Libertarian Moment? Feh.
I am increasingly convinced all this "libertarian moment" stuff is a pile of crap. I am watching the two Presidential candidates garnering the most attention, and incredibly the least bad of the two is an out-of-the-closet Marxist.
mesocyclone:
No, this isn't a libertarian moment. It is a libertine moment, and lot's of libertines are statists.
Look even at the gay marriage ruling. It is a statist's delight. In a flash, the reach of thousands of laws has been extended - without any consideration and without democratic process. At the same time, because of Kennedy's wording, the protection of freedom of religion has been reduced to at best a protection of freedom to worship inside of a designated bulding, with a pastor who has lost his ability to officiate at state recognized weddings. In other words, the state's recognition of religious freedom has changed from a recognition of the right to live a religious life to merely the right to participate in a ceremony.
July 21, 2015, 11:05 ammx:
The right of other people to get married, no matter how much you believe your religion forbids it, does not in any way impinge on your right to live a religious life yourself.
July 21, 2015, 11:46 amvikingvista:
It is not an ideological libertarian moment. Ideologically, people today are roughly just as economically ignorant and politically naive as ever (drug prohibition, immigration prohibition, nationalist collectivism, ethnic collectivism, class collectivism, police authoritarianism, judicial authoritarianism, legislative authoritarianism, specialist authoritarianism, militarism, employment commodification, demand commodification, mercantilism, countless overt mysticisms, etc.)
But, perhaps more than ever, people of the world are favoring, enjoying, grasping, and even demanding the *fruits* of libertarian action (sharing economy, consumer-initiated regulation, independent contractor arrangements, unfiltered Internet, etc.)
We may nearly all be socialists now in our speech and analyses, but we're looking more like libertarians in our private activities, and in those things we value most in our lives.
July 21, 2015, 11:52 amVangel:
I could not agree more. There are no libertarians among the GOP or Democratic Party candidates. They all seem quite comfortable with the welfare/warfare state.
July 21, 2015, 11:53 amSamWah:
But they plan to make it so.
July 21, 2015, 12:06 pmIke Pigott:
To be fair, many Christians treat it like it is a rock concert. #SmokeMachinesForJesus
July 22, 2015, 5:15 amIke Pigott:
My hope -- and this is completely unrealistic -- is that Trump and Sanders make enough noise to end up as nominees, and open the door for a third-party option.
But in reality, they are only being allowed to stick around for their ability to stretch the window of acceptability, so that the nominee doesn't have to take very many embarrassing steps to tack back to the center.
July 22, 2015, 5:20 amErikTheRed:
I think that the declaration of a "moment" is immensely premature... but libertarianism and anarchocapitalism as ideologies are growing by leaps and bounds. Keep in mind that it was only three decades ago that the joke was you could fit every libertarian in the US into a house party in a one-bedroom NYC apartment (probably not much of an exaggeration, and it led to Rothbard and Rockwell attempting some unsavory alliances that haunt the movement to this day). But anyway, there are millions of us now. And to me the really cool thing is that, despite the continuous infighting, libertarians and ancaps seem to be having the most fun. The mainstream political parties and thinking are like these giant piñatas just begging to be whacked silly with satire, and we're doing it with great joy and aplomb. The world is full (Greeve, Venezuela, etc.) of real-life examples of why statism is a horrible mess. Check out the Facebook pages like "Anarchyball" and "Muh Roads" that happily meme away the status quo. I've personally seen the effects it has on my friends... eventually the old BS just gets worn down. And why not? It feels so good to let go and no longer have to try to justify it. The "moment" is still aways away, but we're definitely on track to get there.
July 22, 2015, 10:03 ammesaeconoguy:
Only 1 party has a viable candidate that can be reasonably described as “libertarian-esque.”
[The other party’s #2 guy is a socialist.]
As the Oblunder Administration has demonstrated, the left wants to do everything via force of the state, including destroy the economy, which is arguably the most important issue today.
If you want any chance of salvaging what is left of this country, you’re going to have to accept the right’s religious and other foibles. They are the only ones who have a moderate* clue about private property rights and economic non-interventionism.
*Diminshing, rapidly.
July 22, 2015, 5:33 pmVangel:
I think that the declaration of a "moment" is immensely premature... but libertarianism and anarchocapitalism as ideologies are growing by leaps and bounds.
As an anarchocapitalist I hope that you are right. But from what I can tell the public intellectuals are still heavily on the side of the statists and are doing all that they can to smear anyone who does not agree with their big-government philosophy. While many are hoping that a crisis that exposes the Keynesian system to be a failure will strengthen the position of the liberty movement it is just as likely that populist sentiment will turn to loudmouths who pretend that they have solutions and will appeal to the emotions of people who are too scared to think rationally.
July 23, 2015, 1:17 pmNimrod:
The overall political strategy of statists appears to be one of:
1) we let you do whatever libertine thing because we couldn't care less
2) you give us all your money and thus control of the economy because that's what we're really after
I mean think about it. 1) company supports gay marriage 2) gay marriage supporters end up voting for company's regulatory capture, tax subsidy, etc., totally unaware of what's going on or not caring about it.
July 27, 2015, 11:22 pmMJ:
I hope they do too, if for no other reason than that it sours the electorate on the two major parties for a couple of years. Voters can look at them and their candidates and say "Seriously, that's the best you could come up with"? It probably wouldn't have any lasting effect, but it would present one of those "teachable moments" as our president likes to say.
July 29, 2015, 10:06 amMJ:
It's truly an unholy alliance.
July 29, 2015, 10:10 amVangel:
Voters can look at them and their candidates and say "Seriously, that's the best you could come up with"? It probably wouldn't have any lasting effect, but it would present one of those "teachable moments" as our president likes to say.
But why is Trump a worse candidate for President than Romney or McCain? Or Sanders worse than Clinton or Warren? I may be put off by Bernie's ignorance of economics but his far more peaceful foreign policy stance is much more appealing than those that want to support more meddling abroad and more war.
July 29, 2015, 10:58 amMJ:
Name one serious policy proposal that Trump has advanced.
I'm indifferent toward Sanders and Warren. They seem indistinguishable from one another. At least Sanders admits his socialist leanings. But what good is a "more peaceful foreign policy" if he still manages to take our country apart from within? Just useless.
August 4, 2015, 5:18 pmVangel:
Name one serious policy proposal that Trump has advanced.
I have no clue. Why would I pay attention to any of the proposals of these clowns?
I'm indifferent toward Sanders and Warren. They seem indistinguishable from one another. At least Sanders admits his socialist leanings. But what good is a "more peaceful foreign policy" if he still manages to take our country apart from within? Just useless.
I would say that it is better than having some fool get in a nuclear exchange and spend just as much. Note that Paul Ryan proposed a budget that was not very different than Obama's. The GOP is not serious and neither are the Democrats. The only moral position that you can defend is the anarchocapitalist one but I doubt that they have anyone running now that Ron Paul has gone away.
August 5, 2015, 8:05 pmMJ:
Fair enough. I guess I just worry more about threats from within than from without. Even the idiot warmongers who want to militarily engage Iran (no shit, I've had a relative suggest this to me) are marginalized enough by the American electorate and Congress that they can't get any traction. On the other hand, I do seriously worry about what a populist/socialist type like Warren or Sanders could do if given the presidency. Most Dems are so devoid of novel ideas (and principles) that they would probably happily go along with whatever either of those two suggested.
August 6, 2015, 8:33 am