as athiests in foxholes. But we exist.
Benjamin Cole
Sep 22 2018 at 1:55am
I was engaging in humorous hyperbole, but only mild hyperbole, to make a point.
Daniel Klein
Sep 21 2018 at 9:21am
Milton Friedman:
“I am a libertarian with a small ‘l’ and a Republican with a capital ‘R’.”
In a two-party system, third parties are damaging to their own cause.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 21 2018 at 9:06pm
Interesting quote, Dan. Note, however, that Friedman commanded tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of votes, perhaps more. He could hope that his support would make the difference between a win and a loss for the Republican Party, but not for the tiny Libertarian Party. So this statement of his was very rational electoral behavior. For the average voter who, on the contrary, has only one vote, the argument does not apply: the only benefit of his vote for him is either to do the right thing (or to entertain himself or to follow his tribe). (And poor Friedman: he must turn in his grave seeing what the Republican Party has become!)
B Cole
Sep 21 2018 at 9:39am
In every libertarian right-wing forum that I protest regarding property zoning, I find I am labeled an idiot, jerk or told I am obsessed with property zoning. My comments are often deleted or banned.
Of course, there may be some true libertarians.
But as a rule, those people leading the American Libertarian movement do not like the topic of property zoning.
robc
Sep 21 2018 at 2:07pm
Your problem isn’t talking about zoning. Its talking about zoning in comment of articles about other issues and getting mad at the author for not talking about zoning.
I am the anti-zoning zealot in the comments of strongtowns.org (which is not libertarian in nature), BUT, I don’t bring up zoning except where it applies. And it often applies, so I bring it up a lot. But I don’t criticize the authors for not suggesting it, except when they are actively supporting zoning. In most cases, they are pushing for less restrictive zoning, which is a move in the right direction, so good enough for me, even if I prefer more.
I don’t know if cafehayek banned you or deleted your posts, but, honestly, you deserved either or both for your posts there.
Jon Murphy
Sep 21 2018 at 3:26pm
Cafe Hayek does not ban or remove posts. I think Joe (or Benjamin or whatever he calls himself now) just stopped commenting.
He did do a self-imposed ban on my blog when I removed a comment of his which was, as you point out here, completely unrelated to what I was discussing.
I know AEI enforces an “on-topic” rule as well. This blog does, too.
Nick Ronalds
Sep 21 2018 at 5:02pm
The comment above that “there are no libertarians when neighborhood property zoning is under review” is not literally true (I know people who would be happy to sacrifice benefits such as mortgage interest deductions for a radically simpler tax system, for example), but the point is well taken that every policy, every initiative has to go through the meat grinder of politics. Public Choice has taught us that ideals are just that–ideals that never have been, and almost certainly never will be, realized in pure form. Every high-minded policy goal is distorted, sometimes beyond recognition, by the time politicians, legislators, and lobbyists are done with it, and bureaucrats administer it. But does that make it pointless to describe, and argue the strengths and weaknesses, of some models over others? Experience of centuries has taught us that states become more tyrannical as they become more powerful. In recent centuries there have been a relatively small number of states who managed to limit the size of their central government and expand the scope of individual freedom–first England, then the U.S., and Western European countries until recently, to a lesser extent Japan, Taiwan, Singapore–and these have created conditions far better for human flourishing that states or empires of the past. There’s an inverse correlation between the size of government and economic growth and many other indicia of quality of life. In short, the evidence is pretty strong that the closer you get to a minimalist, libertarian model of government, the more humans flourish. This is in stark contrast to the communist or socialist ideal–the closer you get to it in practice, the worse the humanitarian disaster it generates. No, we’ll probably never have a pure libertarian state. But It’s nevertheless a worthy ideal.
Benjamin Cole
Sep 21 2018 at 9:19pm
Jeez, I did not even mention how the topic of the universal criminalization of pushcart, truck-, and motorcycle-sidecar vending is also completely ignored.
If you travel outside of the United States, you will often see that streets are turned into carnivals of commerce by such intrepid entrepreneurs— who are all but totally criminalized in the United States.
This is also never a topic in libertarian circles.
So, in general, to mention property zoning, or the criminalization of street vending, is always off-topic in libertarian blogs.
As property zoning is one of the largest structural impediments facing the US economy, and much larger than the Trump tariff tiffs, what does this tell you about the American Libertarian movement?
Jon Murphy
Sep 21 2018 at 9:47pm
That you’re completely ignorant of the writings of libertarians
Benjamin Cole
Sep 22 2018 at 2:02am
Jon
Please Google or search engine the topic of decriminalizing push-cart, truck- or motorcycle-sidecar vending, and point me to the libertarian blogs that have addressed this issue, and forthrightly stated we should err on the side of legalizing such vending.
I hope you find one, as I cannot.
If Pierre Lemieux has ever addressed the topic, I would be delighted to read his post.
I hope Pierre makes this a personal cause in the future, along with the abolition of property zoning, I hope Jon Murphy does too.
These two issues are much much larger than the Trump trade tiffs.
Mark Z
Sep 22 2018 at 8:24pm
Push cart vending and zoning laws are issues addressed by local (not even merely state, but usually municipal) governments. Tariffs and minimum wage laws are national (the latter of course not only national) issues. National politics enjoys broader interest among all groups for obvious reasons.
Also, you’re just wrong.
Scott literally just wrote a post here about zoning restrictions: https://www.econlib.org/nimbyism-isnt-just-about-housing/
Just dour days ago Reason did an article praising California’s legalization of street vending: https://reason.com/blog/2018/09/18/california-finally-legalizes-street-vend
A few months ago they did a couple articles on Los Angeles vending laws in particular: http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/18/thanks-trump-los-angeles-finally-legaliz
So, contrary to your claim, libertarian sites write about this often.
Benjamin Cole
Sep 23 2018 at 4:40am
Mark Z–
I am delighted at the smattering of posts and articles you have uncovered.
I disagree with you regarding zoning and anti-commerce on sidewalks and street laws being “local” issues.
Since there is hardly an unzoned piece of property in the US, this is a national issue. It certainly has national economic ramifications. The problem is ubiquitous. Same on street-side vending.
It may be pedantic, but suppose a lone city wanted to violate someone’s civil rights. Would that be a local issue? Commercial and property rights are violated daily, but it is accepted as part our culture.
The Institute for Justice gets good coverage in the libertarian press when it goes after hair-braiding laws in South Carolina, or civil-asset forfeiture laws.
Property zoning, an issue perhaps 1000 times as large, gets even less coverage than civil asset forfeitures. This is just silly.
I would love to see street-vending open up in the US, and streets turned into carnivals of commerce. Prices would be lower, and a couple million more people (and importantly, people without much capital) could “join the system” and believe in free enterprise.
I hope you take an interest in these issues, and post frequently as a commenter.
Hazel Meade
Sep 24 2018 at 11:03am
<i>These two issues are much much larger than the Trump trade tiffs.</i>
Those trade tiffs affect hundreds of billions of dollars in international trade, trade which involves American businesses small and large. It’s hard to put a dollar amount on the value of push cart vending, but I don’t think “much much larger” is an accurate statement. Those trade tiffs moreover raise the risk of unwinding the global consensus on free trade, which would mean far larger and broader impacts on the global economy not to mention the liberty of individuals in countries around the world who wish to trade with each other. make no mistake, this is not by any means a minor or trivial threat.
Hazel Meade
Sep 24 2018 at 10:58am
There are tons of articles about food trucks and push cart vending on Reason. it’s actually a pretty hot topic in libertarian circles. So I can only assume you haven’t read very much libertarian writing. It just doesn’t get much attention outside libertarian blogs so maybe that’s why you haven’t seen it.
Comments are closed.