There's a fairly interesting discussion about libertarianism at Balloon Juice. The latest post can be found here, with links to the others. The question they're dealing with is why libertarians rarely take on corporatism, with mistermix arguing that libertariansm is focused on property rights, therefore concerning itself more with regulatory intrusion upon those rights.
But I don't buy it. Sorry to be glib, but the reason that America's so-called libertarians rarely focus on corporatism - and why they're satisfied to stop at mere rhetoric when they finally do - is that they are, almost to a man, a group of white, male assholes who either have property of some sort or who assume that they will get it soon and want to make sure their rights as property owners are secured when they do. They are or, more likely, think they are great captains of industry, Galtian heroes who are forging civilization itself from the earth's raw materials with their bare, calloused hands.
I consider myself to be a libertarian of sorts, perhaps a civil libertarian. Most Democrats are; we accept that certain rights are essential to our society and, most importantly, we want those rights to be applied to every single person in this society, all the time. I dare you to find a 'libertarian' who can say the same.
Update: Welcome to those from Crooks & Liars! (I was going to say 'welcome Crooks & Liars, but the link isn't from Fox News or anything. . .)
Regardless of what their motivation might be, the notion that all non-governmental actors have equal power in their dealings with one another seems to be a fundamental assumption of libertarians.
In other words, libertarianism is a thought experiment about the workings of an alternate reality with only coincidental similarity to our own.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | January 13, 2011 at 12:28 PM
EXACTLY.
Of course if you have access to perfect information you collectively can make perfect choices and have a perfectly functioning economic market.
And then there's reality, where a hands-off approach by the government only and always means that them what has, gets.
Posted by: oddjob | January 13, 2011 at 01:13 PM
Not really. The assumption is actually that, morally speaking, it shouldn't matter that they begin with unequal standing. *trails off into abstract argument about shortening tall people and Stupid Helmets for smart people...*
Posted by: Mandos | January 13, 2011 at 01:34 PM
"Them that has will get,
them that's not will lose..
So the Bible says
and still it's news.."
Posted by: MR Bill | January 13, 2011 at 01:42 PM
At least in my experience, Mandos, libertarians argue that relationships such as employer-employee and business-consumer are balanced with respect to power.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | January 13, 2011 at 02:46 PM
I think the key to libertarian thinking is the assumption that only government can truly hinder the exercise of liberty. Private entities cannot. Thus, corporatism (without government aid) is not really important. This is wrong, but that't the assumption.
Posted by: Joe S | January 13, 2011 at 02:59 PM
The other thing about Libertarianism is that they don't realize, or care to realize, that we don't live in some kind of utopia.
Posted by: Phil Perspective | January 13, 2011 at 04:26 PM
At least in my experience, Mandos, libertarians argue that relationships such as employer-employee and business-consumer are balanced with respect to power.
As balanced as morally required for the argument to function. They never argue that IBM has the same power as Jane Factoryworker, merely that Jane Factoryworker has the moral right to deny labour to IBM. (I used to troll the now defunct(?) Catallarchy and other libertarian blogs.)
That it generally hurts Jane more than IBM is not considered a relevant moral concept. The practical argument used to satisfy people with a more utilitarian bent of mind is that to disrupt this relationship creates inefficiencies and hidden suffering elsewhere and *Friedmanistic handwave*.
Remember that they object to what I understand is often called a "Rawlsian" interpretation of justice. Therefore, to them, if someone is born stronger (or with a bigger inheritance) it is immoral to deny him/her the advantage due his birthright, except insofar as he is forced to eat his later failures.
(Which in real life never happens, as we saw with TARP, which is, to me at least, *really* where the libertarian argument fails both practically and morally.)
Posted by: Mandos | January 13, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Libertarianism and libertarians are fundamentally silly people.
To get past age 21 and still call oneself a libertarian is to have failed to mature beyond the most juvenile and facile world view imaginable.
Posted by: Sir Charles | January 13, 2011 at 06:19 PM
I think the key to libertarian thinking is the assumption that only government can truly hinder the exercise of liberty. Private entities cannot.
Spot on, Joe.
relationships such as employer-employee and business-consumer are balanced with respect to power.
Ha! I've been up and down the corporate ladder. This is laughable. Even in those incredibly rare situations where an employee has a truly unique set of skills or knowledge the employer has much more power. The only sense in which this statement is true is when you add the word "collective" before employee.
Posted by: Eric Wilde | January 13, 2011 at 09:36 PM
That it generally hurts Jane more than IBM is not considered a relevant moral concept. The practical argument used to satisfy people with a more utilitarian bent of mind is that to disrupt this relationship creates inefficiencies and hidden suffering elsewhere and *Friedmanistic handwave*.
Hear, hear.
And yes, it does come down to old-fashioned privilege-protection tactics, subgroup I got mine; sucks to be you.
Posted by: litbrit | January 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM
Also, forget not the original blogospheric promulgation of the Pony meme, which was illustrated in terms of libertarians.
Posted by: Mandos | January 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM
First, welcome here in the gallery to our visitors from C&L. It's a nice, quiet, friendly blog, not much screaming, and very rarely even trolling. Mostly politics, but occasional ducks into discussions of movies, tv, and music -- and cats, two of us have diabetic cats (bbw, update?). We don't get mad with each other much -- well, one occasional commentator can raise the temperature a little -- but then you have my long, boring, 'scenic route' posts to calm everyone down -- they aren't as good as librium, but they come close. Whatever, we don't stay mad very long.
It's a nice place to fit in and, generally, be assured of intelligent discussion. We even could probably use an intelligent, honest conservative regular, just to remind us they exist, if they don't get headlines.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 14, 2011 at 09:36 AM
Oh, and before I get to my comment, if you get a 'we're sorry, we can't acept this data' just copy it, open COG in a new window or hit refresh, and try again, and it will go through. (And if the HTML is screwed up, it's probably my fault for forgetting to close tags. "Don't do as I do, do as I say' and close 'em, or they stay open until litbrit or Stephen can close them.
Now on topic:
There are at least 3 different types of 'libertarian' that really share little but the name. The 'left libertarians' are -- in my experience -- mostly concerned with civil liberties, They -- Ed Brayton is a good exqample -- are very strong on police misconduct, ridiculous laws and 'prohibitions,' and rarely make a major point of the 'economic libertarian position' -- except in terms of worrying about the 'Nanny state.' They don't even find the actions of government 'useless or harmful' -- as many centrist/economic libertarians do -- as long as they are watched carefully. (Thus Ed favors governmental action protecting freedom of/from religion, is very pro-gay rights, and has a wonderful piece today on the broken public defender situation and the states starving it that many of us will have particular interest in.)
The only reason they aren't good liberal Democrats are that they don't trust us to maintain our principles in power, they've seen liberals slip too often, and too frequently they still see the Conservative movement as it was in the Reagan era or beyond.
And, in my experience, many of them have been influenced by one or more of five writers, Mencken, Chesterton, and three SF writers, Heinlein, Poul Anderson, and Gordy Dickson. All of whom but Mencken are writers I love, but don't take as seriously as them -- Mencken is just simply a vile Neitzschean who gained his following because his targets were the same, originally, as many liberals of the time, the Creationists, the preachers and the 'booboisie' that nominated someone like Harding. (A number of left libertarians would be shocked to discover that some of their favorite Menckenian quotes were aimed against the New Deal -- HLM opposed every part of it -- and in favor of the same 'freedom of contract' that would have blocked their implementation. And his bigotry and anti-Semitism, and his refusal to condemn Hitler for any other reason than that he was a 'buffoon' and his opposition to WWII are skipped over as 'later crankiness,')
The 'economic libertarians' are a different group. They may pay lip service to 'freedom' they, again in my experience, tend to draw the line at areas that come under the aegis of religion or moral disapproval. In fact, while they 'talk theory' a like, I've found that most of the ones I've come in contact with have been relatively untheoretical.
I'd argue their main influences are a combination of the branches of 'classic American Protestantism' that teach that 'wealth is a sign of God's favor' -- not just the "Prosperity gospel" scam but classic American religious teaching from the episcopalians to the Methodists -- both of which have abandoned these ideas for the most part -- but with the grim visage of John Calvin visible shining through the clouds. That and a nostalgia for 'golden ages' of various types -- mostly ones they didn't actually live through but know from fiction or 'family stories' like the Depression, the "Greatest Generation" or the Eisenhower Era. (All of which they misunderstand pretty totally.)
They don't say "I've got mine" because these aren't the rich but the wannabes, who know that they would be rich if it weren't for a few 'unhappy accidents' and expect to 'make it' sometime 'real soon.' (Or they expect their kids to make it and want to make sure they have the chance and fuck everyone else.)
Meanwhile, that Calvinist 'face in the clouds' reminds them that maybe they are wrong and that they have risen 'too high' -- and they are scared to death of the people just beneath them 'catching up' and proving their unconscious doubts right.
(This is the group that most deserves Sir Charles' description as 'juvenile and facile.' The left libs are a bit too idealistic but adult, and the objectivists are too insane to be dismissed as merely 'juvenile.')
They, the objectivists, are the real psychopaths of the group. (45 years ago a friend said that while left-wing political systems fail because people can't be trusted to be good, honest, and other-centered to make them work, objctivism is the only system which fails because people refuse to be bad enough and selfish enough to make it work. Most people are simply incapable of ignoring their fellow humans' cries for help, are incapable of going against the million years of genetics that made us social animals.) Which isn't surprising in a movement whose founder had a 'school girl crush' on William Hickman, a criminal who committed maybe the single most disgusting crime in the entire 20s, details of which will be found in the cite, not here.)
In fact 'objectivism' is such a product of the 20s of the last century that it is amazing that it is still around. It comes not just from Rand, but from Mencken in his more Nietzschian moments, from the hero-worship of gangsters and bank robbers and murderers of the time -- though even Hollywood wouldn't touch the Hickman story or try and make him any less of a monster than he was. It comes from 'technocracy' and from the idea that 'democracy has shown itself a failure and needs a replacement' that was common then. There's even a touch of the older idea that 'artists' -- which they interpret broadly enough to include themselves -- "are free from the customary restraints of society."
These people are the ones who truly hate 'liberalism' because of the way it holds back and ignores the 'superior individual' -- and most objectivists will modestly wait a full five minutes before using themselves as an example. (And they aren't being hypocrites in accepting governmental aid despite this, because, after all, they have been so repressed and suppressed by society that it's only fair to make use of the chance to 'get something back' from this evil system.
Fortunately until recently objectivism was a 'college phase' that didn't have much effect on main-stream politics. But recently its' insane (but oh so tempting) appeal to self-glorification and support for selfishness has become one of the most ugly forms of the New Republicanism.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 14, 2011 at 11:16 AM
When I think about libertarians and their patron saints, I think about Hayek, Richard Epstein, Nozick, and Richard Posner (as well as Ayn Rand). In many ways, it came out of the reaction to the Keynsians and the social democrats here and in the rest of the Anglosphere. The theoretical bases of libertarians are very close to an archetype in America and elsewhere of the fundamentally self-interested business person. There is always a percentage of the population which is attracted to this type of philosophy. Of greater importance is why the population as a whole is skeptical of social democracy (or government involvement where the private markets work badly).
I think there are two reasons for this: (1) the 1960's-1970's inflation caused by oil shocks and insisting on fighting Vietnam while expanding the social welfare state; and (2) the fact that the have's in this country are majority White and the have-nots are majority people of color. You don't have the communitarian spirit that you have in smaller, homogenous European countries.
Posted by: Joe S | January 14, 2011 at 12:04 PM
One of the keys to understanding libertarianism is to realize how absolutely humorless and irony-deaf they are. I've read all of Ayn Rand's fiction, and it is unintentionally hilarious in its pomposity; and she is their Joan the Baptist. If people have the stomach for witnessing in real time how they rationalize every single thing that happens according to their hyper-self-serious ideology, I recommend skimming the comments at RealClearPolitics ~
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/comments/
The hivemind in action is entertainment at its darkest.
Posted by: Jonah | January 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM
You went there, Stephen, and you're right. I've been following the BJ posts and backtracking through some of the links, including Douthat's amusing assertions about the wonderful benefits of Libertarianism and its unique, blazing insights. (Good threads here and over at the BJ posts, btw.) Yes, there are some reasonable, sincere, decent people who self-identify as libertarian. I like some of the libertarian-leaning authors Prup mentions upthread, too. However, the whole Reason and think tank crowd are mostly useful or eager idiots furthering the goals of plutocracy and plutonomy. That's precisely why they're funded by the Kochs, despite the howls of protest otherwise (you see, they are bold, principled, independent, original thinkers). Plenty of self-described libertarians have no problem with abuse of power when it's done by a citizen or company, yet have a childish opposition to all things governmental. In fact, that's almost definitional for "libertarian" on the Reason-Cato-rightblogger circuit. The social contract requires compromises, balances, and readjustments, and a childish absolutism that denies the many benefits of the Commons misses that. Gadflies are useful, but as Tristero's written, pretty much everything good about libertarianism already exists in liberalism. It's not as if liberals don't criticize abuses of power by the government. Say one wants an "outside the box" discussion. Well, if one jettisons the silly starting premise that "the government is inherently bad," (or any of its variations) and instead asks, "what if?" about some measure or system or problem, a better discussion results.
Like John Kenneth Galbraith said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." That's often what "libertarianism" actually entails, and certainly that's the essence of Rand's "objectivism." A common breed of "libertarian" is white, middle to upper class, college-educated, and typically male. Perhaps more bookish, persecuted and conservative than some of their classmates in high school, they may have some genuine smarts, but at some point became convinced, through vanity or as a defense mechanism, that they were persecuted geniuses and the masses are lesser beings. The classic John Rogers quip applies to them: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." They typically deny how much they've personally benefited from public goods and the Commons. They discount luck and privilege, and believe in a sort of economic and social Calvinism, where one's station is overwhelmingly – or solely - the results of merit. Their ethos is "Screw you, I've got mine." They often discount history and reality – there was a Reason piece touting the golden age of freedom in America that ignored Jim Crow laws and that women couldn't vote. They give little thought to building a fair and sustainable system for everybody. They'd offended they don't get to personally veto any government measure they dislike. They spout off about "freedom" all the time, but operationally, they defend their own privilege and the status quo - or like the Reason-Cato gang, they fight to *further* concentrate power and wealth (whether inadvertently or disingenuously). They really really really hate paying taxes, and feel it's a personal affront, theft, or even slavery. They especially hate the social safety net. Not all are bigots, but at best, they're awfully cloistered, rigid and narcissistic in their world view, while at the worst, it's not a coincidence the "moochers" they're always railing against generally aren't white.
That portrait doesn't fit every libertarian, by any stretch. But a great deal of it sure as hell fits the crowd criticized here, at BJ, at Alicublog, TBogg's and around the liberal blogosphere. /rant
Posted by: Batocchio | January 14, 2011 at 03:50 PM
Wonderful to see a 'wandering scholar' here, and hope you stick around, Bat. I'll discuss your points later if I get a chance -- in the middle of watching a Laurel & Hardy marathon with my wife -- but had to say that.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 14, 2011 at 04:18 PM
Vagabond scholar, Prup, you idiot, stepping on your own line.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 14, 2011 at 04:22 PM
Haha, Prup, no problem - but that was more a rant and character sketch from me than a substantive treatise. I do think anthropology and the arts can sometimes explain political figures and political dynamics well, and better, than other approaches. But they can be inaccurate, too. Personal experience shouldn't be discounted, but it can give a skewed picture in isolation.
(Personally, I think Laurel & Hardy with your wife sounds like a much more pleasant and fruitful use of time!)
Posted by: Batocchio | January 14, 2011 at 07:00 PM
I became wary of the Libertarian Party when I learned how homophobic most of them are. I must have confused "libertarian" with "libertine."
Posted by: James M. Martin | January 14, 2011 at 07:14 PM
Batocchio:
what I did want to say in welcoming you here is that -- along with infinite ways of misspelling your name -- you bring a chance to recommend two of the best posts of the New Year, your two 'common ground' posts here and here.
His Eclectic Jukebox feature is also much worth paying attention to and I may have my own 'ecletic' suggestions as well...
Why is everybody e-mailing him warning him about Prup and Pakistani or 'Late 60s obscure' music?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | January 14, 2011 at 09:45 PM
Batocchio's post ftw!
Posted by: oddjob | January 14, 2011 at 10:31 PM
If you want total government control of your life, then don't vote for any Libertarian candidates. If you have no self control or any personal responsibility, then don't vote for Libertarians. If you think the Bill of Rights needs to be changed every time it becomes an inconvenient obstacle to some progressive or conservative pipe dream, then you shouldn't vote for Libertarians. If you want the US to be constantly messing around in other countries' affairs, getting our troops maimed and killed for no good reason, then don't vote for Libertarians.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect | January 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM
James M. Martin,
I think if you actually spoke with a few Libertarians, you would find that they could care less about a person's sexual orientation. I know I don't give a rip. As far as I'm concerned, gays have every right to be in the military and to marry. I could care less.
I suggest you give a listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano or John Stossel over on the Fox Business Channel.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect | January 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM
I think Judge Napolitano is kind of a scary dude. Yes, we share a couple of things -- admiration of Ralph Nader, contempt for the DHS and TSA -- but otherwise, I can't get on board with what I see as his crackpot ideas on 9/11 and his bizarre interpretations of the Constitution. Then we have his subbing for Glenn Beck -- I mean, really. If he understood what the values of this country are supposed to be, he wouldn't have anything to do with Glenn Beck, or with Fox.
Posted by: Lisa Simeone | January 15, 2011 at 01:05 PM
PI,
So are you suggesting that we have total government control over our lives since we have never had a lieertarian hold an office of significance in this country?
And I guess those pesky wage and hour laws, and job safety regulations, and consumer health protections, and the like deprive us of the freedom to toil for unlimited hours at low pay in unsafe conditions for our corporate masters to produce unsafe products for the consumer. Yes, that is a tragic loss of freedom.
As I said, silly and juvenile. If John Stossel is your hero than you've got a whole lot of growing up to do.
Posted by: Sir Charles | January 15, 2011 at 02:05 PM
(I will quibble with Sir C's question in that while since there are 435 representatives one is not necessarily in a position of consequence when one has been elected to the House of Representatives, Ron Paul is a duly elected member of the House, and I think being a member of the House is to hold an office of significance. Yes, Paul's presently a member of the Republican Party, but if his political philosophy isn't, at its core, libertarian then I don't know what a libertarian is.
Likewise Rand Paul is now a senator, although Rand Paul's voting record remains to be seen.
Otherwise? I could have made Sir C's comment myself.)
Posted by: oddjob | January 15, 2011 at 04:56 PM
Libertarianism works when you live alone on a desert island, but not otherwise.
Posted by: oddjob | January 15, 2011 at 04:57 PM
oddjob,
I have a hard time crediting anyone who is for forced pregnancy with being a libertarian.
They're just two more corporate whores with some additonal wacky ideas.
Posted by: Sir Charles | January 15, 2011 at 05:25 PM
Well, I for one have supported every single change made to the Bill of Rights. Clearly we've had 200+ years of constantly changing it, since we've never had a libertarian government.
Posted by: Stephen | January 15, 2011 at 05:25 PM
i think it might work on a desert island, provided one has the good fortune to either be part of the swiss family robinson, or be stranded with gilligan, the skipper, the professor, a couple millionaires, a movie star, a hometown girl, a good food supply, nice weather, material to build shelter and an electric generator, plenty of clothes for those festive occasions, etc.
on the other hand, it could turn out to be lord of the flies. which i assume is the reason for oddjob's specification of "alone."
Posted by: kathy a. | January 15, 2011 at 05:36 PM
Politically Incorrect, we had an enforced libertarian government in the late 19th Century. The Supreme Court in a series of cases imposed libertarian economic policy on the country. None of the things you claim came to pass. The late 19th Century libertarian utopia that was the United States intervened in dozens of times in Latin America and fought an explicitly imperialist Spanish American War. Even after imposing libertarian economic policy, the Supreme Court allowed brutal suppression of rights of people of color in the libertarian utopia. What libertarianism always provides in practice is brutal economic deprivation combined with a radicalization of society leading to erosion of civil rights and liberties.
Posted by: Joe S | January 15, 2011 at 11:32 PM