This is odd. You appear to have decided I'm not representative, because anyone can self-describe as whatever they want -- yet you bring up people like Alex Jones? Couldn't I say the same about him?
I am making the simple observation that you are nowhere near the views of the bulk of people I've encountered who self-identify as "libertarian." I don't think
they would identify you as libertarian, but rather as a "statist" or worse. My own concept of the scope of the label isn't relevant here. I'm discussing the views of actual libertarians I encounter.
Every political theory has less extreme forms. It's just my observation that with liberalism and conservatism, if you're less extreme, you're called a "moderate liberal/conservative" (actually conservatives these days might call you a RINO because they're becoming more extreme). With libertarians, those with more moderate views are generally perceived by other libertarians as not being libertarians at all. You, however, are entitled to your own self-definition. It would be interesting if you went to a libertarian discussion forum and started explaining your views. I'm pretty sure I know what the general reaction would be.
So far as Alex Jones, I think you know that in context, I wasn't holding him out as a typical libertarian. We were discussing the relationship between libertarianism and conspiracy theories. Because there is no polling data, I had offered my experience reading/listening to conspiracy theorists and libertarians, then I added that many influential cters identify as libertarians, listing Jones as an example. To be clear: I doubt most self-described liberatarians are cters. I have a strong impression, however, that there is a higher percentage of libertarians among cters than in the general population, based on my experience, the presence of influential cters being libertarians, and the obvious ideational link between the two: a general suspicion of government.
Well, if you decide in advance that an entire political philosophy is extreme, then obviously everyone who adheres to it will be seen by you as extreme.
No, only the extreme form is, by definition, extreme. It's the actual people who identify as libertarians and vote for their candidates (Paul being the most prominent) who are generally extreme.
I think you're engaging in a form of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. You claim all libertarians are extremists, and when I say that I consider myself a libertarian who's not extreme, and explain why, you imply that I am not really a libertarian. That's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose sort of construct.
No, I'm making an empirical observation, not engaging in the semantics of trying to define the scope of a theory.
And sometimes criticism can also be cartoonish.
And I wish their weren't so many libertarians who are essentially self-parodies. Hey, maybe it's just the ones who are loudest and most active online? Those are the ones I've been encountering going all the way back to the Usenet days. I'm perfectly willing to assume that there are a larger number of quiet ones who are more moderate. Unfortunately, there is precious little polling data on libertarians so I have only my observations to go on.
I'm sure most libertarians do think the government should be out of the marriage business. I agree with the general concept as well. What's the problem with that? Why should the government be involved in regulating marriages? Isn't it better to debate the issue than just decide that it is by definition an extreme position and not worthy of consideration?
Oh, but I
have debated the issue, and more than one time on P&N alone. I have explained it in response to the "government should be out of the marriage business line" and I never get a response.
For starters, when a marriage is dissolved, there must be rules for division of assets and child custody. A written contract can govern this, but because of the nature of marriage as having special cultural significance, the vast majority of people who get married do not execute a written contract. Therefore, the courts must apply a set of rules for asset division and custody to apply by default where there is no written agreement. If the state does not recognize when a marriage does or does not legally occur, then there is no way to determine when those rules would or would not apply. If everyone who got married executed a written contract, then the state wouldn't need to recognize the marriage. The courts could just enforce the contract as they would any other. But that isn't the case.
That is the age old reason that the state recognizes marriage. There are also reasons of more recent vintage, having to do with public benefits.
I don't mind if people consider all this and disagree. What I find irritating is when the argument is made "the government should stay out of the marriage business" without even considering the reasons it recognizes marriage to begin with. It's a kneejerk ideological position.
Aside from that, the point of posting the relevant LP platform plank is to illustrate that there is acceptance on the part of many libertarians that it isn't always practical to try to get exactly what you want -- that you have to accept the limitations of the way things are and try to do the best you can within existing structures.
I agree with this - the platform represents a compromise relative to what the typical rank and file libertarian wants. The trouble is that the rank and file seems to be pretty extreme. I don't consider the positions I see advanced to be tenable, and in most cases, they aren't carefully considered. It's usually an automatic answer of, "government should get out of X." That is the very definition of an ideological, rather than practical, approach to politics.
That's the entire point of moderation, so again, by not giving it a great deal of weight, you are (intentionally or unintentionally) restricting your vision to seeing only the extreme elements.
Already covered. Again: I am not restricting my vision of any theoretically moderate viewpoint. I'm relating my observations of actual libertarians.
Nobody gets everything they want. For example, there are liberals who want to ban all guns except for those used by the police and military. Should they be condemned as "extremist" for that position, which every sane person knows has an almost zero chance of ever happening?
Whether all out gun banning is an "extreme" position or not is debatable. I certainly think it is well beyond what is realistic. However, those on the left display a wide array of views on guns. Many leftists are "on the right" with respect to guns even if on the left on most other issues. I just don't see this degree of ideological variation among self-described libertarians and libertarian voters. Some variation, yes, but not the same degree.
It doesn't matter that some or even many conspiracy theorists are libertarians. It is 100% irrelevant. IMO, you are engaging in definitional guilt-by-association here.
No, my interest is in the reason for what I believe to be the link. Namely, that accepting an ideology which holds government in great suspicion and contempt would naturally lean you toward accepting theories which put the government as a bad actor in shadowy conspiracies. It's a pretty logical cause and effect. It's kind of like how being religious makes you more likely to reject evolution, even though all religious people do not reject evolution.
Certain types of viewpoints tend to encourage certain types of conspiracy theories. I could rattle off a list of liberal conspiracy theories that arise out of liberal philosophy, and could do the same for conservatives. It doesn't mean anything about the philosophies themselves. I could also find nutcases on the left that would make liberalism look just as bad as Alex Jones makes libertarians look. And on the right, well, the nutcases are all over the place.
No doubt, different ct's appeal to different political philosophies to varying degrees. For example, the JFK assassination being a CIA conspiracy might appeal more to liberals because JFK was a prominent liberal politician. Similarly, the 911 truth movement blaming a republican administration. However, an observation about the 911 ct: polling indicates that it seemed to actually diminish in popularity as Bush became so unpopular as to be irrelevant in his late second term, and continued to diminish after he left office.
This suggests to me that a number of liberals took up that view as a matter of political convenience, to discredit the Bush admin, then fell out of it after Bush went away because it was no longer politically useful. Those who remained, I believe, are heavily dominated by libertarians, because they actually believe it. The hypocrisy and dishonesty of the libs is one thing - it's all pervasive in our politics. But truly believing in something like that is something entirely different. It's scary.
I will concede that it is possible that libertarianism has its fair share of nuts, and perhaps a higher percentage than the two big political movements. But that's due to a variety of factors, many of them having nothing to do with the actual philosophy itself.
It isn't anything to do with what libertarianism theoretically could be. It has to do with the culture surrounding libertarianism as a movement. It's a culture of extremes, IMO. To be more specific, I think there is a growing number of young males, principally in the 20-40 age range, who are self-absorbed and nihilistic, byproducts of Amercan consumerism and materialism. These people view themselves as iconoclasts and rebels. They reject authority because they want to be able to do whatever they choose, consequences be damned. They lean toward average to slightly above average intelligence, but think of themselves as quite a bit more intelligent than they actually are. This bloc IMO is the growth vector of libertarianism. It's the "South Park" libertarians. This, of course, is just my theory based on observation.
I'm sure liberals and conservatives don't get up every morning thinking "it's another great day to impose the police state!" So I should have chosen my wording more carefully there. But as I like to say, people demonstrate their priorities by their actions. Freedom is way, way down the list for both of the big parties, and our freedoms have been continually eroding while government size and involvement in our lives has been continually increasing. How is it unreasonable to recognize these trends and oppose them getting any worse?
I don't think freedom has been eroding as government has gotten larger. I've made this case several times on P&N, that we are way more free now than we were in the distant past when government was smaller. I'm aware that this "eroding liberty" is a common belief among libertarians. To be clear, I do think we've lost some since 911 but that isn't about the size of government in particular, and it's a shorter term fluctuation. In the longer term, I believe personal liberty has increased. Maybe not corporate liberty, but definitely personal liberty. This post is getting long so I'll leave it at this: it is a fallacy to equate the mere size of government with the presence or absence of personal liberty. One could have a tyrannical state with no safety nets and very little bureaucracy or business regulation.
Well, again, if you define a movement as extremist and irrational, you're only going to see irrational extremists in it.
I will also again point out that if you think libertarianism is "extreme" by definition, then you are essentially saying that this nation was founded on extremism. Because the founding fathers were strongly infuenced by libertarian thought, and the nation as it was originally set up is much, much closer to what libertarians would like to see than what we have now.
I don't think the nation was founded by libertarians. I think it was founded by people whose views must be considered in historical context. It was also founded by people who passed a law criminalizing the act of criticizing the government, not 8 years after they enacted the Bill of Rights. History is a lot more complicated than the libertarian concept of an idyllic past gradually eroded by modern "big government."
- wolf
Facebook
Twitter