One of the most portable and effective means of both identifying libertarians as well as unifying and mobilising them, has been the Nolan Chart. David Nolan came up with it in the early seventies by basically adding a second dimension to the political spectrum (which was traditionally Left and Right).
The quiz, if you haven’t taken it, is right here.
Glenn Beck boosted his libertarian cred once again – dedicating an entire show to the Nolan Chart and arguing the libertarian case for most of the answers to each question.
Beck also added that he believes most Americans are libertarians. I would disagree. I think most Americans would like to be left alone themselves, but many amazingly conflate this with a crusader-like sense of moral self-righteousness to tell people what they ought to do, even to force them to do it. Living among Europeans for nearly two years has already given me some anecdotal lessons in just how arrogant and opinionated Americans are compared to other parts of the world.
You may also be interested in:
“Living among Europeans for nearly two years has already given me some anecdotal lessons in just how arrogant and opinionated Americans are compared to other parts of the world.”
And you’ve given them confirmation of that, huh?
There is no way that most of the country is libertarian. Perhaps a majority is conservative, but hardly libertarian. I know a lot of liberals and conservatives for whom their understanding of rights and freedoms is weak at best.
Is it just me, or does the judge seem like he’s an inserted ‘expert’ to reinforce Beck’s opinions? I’m not saying that the opinion is necessarily wrong or bad, but that the method of presenting the quiz was a bit misleading — to the point of hearing an implication that Beck’s opinion is the only proper ‘American’ one. Believe like me or Nazi zombies take over the world!
This is precisely the problem in the US today. There are very few of us on either side of the political spectrum who value the freedom of people who think differently than ourselves.
How many “libertarians” are for same sex marriage, legalizing drug use and legalizing prostitution?
If I’m honest, yes.
Yes, I think that many in the US would be on the statist end of conservatism/centrism.
Chris, yes, I agree. I respect Andrew Napolitano. He’s generally pretty consistent about his views, and educated on legal issues. But he is definitely there to make Beck not look crazy. And there is definitely, definitely an agenda on that program that “real Americans” are libertarians or libertarian conservatives.
To my knowledge, David Nolan never ran for any politcal office in England. I believe the judge’s comment at the beginning of the show is inaccurate. I know David Nolan personally. He founded the Libertarian Party in 1971 in Colorado.
Pat Dixon
Chair, Libertarian Party of Texas
Zach – It is definitely a fad to be “libertarian.” Young conservatives who want to avoid being republican like to be with the libertarian crowd. But if libertarianism is a philosophy (as I think it should be seen) then it is hardly compatible with the current mainstream political ideologies. Moreover, these “political libertarians” are best allied with by philosophical libertarians only insofar as we are making an alliance to reduce government.
I really have yet to hear anyone who calls themselves Libertarian really talk about those issues. As someone who identifies as Progressive (although, the generalizations of Progressive put forth by those who oppose Obama is laughable as I don’t find him very Progressive myself) would like to see legalization in the areas I mentioned, with a nice tax on drugs and prostitution. I assume a true blue Libertarian would agree with legalizing those items, however avoiding the tax on them.
Pat – yes, the judge didn’t do his homework there did he?
zack – I can’t speak for every libertarian, but I would agree with the legalisation of those things. Ideally they wouldn’t be taxed, but I think I would support legalisation and tax over prohibition any day.
Regarding “progressive” Glenn Beck is both right and wrong. Yes, the “progressives” were a statist movement at the turn of the century. However, I think the modern “progressive” is a lot more like Dennis Kucinich than Woodrow Wilson. Beck’s oversimplification and much too broad application of the term is problematic for sure. In fact, I would suggest that modern progressives and libertarians have a lot more in common then Beck would indicate.
=>same sex marriage
Government shouldn’t be regulating marriage to begin with. I am therefore opposed to government recognition of heterosexual marriage. If government wants to provide protections for parents of children, this is entirely separate from marriage. If we want to allow pairs of people to name one another next of kin, this could also be allowed independently of marriage. Those seeking “same sex marriage” aren’t seeking equal rights, they are seeking for others to validate their lifestyle. It isn’t the government’s place to validate ANYONE’s lifestyle, straight or gay. So long as the government is making a moral judgment of lifestyle though (which they are) I have to support heterosexual marriage while opposing gay marriage. I in no way want to infringe on the liberties of gay people, but at the same time I can’t support their lifestyle.
=>legalizing drug use and legalizing prostitution
The argument against drug use and prostitution is that these behaviors cause one to lose their liberty. A person who is addicted to a drug no longer has a choice whether to take it, making the person who gives it to them infringe on their liberty. That said, drug use itself would obviously not count, nor would use of non-addictive drugs. The primary legal concern regarding prostitution SHOULD be to ensure that nobody is ever forced into prostitution or abused during prostitution. Forcing it “underground” as it has been makes both abuses far more likely. Again, I don’t support the behavior and would prefer at least to keep it out of sight, but agree that it is something a consenting adult should be allowed to do.
=> Obama not very Progressive myself
I would definitely agree that nothing he has done or tried to do in office is very progressive. I have been told that his books reveal a much more progressive worldview, but having not read his books I can’t really say. Especially if one assumes that there aren’t many progressives in the US, it seems unlikely a hardcore progressive could win the presidency.
Libertarians would never initiate force against someone else, whether they agree with that person or not. Ninety-nine percent of the country does not fit that explanation. They’re all for the government to controling others, just as long as it doesn’t control them.
Neil Smith said it right, libertarians abide with the Zero Agression Principle. “Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim”.
We may never know what Beck’s political afiliation is. He changes to become whatever will get him the best ratings.
B – I have never heard of Neil Smith, but that quotation is quite to the point.
Atanamis-
I agree with your point that marriage shouldn’t be recognized at all by the Government necessarily. Parental rights is a different story. However, in arguing that if Government is making a moral judgment, then it’s OK to deny people the right to marry, I think you are arguing against Libertarianism which would either say, “all people have the right to get married or government has no business legislating morality.”
To your point on legalization (or not) of drug use causing the dealer to infringe on liberty is a little confusing to me. The way you describe it, a police officer arresting a person or judge putting someone in jail is also taking away the liberty of someone. If you say, “they made a choice which the consequences equate to the removal of their liberty” then by the same token, a drug user has violated his own liberty and therefore must suffer the consequences. Also, it doesn’t address the person who grows/manufactures their own supply. Those that sell are simply businessmen. By making it illegal, the potential tax revenues that could be created to pay for systems that are ailing are lost and the shady underground business it produces equals no consumer protection.
By the way, I have never used drugs of any capacity (unless you count alcohol and the very occasional tobacco product), nor would I ever pay for sex. Also I am in a heterosexual marriage with a child.
zack wrote: “Also I am in a heterosexual marriage with a child.”
Zack…I believe that’s illegal.
zack – I think you have good points in your last post. The libertarian case would be for legalizing drugs, but would be against taxing drugs, since taxing it would be foribly removing someone’s economic liberty.
The libertarian stance is that any taxes (taken by force or by threat of force, which is the way government currently operates) are wrong. Note that only applies to mandatory taxes.
How this would work is if someone wanted citizens to pay for something (new stadiums, military, schools, etc) they could have people vote on it. How this would differ from how it is now is that those who voted for it would pay taxes for it, those who voted against it would not have to pay taxes.
When I can equally “marry” my sister, brother, friend who wants citizenship, or sexual partner, then I will support same sex marriage. Anyone who supports same sex marriage but not sibling marriage isn’t allowing “equal rights”, but rather a special status to sexual relationships they approve of. I approve of allowing ANY two people to create a “civil union” contract, but believe that marriage is a religious institution that government should have no part in.
If our culture DOES insist on making “legal marriage” a popularity contest for our favorite kinds of relationships, I will campaign for my favorite and you can campaign for yours. I also don’t think “marriage” should allow for no fault divorces or pre-nuptual agreements that make it easier for an offending party to get a divorce. If government is going to insist on defining marriage, I will lobby for my definition. Ideally though, government shouldn’t be defining marriage at all. (Just give us template contracts and let us create our own legal arrangements.)
Umm, they are. If you don’t think that locking someone in a cell is depriving them of their liberty, you have no business talking about libertarianism. Locking someone up is pretty much the DEFINITION of taking away their liberty.
Of course it does. Someone who grows their own supply is hurting nobody but themselves, something which is explicitly permitted by every libertarian code of which I am aware. A thug who demands protection money is also a “businessman”, that doesn’t make their business legitimate. A person who represents their product as harmless when it creates a deadly dependency is clearly also committing fraud. The question then is whether a drug seller is legitimately representing the risks to their customer, and whether a customer with an addition has explicitly given up their liberty of their own will. If so, obviously they have that right under libertarian philosophy. If they thought they were just getting a quick high though, and instead got an unbreakable addition, the dealer has deprived them of their liberty immorally.
TLDR: Growing and using ones own drugs is never a violation of libertarian ethics, but giving or selling drugs to someone else can be, if insufficient prior warning is provided. (The same would also apply to hitting someone in the face, cutting their arm off, and even to killing them. Libertarianism allows just about anything with the informed, free, and intentional consent of the victim.)
Those who paid for it would also get to determine the rules for its use, which could include not allowing those who did not pay for it to use it at the same cost as those who did.
My parents homeowner’s association has a swimming pool. Those who are behind in paying their dues are banned from using it. Every summer, people who haven’t paid their dues for months will suddenly remember to do so. Now think if this applied to police forces, fire departments, and garbage collection. Most people want the local services they pay for, and would pay their taxes if it meant losing those essential services. Only services nobody really wants would likely have problems collecting fees.