United Liberty
Libertarian Purity
Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:15am | posted by Tom Knighton
Welcome Instapundit readers!
Libertarians are ineffective in politics. There, I’ve said it. Of course, I’m not exactly breaking new ground here either. Everyone who follows politics knows that libertarians are ineffective. After all, it’s the worst kept secret in politics. The question is: why?
Yesterday, I saw a video where noted libertarian/classical liberal Virginia Postrel sat down with Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, for a chat. In it, she mentions in passing that there are libertarians who spend a great deal of time looking for ideological purity and denouncing those that don’t share it. The idea isn’t new, I’ve heard the criticism before, but it is accurate.
Every ideological stripe has those people. There are people who argue that Obama isn’t a true progressive because of X, or that so-and-so isn’t a true conservative because of Y. The difference isn’t in the existence of these people, but the percentages of these people. Libertarians seem to have a higher percentage than most other groups, and this may be why we are so ineffective.
Ideological purity sounds fine and good, but it also pushes luke-warm libertarians away. They find themselves in less friendly terrain, often the Republican Party (but not always) where their support is mustered on some issues and ignored on others. They’re told by libertarians that they aren’t real libertarians, so eventually some believe them.
Most ideologies have a spectrum of beliefs that aren’t necessarily the beliefs of all members of that group. There are pro-life Democrats, and pro-gay marriage Republicans. There are anti-gun Republicans and pro-gun Democrats. They function within their respective groups just fine, but libertarians? For some, they require absolute obedience to the ideology.
It’s kind of funny though. Libertarians almost universally don’t want government to think for us, but some libertarians have no problem thinking for society as a whole by labeling some as “not libertarian”. They don’t want to look at the whole and realize that no two people are going to think about the same things.
Some will say I’m not a real libertarian because I’m fine with public roads. Others will point to my acceptance of regulations in a few instances – namely in the case of a true market failure (not the crap often called a market failure to justify regulation) – as proof I’m not a real libertarian. Fine. Honestly, I don’t really care what these folks think of me. However, they’re not doing their own any favorites either.
There are very few ideologically pure people of any stripe. Instead, there are variations. Shades of gray, if you will. This is where the majority of people find themselves sitting. Many of them actually share libertarianism’s overall goal of less government, more freedom to some extent or another. However, they’re not necessarily comfortable with the ideologically pure’s ideas of switching off government almost completely. It scares them, and people don’t support what scares them.
In truth, we need the “moderate” libertarians even more than the ideologically pure ones, especially when running for office. The moderates can win elections where pure candidates are going to have a tough time. Like it or not, we need people winning elections if there’s going to be a hope in hell of reclaiming this nation. It’s all fine and good to sit on blogs and have great debates about what all libertarians could accomplish if only they could win. It’s quite another to step up and start making damn sure it actually happens, and like it or not that means accepting people who aren’t as pure as you may like.
Let’s face it folks. We are not going to take this country in a libertarian direction overnight. We may never reach what some call Libertopia. I’m fine with that. However, we have got to start making some waves in American politics if we’re going to start moving in that direction. We can’t do that if we expect every libertarian candidate to be 100% pure. We need to accept that Joe and Jane American isn’t comfortable with that just yet, and let’s back those who actually want to move us in a direction that gives us more freedom even if that isn’t perfect freedom. We can boot them out later if they decide we’re free enough and we don’t agree.
It’s the only way we’re going to accomplish a thing.
Can you give an example of what you mean by true market failure?
I was wondering the same thing. Every definition of market failure I’ve heard amounts to “a result someone _really_ doesn’t like”, and the difference between “true” and “false” market failures is whether or not the speaker is that someone. But maybe I just haven’t heard the right definition. (And yes, I can still support someone who believes in “true market failures” as long as they don’t see them around every corner.)
What a wonderful leather of assemblage Admiring the denotive and reflection you put into your writing and elaborated gist you thing ! I treat symbol your diary and signal my children cloth up here oft. Thumbs up
birthday sms
I really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us. I assure this would be beneficial for most of the people.
questions about lenders
People can see your article is very popular , strong feelings after reading it , from your article, you can get a lot of interesting and useful knowledge of the living. Look forward to your updates
Regards,
Essays Writing Help
Defense
Can that example be generalized into a definition? I’d really like to understand this concept if someone would take a shot at explaining it.
The traditional definition of a “market failure” is a situation in which a group of people would like to make a mutually beneficial transaction but the traditional market mechanisms of defined, tradeable property rights do not lead to the transaction being consummated, even if everyone understands the situation fully and would be willing to pay.
The Econ 101 illustrations are national defense and negative externalities (basically, pollution). Theoretically, every single person in the country could agree that a missile defense system would be worth the cost, and would willingly contribute enough to pay for it, but because missile defense systems can’t discriminate between the people who contributed and didn’t contribute to its creation, allowing individuals to voluntarily opt out of paying for it would lead to large numbers of people lying about their preferences in the hopes that enough of their neighbors will choose to pay for it to get it made, thereby receiving the benefits of the system without having to contribute to its costs. Knowing this, everyone opts out of paying for it, and it never gets built.
Air pollution is another Econ 101 illustration, in which the polluter is supposed to not take the costs of pollution into account when making decisions which affect the amount of pollution he emits because he does not directly pay for the pollution. From an economics perspective this analysis has been modified somewhat, but not in ways that usually leads to less government intervention.
A common mistake that I see on the Left is to describe something like “lack of affordable housing” as a market failure when, in fact, if the market process is leading to housing prices that accurately reflect the underlying reality, we are seeing a “market success.” Rather, it is reality that is failing to live up to what the commenter would like.
Another phenomenon which frequently gets described as a “market failure” stems from asymmetrical information, or imperfect information (not exactly the same thing). The used car market is supposed to reflect this, as car owners are more likely to be selling cars with problems than cars without problems, which leads to the famous “a car loses 20 percent of its value when it’s driven off the lot” fallacy (I think that that has been shown to be not true).
Personally I have problems describing informational issues as “market failures” as all transactions involve some degree of ignorance on all sides. I’m just too accustomed to thinking of the market as an information discovery process to be able to make any sense of imperfect information as a general justification of government interference in voluntary transactions.
I really appreciate the kind of topics you post here. Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful. Good day!
mp4 to dvd
You’re talking about winning elections, incremental change ad moderation? Obviously you’re a statist hack and must be purged. Also the lesser of two evils is still EVIL!!!
Joking. But when the big L Libertarians show up, you are SO out of the club.
I lol’d
So did I :)
“Libertarians are ineffective in politics.”
hmm thinking.. yeah I think I do agree with you right then.
thanks,
Glass Figurines
I bet, if they thought hard enough, most ideologically pure libertarians would find they don’t even meet their own tough standards.
Libertarians always (well almost) appear to believe that the good is the enemy of the perfect.
As one with libertarian (small l) tendencies, I am both amazed and appalled at the contempt with which they treat all but the true believers. The tendency was apparent in Atlas Shrugged as well (is that the mother lode of the belief).
One would think that Libertarians would like allies. The natural ally of the Libertarian is the conservative and the republican. Both get demonized on many libertarian sites. Liberals and democrats receive much better treatment. The support that many Libertarians threw to the Dems in 2008 was amazing and, in the long run, a grievous self-inflicted wound. OK I know, the long run is Keynesian dead meat, but look what you reaped.
Libertarians appear to believe that all individuals have the right to be themselves, except Reps and Conservatives who are EVIL.
Concur Mark. And in this sense I can’t entirely agree with Tom. The problem with so many self-described Libertarians is that they equate it with being socially liberal, ala Bill Maher. In other words, there’s a LACK of rigor in defining criteria. Still, Tom is spot on in identifying the need for exclusivity on the part of big L Libertarians. Its as though the inclusivity and tolerance of the philosophy has to be be somehow compensated for by being an asshole to potential allies who happen to be oriented toward family, religion, etc.
formulate the design and technology decisions necessary to make sure successful technology implementation projects.
mcitp mcts // mcse mcsd // mcsa mcpd
The natural ally of the Libertarian is the single-issue libertarian, WHEREVER on the spectrum they are.
Conservatives and Republicans tend to oppose us FAR more vehemently than the Democrats - perhaps because the Democrats acknowledge their desire for Big Brother, while the Republicans remain in the closet?
Jeff Sexton: “while the Republicans remain in the closet?”
What? You can’t name the two major issues that the Republican party line is in conflict with the “Libertarian” stance? Maybe you’ve been living under a rock.
Seriously though, your “Conservatives and Republicans tend to oppose US” and your love of the Dems would probably enrage me if I didn’t figure that you’re one of them “liberaltarians”, and your “us” doesn’t include me.
Two major issues the Republican Party Line is in conflict with the Libertarian Stance? I can give you SEVERAL off the top of my head:
Republicans want to repeal *and replace* Obamacare. Libertarians want to repeal it, period, as government has no right to make my medical decisions or be involved in the payment thereof.
PATRIOT. Passed by the *Republican* Congress and signed by a *Republican* President - and opposed by every single Libertarian I know.
NCLB. See last.
Medicare Part D, aka Obamacare’s Father, see PATRIOT.
Iraq/ Afganistan: Neither of these nations attacked us, and therefore a war in either is illegitimate.
TARP: Signed by a *Republican* President, opposed by every single Libertarian I know.
DOMA: Passed by a *Republican* Congress, opposed by about 90% of the Libertarians I know, maybe more.
Over and over and over again, the Republicans have shown themselves to be the party of BARELY less government than the Democrats. If we’re standing on a point, the Democrats want to take us 100 yards down field. The Republicans want to take us 60 yards now, and the remaining 40 four years from now.
Jeff Sexton: “…while the Republicans remain in the closet?”
Jeff Sexton: “Two major issues the Republican Party Line is in conflict with the Libertarian Stance? I can give you SEVERAL off the top of my head”
Thanks for proving my point. Though, I would have listed DOMA and abortion as the two dominant conflicts. The Dems have identity politics and the Repubs have their “family values”.
Jeff Sexton: “Conservatives and Republicans tend to oppose us FAR more vehemently than the Democrats ”
Jeff Sexton: “Over and over and over again, the Republicans have shown themselves to be the party of BARELY less government than the Democrats”
These two statements (by you) don’t wash. I’d have to agree with the latter. A wise man once said: “I hate conservatives, but I really f***ing hate liberals”
Well yeah. I’ve long argued that libertarians can stand on their principles and sit on the sidelines, or support the best they can get in any situation. Idiological purity is fine for Vestal Virgins but it won’t get you far in today’s politics.
I understand your point, but at the same time, words need to mean something. Ideology needs to mean something. Voting records need to mean something.
As someone who is currently supporting some tea party candidates, I have come to realize that moderates take up valuable space on the ballot. There is a predefined number of slots, and I would prefer to run a candidate that might lose but that I agree with. Running a candidate that I don’t agree with, and who is going th screw me over, abet, not as bad as the other candidate, is a formula for failure, and how we got into this current mess.
If my candidate loses, I spend the next two years explaining why the winner is failing by not following libertarian principles. If a moderate candidate wins, I would have to attempt to defend their records while they screwed us over saying “well, I not as bad as the other guy” (essentially, this is the position that smaller government conservatives were with George Bush).
Sometimes, its better to lose on principal, and who knows, you might occasionally win.
“The moderates can win elections where pure candidates are going to have a tough time.”
Let’s see, ‘moderate’: John McCain, ‘pure candidate’: Barack Obama. How’s that “Hope and Change” working for you?
Can anyone explain the benefits to me of libertarian purity? That is, except to opponents of libertarian ideas.
Well, its like this, if a woman announces that she is going to put out as soon as she gets into your car, are you going to bother to buy her dinner? Or respect her in the morning?
Does that mean that purity is the only way to possess or express principles? It seems to me this is a shortcut to avoid making difficult decisions.
Keeping on the same analogy, you need to make your candidate earn your favor. You need dinner and a movie. You need for them to understand that there is a quid pro quo for your vote. And its not “Well you suck less than the other guy, so I’m voting for you because it is looking at a 20 year timeline for the collapse of my country, vs a 4 years with the other guy”
Thats like arguing that suicide via heavy-metal poisoning is better than a bullet to the brain, because it takes longer. If you vote for the moderate and win, it just takes longer and is more depressing to watch, but the end point is the same regardless.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how either of your two responses address my questions. The combination of your responses suggest you wish to appear virtuous while being paid off in private. I hope there is something I’m missing here.
I think you might have missed the point (possibly on purpose), but let me try again. If you don’t at least attempt to be virtuous, nobody will respect you. You have already announced that your giving it up without foreplay. Or let me put it to you this way: Politicians pursue votes, not voters. They do this be pandering to voters concerns and passing the agendas that will get the voters to give them their votes. If you announce preemptively that they already have your vote, then they will have no interest in your agenda, you have already given up your power over them. They will pursue the moderate and liberal interest as a means to further expand their political power, rather than attempt to convince those voters as to why a libertarian philosophy currently following is superior.
Thank you for the time you’ve spent replying to my questions. I wasn’t asking from the perspective of why one individual should support one candidate or another, but how libertarian ideas can attract new supporters nationally. Ultimately, I feel that the goal has to be governance. I don’t think liberty can be defended or expanded effectively if not represented in government.
Sure. The benefit is that your movement stays pure. To understand big-L Libertarians, you have to understand the grandaddy of the movement, Murray Rothbard. Rothbard’s wasn’t really so much interested in the political process or changing American politics as he was defining Libertarianism as a radical, counter-everything movement that would practically by definition be powerless, but would clearly and unambiguously stand for something completely different than what either liberals or conservatives offered. Purity is therefore an end in itself, and not a means to the end of any meaningful change in this country.
Thanks for the reminder, I hadn’t thought about Rothbard for 25 years. Best of luck.
As one who leans fairly libertarian, it would be a lot easier to take the ‘big L’ libertarians seriously if they weren’t all trying out for an appearance on ‘Spot the Loonie’.
It may not be an accurate assessment overall, but it often appears that they would rather have everything fail catastrophically instead of offering even the slightest compromise, even (or often especially) if that compromise may result in an improvement (even if small or local in scope).
The attitude behind that seems to be that if we can’t get there, all at once, by tomorrow, then it’s useless to even take that first step and at least start moving in that direction.
The lesser of two evils may still be evil, but it *is* also lesser. I’d rather get a paper cut than be stabbed in the gut, and I’d rather see even someone who meets some of my requirements get elected over someone who meets none of them. Even if they don’t get us there all of the way, at least the basic ideas have a chance of getting out into the general consciousness, and that is a start, even if a small one.
I disagree. Barack Obama has done far more to advance libertarian ideas by acting as a foil than George Bush, who while half-heartedly voiced support, promoted policies that were clearly bigger government monsters. I don’t see alot of sun light between NCLB, Medicare PartD, TARP, and Obamacare, except that Obamacare and TARP were more effectively able to serve a rallying point for the opposition because of who their supporters were.
I do agree with that, though I never really saw GWB as even giving much, if any, lipservice to libertarian principles. IMHO, the last ‘libertarianish’ president was Reagan (though certainly not perfect, either).
My problem with the idea of (Obama, etc.) advancing the principles using the worst adversaries of those principles is that they can do an astonishing amount of damage in the process, and I’m much more concerned with mitigating the damage, even if the gains are very small to start with.
Parenthetical fail:
” …of (Obama, etc.) advancing the principles using the worst adversaries of those principles …”
should be:
… of advancing the principles using the worst adversaries of those principles (Obama, etc.) …
But here is the real question in my mind: What is the end-game in supporting moderate candidates? It seems like they and their liberal counterparts are both heading toward the same destination, but are just arguing over how far down to push the accelerator petal. If your going to have the same endpoint anyways, why not vote on principal?
I guess that my response would be ‘exactly what principle are we voting for, and what are we getting for it?’. If our activities are having no visible effect on the landscape (apart, maybe from the timing of the failure), then those activities are tantamount to masturbation, possibly satisfying, but useless in having any real impact. Practicality *has* to have at least some part in this play, or we’re all just stuck in Plato’s cave again.
I’m not arguing that we should be blindly picking what appears to be the ‘most moderate’ candidate.
In lieu of the tone of the parent article, my position is that we would do much better to:
(A): communicating the basic tenets of libertarianism in a way that doesn’t drive off those who might otherwise be potential allies (the purity group would, apparently, prefer to be relegated to permanent irrelevance, rather than actually make any actual progress), and
(B): do what we can to minimize the damage, until we can get some traction in the political (and public) arena.
Just from my personal experience, I’ve had many more positive responses to the concepts of a libertarian viewpoint by *not* beating them over the head with a dogmatic, inflexible, ideology.
I think that there are quite a lot of people out there who would (at least) give some consideration to many libertarian ideas, if only we wouldn’t treat them like idiots because they don’t buy the whole package, ‘Right Now!, and if you don’t, you’re a moron!’.
Maybe things really do have to end in catastrophe before real changes are made, that does seem to be human nature. I’d at least like to make some meagre attempt to avoid catastrophe (or, if nothing else, delay it for a while), if possible.
At this point, you’re basically arguing that you cant win on principal and that your ideology is a losing proposition. That you’re a loser, and you best strategy is to back a winner thats not going to screw you over as much as the other guy. That your best hope its to play to the clock, and pray for a miracle. Good luck with that. I would prefer to back the person whose ideas I believe in, and if its a failure, I suspect that I will see a quick demise of the country and then we can start the rebuilding process. Postponing the crash via moderates is just going to further deplete the resources and allow the infrastructure to crumble.
What principle (not principal, which is an administrator) are you arguing for?
Specifically?
That’s the big thing with the ‘big L’ libertarians. They speak, oh so highly, of principle, but they don’t really articulate a particular principle for which they’re actually going to go to the mat for.
There’s the ‘smaller government’ bit, and the greater individual freedom view, which I do support, and there’s the more or less ‘complete anarchy’ viewpoint, which I don’t (anarchy is fragile, and the aftermath is *always* worse than the alternatives).
So, you’re one of the ones who want things to fail faster, on the off chance that what follows just *might* agree with your worldview more than the current situation.
But, here’s the thing: In *EVERY* single case where civilisation has failed that badly, what follows has never been that much better than what it replaced (and it is almost always worse). There will be *no* libertarian paradise following the collapse you apparently desire so much. Historically speaking, the aftermath will be even worse that what we currently have. Is that what you’re really going for?
Reality (which you appear to revile) *is* about choosing the least worse option, sometimes. Principle and ‘clarity of vision’ mean bupkiss when you cannot apply them in any real world scenario. Oh, they *feel* good, but they don’t work in a vacuum.
So, yeah, you’re feeling pretty good after that self gratification, in your mom’s basement, but after all is said and done, you haven’t actually *accomplished* anything. What you’ve done has had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER, apart from a warm fuzzy feeling in your shorts. Your viewpoint is the epitome of failing to affect the system.
You choose your ‘ideologically pure’ option, which means absolutely nothing, and by doing so, you’ve enabled the very thing you rail against.
You’ve made the good the enemy of the perfect, and have chosen to opt out of any rational engagement in the system. You’re letting the people that you most disagree with, win.
How does that feel?
You don’t change things by wishing that they were different. You have an effect by doing what is possible, and working with that as a base.
It’s not glamorous, and it’s not immediately fulfilling, but it works better than being a condescending asshole who thinks that the only way to succeed is to denigrate everyone who doesn’t toe your line (and how is that different from the two current major parties?).
Sorry, I’m an engineer, not an english major ( its not even my first language). I would argue that what your doing has no effect since your not advancing your stated agenda. Also, unless your arguing that all of the governments currently in existence are the absolutely worst governments in history, your statement that governments that fail rapidly are “always” replaced with something worse is just wrong. Many times governments are replaced by superior systems (see eastern europe), not always, but in a large enough number as to show it is not a statistical fluke. Since you appear to prefer minor sexual references, why are you giving up your virginity(vote) to someone who doesn’t respect you? Sometimes it’s better to save yourself for the right person. If youre a sure thing, why would a political party go to the effort to advance your agenda? To bastardize a Churchill story, if your not even going to argue price, now what are you?
You say that you’re an engineer (and I am, as well, an EE), but you apparently prefer the ideal to the practical. Ideal is nice in theory, it’s a good place to start when setting up a model, but only someone in severe denial (or a wishful worldview) would axiomatically treat the model as the reality.
Being an engineer is to be *entirely* in the world of the practical, instead of the ideal. If you really are an engineer, you’ve lost that viewpoint.
There’s an old joke about the difference between the ideal and the practical (between the scientist and the engineer): The joke goes, a scientist and an engineer are in a room, about 50 feet from a beautiful woman. They are told that they can approach her by walking half the current distance at each turn. The scientist complains, “I’ll never get there”. The engineer observes, “I can get close enough”.
I’m not saying that all current governments are worse than their predecessors. I’m saying that, in every scenario where a given government was allowed to collapse (due to electoral failure, or by malfeasance of those who govern), or for other similar reasons, the subsequent government was never an improvement. This isn’t about an active takeover (for those rare cases where they occur). You’re trying to argue that allowing things to fail, catastrophically, is preferable to trying to repair them.
You’re trying *much* too hard to present yourself as some sort of ideological paragon. Purity only matters when it has value on the market.
You think I’m giving it up the the easiest target. You’re wrong.
I’m making an effort to move in the direction I think things should go. I’m not (unlike you) tilting at windmills, begging everyone to, ‘please, sir, pay attention to me, and validate my worldview’.
Ideological purity only works in the comics (and even there, only rarely). I don’t necessarily think that efforts at compromise will always result in a net gain, but I do know that acting like a stubborn 2 year old is only going to fail in the long run.
Funny that you should fixate on some ‘sexual’ content in my argument. I’m not particularly vested in that kind of viewpoint. I mentioned it primarily as a comparative argument, i.e., that your argument is to reality, as masturbation is to consensual sex. One has real meaning, and one does not (and if you are still in the dark about it, it would be your argument that is tantamount to masturbation).
The thing here is, what does your ‘ideologically pure’ viewpoint actually offer you in terms of real world results?
By pretending that your purity position matters, you relinquish any actual effect on the system that you claim to wish to affect.
Your efforts are tantamount to pissing into a hurricane fan, and, ultimately, just about as satisfying.
When you get right down to it, what is it that you really want?
Do you want to move in the direction of a more libertarian system?
And, if so, do you really think that tilting at windmills is a useful approach to that goal, or could it be that, maybe, just maybe, the little gains made by compromising (and letting the good have a chance, even if it isn’t perfect) are very real steps in the right direction?
I’d love to have some kind of unlimited ability to magically make the world a more libertarian one. But that’s not going to happen.
Since that won’t happen, it makes sense to at least try to travel in the direction we prefer, even if we have to tag along with others that we may not always agree with.
Simply put, for your way, people point and laugh.
For my way, they may still point and laugh, but we can, at least, potentially ‘convince’ them to go in our direction for a while.
One way has some chance, the other, not so much.
I’d rather make *some* progress in my preferred direction, instead of standing in the way, screaming like a madman in the street.
Also,
Just for grins,
How many people, how many of your friends and family, have you converted to your point of view, by calling them morons or prostitutes?
Obviously, the best way to convert the ignorant masses is to denigrate them, and let them know just how superior you are.
Upon re-reading your last post, I acknowledge that your response has some merit that I misinterpreted, and that the tone of my reply was less than civil, given then points you were making. Sorry for that.
Oh :)
Guess I might have to offer up a bit of a ‘mea culpa’ for my response, it may also be a bit more harsh that is warranted.
Define “moderate.” You could consider quite a few Republicans both now and in the past “moderate libertarians” (like Reagan) and all of them helped make progress for liberty. But then there are Republicans that you could call “moderate” that aren’t libertarian much at all (like Bush).
well, I guess everything now seems to be so perfect and that’s the best of it, I really liked it. thanks much for all the help.
thanks,
What is SEO
And here I always thought that the most basic problem with Libertarians getting ahead in government was that they didn’t believe government should pre-empt other activities….
Well, it need not be lockstep, but there does need to be general agreement on certain principles, otherwise there is nothing to distinguish a libertarian movement/cause/organization from any garden variety conservatives.
Tom, you call yourself a libertarian. So do I. So does Glenn Reynolds. What do we share that separates us from the GOP, or some other flavor of conservatism? Or even moderation?
Trying to be all things to all people is a certain path to being nothing to anybody.
Post new comment