I’ve always been intrigued by the way that some Libertarians define their so called "liberty", and how the absolute imperative of them being allowed to do what they want is balanced against the fact that it denies that same liberty to other people.
If I were as eloquent as James Kelly, I would have written this article. Instead I suggest you might like to read it in its original form at Scot Goes Pop. It’s exactly what I would have said, if I’d had the wherewithal!!
There is an interesting tailpiece on the Welsh Referendum too, intelligently and amusingly written.
If I were as eloquent as James Kelly, I would have written this article. Instead I suggest you might like to read it in its original form at Scot Goes Pop. It’s exactly what I would have said, if I’d had the wherewithal!!
There is an interesting tailpiece on the Welsh Referendum too, intelligently and amusingly written.
I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, I'm not rich either so I wonder where that puts me on his scale? There are many strands to libertarianism, not just the American Right one. He perhaps should look at minarchism and the minimum state required for defence and civil liberties rather than the bloated state we have today.
ReplyDeleteYes that's interesting QM.
ReplyDeleteI consider myself to be libertatian in many things, and very much NOT in others.
I hope you left James a comment. I'm not sure that he reads this, or is aware that I've linked to it.
Libertarian Socialist or Anarcha-Communist here. I think a lot of Libertarian movements get hijacked by ignorant, racist Objectivists, and therein lies a major problem, because I actually find a lot to agree with from Libertarians who aren't idiots.
ReplyDeletetris
ReplyDeleteI like to take libertys where i can.
Thanks for the mention, Tris.
ReplyDeleteQuiet Man - yes, of course there are some people who believe in libertarianism without being rich themselves. Especially in the US - look at how many poor people voted for "Tea Party conservatives". I'm just struggling to see how it was in their own interests to do so, or how it will in any way enhance their 'liberty'.
I should clarify that in the previous comment I was unthinkingly using the word 'libertarianism' purely in the US sense - a sure sign of how they've hijacked the term!
ReplyDeleteYes Laz, I'm in agreement with you, but most movements have a range of support within them, and some of that is inevitably people hitching themselves to it for the ride, to cloak themselves in its legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteVery welcome James. As I said what you wrote was what I wanted to write.
ReplyDeleteAye, don't I know it Niko. :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Tris for the link to Mr. Kelly’s fine blog piece. Although I know very little about libertarianism as a political philosophy, I feel the urge to make a few comments on the term as it is used in the context of modern American politics.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism in its various forms clearly runs right across the spectrum of American politics from left to right. Not surprising I suppose that such a philosophy should find favor in a country born of revolution which toppled its monarchical government, and in which concepts of individual liberty are enshrined in constitutional text. It’s perhaps noteworthy that among Mr. Jefferson’s unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It was commented unfavorably at the time that he did not include property rights in his enumeration. But of course America was to be a nation without a hereditary aristocracy, so maybe he didn’t think to include the property rights right up front.
But we certainly have a modern political party, the Republican Party, to take care of Mr. Jefferson’s oversight. Mr. Kelly makes a great point in his comment about the Tea Party conservatives. It’s indeed ironic that the Tea Party is largely composed of poor and lower middle class people who support a political party whose policies run directly counter to their own economic self-interest. The Republican Party is the big money party it has remained since the anti-slavery party of Lincoln became the party of the corporate interests of burgeoning post-Civil War industrial America. It’s a party of and for the billionaires who have financed the so-called “grass roots” Tea Party movement. The Tea Party conservatives, with their “social conservative” values are being taken for a ride by the Grand Old Party which in reality has little but contempt for their values.
To the extent that libertarian thought takes the view that government itself should be eliminated or minimized, it’s not surprising that we have the constant American right wing blather about how we must decrease the size of the federal government in Washington. Ronald Reagan famously told us that “government is the problem.” The self same government he presided over and whose size he did nothing at all to contain. But on the left of the spectrum, many people with a libertarian viewpoint which embodied concerns about exploitation and economic inequality, found a home in the liberalism of FDR’s New Deal, and in its tattered remnant, the progressive wing of the modern Democratic Party.
It’s noteworthy that the recently passed health care bill is today facing a serious constitutional challenge on what might be considered a libertarian principle. The bill establishes the principle of universal health care coverage, and its own economic viability, with an “Individual Mandate” requiring all Americans not otherwise provided with health coverage to purchase a private health insurance policy. (With appropriate subsidies for low income Americans to pay for this massive gift to the private insurance companies.) A federal District Court has ruled that this provision of the bill is an unconstitutional overreach of the power of the federal government. It’s a matter that will ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court. The "libertarians" who occupy the board rooms of the massive health insurance companies may not in fact be all that pleased with this court challenge from Republican State Attorneys General who are happily pandering to their "libertarian" Tea Party constituencies.
tris
ReplyDeleteDanny got the urge.........
it shows
On Health Care, Justice Will Prevail
THE lawsuits challenging the individual mandate in the health care law, including one in which a federal district judge last week called the law unconstitutional, will ultimately be resolved by the Supreme Court, and pundits are already making bets on how the justices will vote.
But the predictions of a partisan 5-4 split rest on a misunderstanding of the court and the Constitution. The constitutionality of the health care law is not one of those novel, one-off issues, like the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, that have at times created the impression of Supreme Court justices as political actors rather than legal analysts.
Since the New Deal, the court has consistently held that Congress has broad constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The post on which Niko is commenting seems to have disappeared. Neither Danny nor I took it down. Weird. It will be reposted. Sorry about this...
ReplyDeleteThis is a two-part re-post of the single long comment which was posted briefly and then mysteriously disappeared. Tris assures me that he did not delete my original out of pure boredom and annoyance, and that it’s OK to post it again...LOL.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tris for the link to Mr. Kelly’s fine blog piece. I feel the urge to make a comment on the subject as it applies to current American politics.
Libertarianism in its various forms runs right across the spectrum of American politics from left to right. Not surprising I suppose that such a philosophy should find favor in a country born of revolution which toppled a monarchical government, and in which concepts of individual liberty are enshrined in constitutional text. It’s perhaps noteworthy that among Mr. Jefferson’s unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It was commented unfavorably at the time that he had omitted a mention of property rights in his enumeration. But of course America was to be a nation without a hereditary aristocracy, so maybe he didn’t think to include the property rights right up front.
But we certainly have a modern political party, the Republican Party, to take care of Mr. Jefferson’s oversight. Mr. Kelly makes a great point in his comment about the Tea Party conservatives. It’s indeed ironic that the Tea Party is largely composed of poor and middle class people who support a political party whose policies run directly counter to their own economic self-interest. The Republican Party is the big money party it has remained since the anti-slavery party of Lincoln became the party of the corporate interests of burgeoning post-Civil War America. It’s a party of and for the billionaires who have financed the so-called “grass roots” Tea Party movement itself. The Tea Party conservatives, with their fundamentalist “social conservative” values are being taken for a ride by the Grand Old Party which in reality has little but contempt for their values.
Contd....
Contd....
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that libertarian thought takes the view that the structure of government should be eliminated or minimized, it’s not surprising that we have the constant American right wing blather about how we must decrease the size of the federal government in Washington. Ronald Reagan famously told us that “government is the problem.” This is the self same government which he presided over and whose size he did nothing to contain. But on the left of the spectrum, many people with a libertarian viewpoint which embodied concerns about exploitation and economic inequality, found a home in the liberalism of FDR’s New Deal, and in its tattered remnant, the modern progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
It’s noteworthy that the recently passed health care bill is today facing a serious constitutional challenge on what might be considered a libertarian principle. The bill establishes the principle of universal health care coverage, and its own economic viability, with an “Individual Mandate” requiring all Americans not otherwise provided with health coverage to purchase a private health insurance policy. (With appropriate subsidies for low income Americans to pay for this massive gift to the private health insurance corporations.) A federal District Court has ruled that this provision of the bill is an unconstitutional overreach of the power of the federal government. It’s a matter that will ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court. I suspect that the so-called libertarians who sit on the boards of big insurance companies may not be entirely pleased by this legal action taken by Republican Attorneys General in various states as a way to pander to their Tea Party constituencies.
Yeah Danny.... Mind you, you don't always want to believe everything I say....;¬)))
ReplyDeleteLOL @ Tris. Truthfully, I'm still trying to decide if it was you or Munguin who deleted my comment.
ReplyDelete;-)
Seriously Danny, that too was a fine piece.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in the Tea Party movement and how they have hitched a ride with the Republicans. I guess that they do share some values with the Republicans of the South, but perhaps very few with the kind of Republicans that might be found in New England, and other northern states.
They (northern Republicans) of course, as you have explained to me, have more in common with the Democrats in the Southern states.
I realise that it is perhaps not particularly pertinent to the discussion on Libertarianism in the USA, but it has been opened up by your post. Given that you point out the Republicans hold the Tea Party in contempt and that there is now a smattering of Tea Partyists masquerading as Republicans in Congress, how will that work?
And how does that bode for possible Presidential aspirations of Sister Sarah...?
That is interesting too Niko, in light of the recent controversy in England about the power of the Supreme Court to rule parliamentary decisions illegal. It seems that on both sides of the Atlantic courts and parliament are vying for supremacy.
ReplyDeleteThanks Niko for posting that link to the New York Times piece about the constitutional challenge to the health care law. I do hope that the traditional Supreme Court interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the constitution is indeed still as robustly held as the Times supposes.
ReplyDeleteThere is a view among the right wing in America that the Supreme Court's use of the Interstate Commerce clause to justify the vast enlargement of federal power and control by FDR in the 1930's was little short of the end of Constitutional government in America.
Tris, You make a good point about the diverging interests of the traditional mainstream Republicans and the social conservative Tea Party Republicans coming into conflict as the Tea Party faction gains seats in the Congress, and competes for influence in the naming of a presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I think it's anybody's guess how this conflict will be resolved. Certainly, the new Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has had trouble reconciling the two factions of his party there. This has so far clearly resulted in some disarray in the new House.
In the presidential area, the process of naming delegates to the nominating conventions is importantly a primary election process in many states. In this arena, the political passion and voter turnout of the Tea Party Republicans can be very important. Candidates like Palin might make a very good showing in some early conservative states like Iowa and South Carolina. The prospect of Palin making a strong showing in these and other early state primaries and caucuses is nothing less than a nightmare to the mainstream GOP.
Yes, I thought it might be so Danny.
ReplyDeleteIt would I suppose be quite dependent upon a VP running mate, whether they would ab able to cope with A palin Presidency.
After all when you have had DubYa as a president (albeit with Darth Vader as his VP) you could reasonably be expected to be able to cope with most things, but I imagine the nut job from Alaska falls outisde of "most things".
Interesting Tris that you refer to a controversy about the power of your new Supreme Court as regards Parliamentary decisions.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, it seems ironic that the founders of the American Republic determined that the powers of government would flow from a written constitution, and then said not a word about how the supremacy of the constitution would be applied as regards the actions of the three branches of government. It was all settled by judicial precedent in the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In this case the relatively new US Supreme Court simply took upon itself the power of Judicial Review in its oversight of legislative and executive actions. It was the very first time (apparently in the world) that a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional." It was a sweeping power that has become the bedrock of American constitutional law, and yet it was simply asserted by the court. There is not a word in the American constitution that gives the judicial branch this explicit authority.
Indeed Tris, the naming of a VP for the presidential ticket is historically a way that such diverging interests in the party are reconciled. The Reagan ticket in 1980 was just such an example. The conservative westerner Reagan chose as his running mate George H. W. Bush, the very personification of the traditional mainstream Republican party of Wall Street and the Northeast.
ReplyDeleteBut also as you suggest, actually getting someone to agree to run on a ticket with Palin might be a considerable chore...LOL.
OT sorry but it is important.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting that link CH. I really must get one of those lovely souvenirs for personal use as I watch the royal wedding.
ReplyDeletePretty much agree with James' article so I have nothing to add, other than I did not delete Danny's comment: must just be the perfidious influence of the soulless minions of orthodoxy or a ghost in the machine!
ReplyDeleteLOL@Munguin....I hadn't even considered the soulless minions of orthodoxy. :-)
ReplyDeleteDanny, they are always my first suspects when perfidiousness is at large!!
ReplyDeleteNice souvenirs bags CH... Best thing I've seen yet, since the mugs that said "WC"
ReplyDeleteI can't support Libertarianism due to philosphy. I don't recognise the existance of a Rawlsian 'vail of ignorance', there is no individual universalism free of community. All logic and reasoning can only legitimately be conducted within a community.
ReplyDeleteI'm a communitarian, not a liberal. So ... the minutiae of why Libertarianism doesnt work in pracrtise is purely academic to my mind (or social liberalism for that matter).
sorry, but I thought I'd have my tuppince worth ;)
And you are most welcome to do that Dean... although that was probably thruppence worth. :)
ReplyDeleteI wonder if James would like to respond to that.. or maybe Danny, or QM.
I think that we are all libertarian in some matters and communitairian in others frankly. It's how much Nimbyism is involved in that, that is the interesting question.
Dean.....Enjoyed hearing your views. We have a couple of members of the libertarian Paul family (Ron and Rand) sitting in the House and Senate now. Rand now has the limelight as a new Senator from Kentucky, and from time to time gets in a bind (in my view) as he tries to apply strict libertarianism to actual governing.
ReplyDeleteI ran across this "Libertarian to Liberal" piece which I thought made a few practical political points. It may or may not be of interest in the context of this discussion.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/bast.html
PS: As Tris suggests, my views within my niche of the Democratic Party might well be considered communitairian in many respects, although a certain cranky libertarian streak surfaces from time to time. Perhaps that's why the link I posted appealed to me, in terms of what's objectively WRONG with libertarianism.
ReplyDelete