The mistake libertarians tend to make is in thinking that the state is the enemy. Actually, the state may well be on the libertarian side – but the neighbors, not so much. The thing is, relatively libertarian political orders have become more wealthy and more successful than less libertarian ones – and states know that.
So, states tend to impose more relative liberty than their populations would like – not full-on liberty, but more than the populations would like.
Instead of “impose more relative liberty,” it would be better to say “impose fewer restrictions.”
I think that it is generally true that people with ideology X tend to assume that most people really want a more X-like polity, but the evil System will not give it to them, when in fact the reverse may well be the case. Progressives believe that if the will of the people were followed, then we would have Progressive policies. Conservatives believe that if the people had their way, then Conservative policies would be followed. And libertarians are often guilty of reading into public opinion more libertarian sentiment than is really out there.
This is related to the issues posed by Jacob Levy. See this forum.
Hard to measure liberty relatube to preference. Voting is supposed to measure it.
Actually I think that many “14th Amendment Libertarians” are making the opposite (or perhaps opportunistic) mistake, and thinking the national state is a good device to use to enforce certain liberty rights on state and local jurisdictions. Most of the time – with a few notable exceptions as with guns and speech (so far) – it just ends up furthering progressive culture war causes without much improvement for economic liberty. And it is obviously in tension with principles of federalism and competitive governance. It’s like a price control for liberty.
For example, I really like and respect the CATO institute and practically everyone who associates with it. I’ve attended many events and enjoyed their deli sandwiches and white wine. I would be a very typical donor. But now I’ve received my second appeal from P.J. O’Rourke crowing about the triumph of Obergefell , a topic about which I would have thought there would remain some room in libertarian circles for respectful disagreement concerning the propriety of the federal government imposing the rule on the entire country.
Note that this is not necessarily a normative position on gay-marriage, but on whether SCOTUS ought to force the entire population to obey their position on the matter.
Putting such a ‘victory’ front and center in a plea for donations signals there is not any room left, which is discouraging to me.
I find it very annoying that they can come out in favor of something by claiming a right nobody heretofore imagined was supportive. I think it is most annoying they don’t see the problem in that logic.
To wit, either they are finding a right that was there the entire time and they never told us, or they are making it up and changing the meaning of the law they are using as justification.
For PJ to revel in it is like me shouting “hahaha, my referees are better at being paid off than yours!”
I think that it is generally true that people who want liberty with respect to issues X but not Y tend to assume that most people really want liberty-with-respect-to-issues-X-but-not-Y-like polity, but the evil System will not give it to them.
Isn’t that what it comes down to? No one wants 0 freedom. People want freedom for areas where it’s an advantage for them, and want to restrict freedom of others in areas that they think put them at a disadvantage or find repugnant.
“People want freedom for areas where it’s an advantage for them, and want to restrict freedom of others in areas that they think put them at a disadvantage or find repugnant.”
That’s really not true of libertarians. There are a lot of behaviors in others that I don’t approve of (prostitution and drug addiction, for example). But I favor lifting restrictions on freedom in those cases. Like most libertarians, my disgust reflex is not very strong. That said, gay sex is not appealing to me. But I certainly don’t think there should be legal restrictions on gays for that reason (any more than I think broccoli should be banned because I don’t like the taste).
As for advantage, I work in one of the few professions (tech) where licensing and credentialism haven’t taken over. I certainly would not favor degree or license requirements to keep competitors out of my industry or immigration restrictions to keep them out of the country.
No matter what tribe one is in, and no matter what one thinks, one is mostly wrong, and most people disagree with one’s beliefs in some important way. This is true of you, I, and all others. The echo chambers of the web, of media, of social structures, do not change this reality.
By the way, in my local politics, I see combined net outcomes that both favor and contradict the notion of “government as defender of libertarian views”
Defend in that even though congestion is high, sub-dividing lots and building up apartments is being allowed. Opposed in that the costs and restrictions and government racket-fees charged on those things is high.
I do not think government defends or opposes any set of rights, rather, it is somewhat restrained by law and economics, and endlessly thirsty for more subjects and more money.
Side with the activity that supports more subjects and more money, and government will always find a way to side with you.
I think it’s pretty clear there’s a lot more libertarian sentiment than measured by the Libertarian Party vote share. I believe surveys come up with around 20-25% of people as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don’t have any illusions that there is a silent libertarian majority out there though — there’s a lot of work left to do.
There is a tradeoff between Freedom and Security, and most people want both.
Relative to what they currently enjoy in America today, more people want more security than want more freedom.
Me too, now that I’m married with kids. That’s why I left the Libertarians and became Republican. I know Ayn Rand had no kids, and I’m pretty sure Heinlein also had none, tho he had 3 wives.
Most advocates of free-love & sexual promiscuity have been, are, and are likely to be Leftists, wanting the state give economic security while they enjoy promiscuous freedom. Most responsible folk want less promiscuity, and lower taxes on themselves (the responsible middle class).
There’s also the unfortunate reality that so many Libertarians seem less trustworthy than most conservatives, with a higher ratio of those willing to violate agreements in their own favor, if obligations are “too hard” for them at the moment.
I also think that the Christian religion, in setting cultural norms that are economically reasonable, has been crucially supportive of Western Civilization and US freedoms. As Libs and Dems become more anti-Christian, and the morals of society decay, and more people make more irresponsible and non-constructive decisions. This leads to more calls for more gov’t economic security.
Consider the increasing calls for a gov’t funded Universal Basic Income — a terrible idea which will be very destructive if ever tried. Instead, a gov’t program of Universal Basic Job (or Guaranteed Basic Job) would offer work for money. Neither is “Libertarian”, but UB Job is more Lib oriented.
As robots become more popular, the desire for more economic security will make society less Libertarian than it is now.
Speaking as a non-Libertarian, I am sure that the Libertarians are overjoyed to lose you to the Republicans.
wow
I wish I could find any of these libertarians.
Is all the free love and sexual promiscuity at the after-party following the 3 hour discussions of Objectivism?
You forgot the childish libertarian part.
I got non-sexuals on one side and promiscuity of the other, and you are ok with that?
ooh, childless
Sorry
Arnold, you said
Instead of “impose more relative liberty,” it would be better to say “impose fewer restrictions.”
The words were chosen after some thought.
Your formulation has it that government “imposes” restrictions on an unwilling population, restrictions that would not exist in a smaller-government world. My point is that government not only “imposes” fewer restrictions than a majority of the population wants but also prohibits restrictions that could be enforced in the absence of a government.
In an anarchy/minarchy there would be private enforcers of speech codes, guilds, trade barriers of all sorts, morals, etc., etc., etc. We enjoy many of our liberties despite our neighbors’ preferences, because such private enforcers are shut down by a government that imposes (relative) liberty.
I should note that we still have private actors who encourage such speech codes, guilds, trade barriers etc., but they are largely limited to a) persuasion and b) getting enough people to petition the government that it fears the consequences of not using its forces to impose those restrictions. My point is that the government bias is to resist such restrictions, overall.
Also, restrictions that generate revenues are obvious exceptions. Government is not a principled, but a pragmatic libertarian: it seeks liberty to increase the population’s wealth, that it may be more effectively taxed.
“And libertarians are often guilty of reading into public opinion more libertarian sentiment than is really out there.”
That’s definitely true for young libertarians. We older libertarians have come to realize what carnival freaks we really are.