Tag Archive for 'welfare_state'

Reason: What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Written by Colin. Published on July 8, 2009 ago in Current Events and Politics. 25 Comments

Reason just did a small blog on this question. I thought I would repost their source-text for everyone:

1. Cato-influenced (for lack of a better word).  There is an orthodox reading of what “being libertarian” means, defined by the troika of free markets, non-interventionism, and civil liberties.  It is based on individual rights but does not insist on anarchism.  A ruling principle is that libertarians should not endorse state interventions.  I read Palmer’s book as belonging to this tradition, broadly speaking.

2. Rothbardian anarchism.  Free-market protection agencies will replace government-as-we-know-it.  War is evil and the problems of anarchy pale in comparison.  David Friedman offered a more utilitarian-sounding version of this approach, shorn of Misesian influence.

3. Mises Institute nationalism.  Gold standard, a priori reasoning, monetary apocalypse, and suspicious of immigration because maybe private landowners would not have let those people into their living rooms.

4. Jeff Friedman and Critical Review: Everything is up for grabs, let’s be consequentialists and focus on the welfare state because that’s where the action is.  Marx is dead.  The case for some version of libertarianism ultimately rests upon voter ignorance and, dare I say it, voter irrationality.

5. “Hayek libertarianism.”  All or most of the great libertarian thinkers are ultimately compatible with each other and we have a big tent of all sorts of classical liberal ideas.  Hayek and Friedman are the chosen “public faces” of this approach.  “There’s a classical liberal tradition and classical liberal values and we can be fuzzy on a lot of other things.”

I might add a few more:

Left-libertarian – sceptical of capitalism and corporatism, and possibly even private property.

Ron Paul bots -  these guys are “libertarians” in that in their support of Ron Paul – probably because he was against the war – has blossomed into a general hate of the federal reserve. These are big on the constitution and “patriotism” and can be seen yelling at rallies or harrasing border guards.

Fake libertarians -  Guys like Larry Elder and Ronald Regan. Anyone who calls themself a “republitarian.” Conservatives who happen to be a little more “free market” than your standard compassionate religious nut.

Libertarians who don’t know it or won’t admit it -  People from the left and right who don’t to be associated with libertarians because of one of these groups, but hold a lot of libertarian beliefs.

Objectivists -  Generally pro-war, radically atheist. Argues for “objective” standards of value (rather than subjective as in the Austrian school). Big on selfishness and a sceptical of utilitarianism.

Penn and Teller libertarians -  Slightly left-ish, cynical and embracing libertarianism at least, in part, for it’s hedonistic/rebellious appeal. This is who conservatives think of when they realise we don’t like the war on drugs.

I’m somewhere in-between Mises Nationalism and Rothbard myself – but also having some left-ish views regarding immigration. But, then again, throughout my own libertarian journey, I felt allied with many of these camps.

What kind of libertarian are you? What kind of libertarians have I missed?

Bush: “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system”

Written by Colin. Published on December 17, 2008 ago in Current Events. 8 Comments

Double-speak is not surprising to hear from politicians – especially president Bush – whose presidency has generally been defined by the practice. Bush has generally talked a “free market” talk while walking a socialistic, interventionist walk. He, like several presidents before him, signed bills that promoted home ownership for risky buyers. He federalized airport security. His prescription drug program was a massive increase in the welfare state. He has signed bailouts of many shapes and sizes from his first year in office onwards. He has raised tariffs. He has supported farm subsidies. No Child Left Behind has wrecked the school system and expanded federal power and intervention in education. Overall, his domestic, non-military discretionary spending rivals the openly socialist LBJ.

But while doing all of this, Bush has claimed to be a “fiscal conservative” and a supporter of “the free-market.” Those who voted for him in 2004 and who have generally supported him throughout his presidency, have buried their heads in the sand when it comes to the overwhelmingly socialistic tenancies of this so-called “conservative” president (who makes Bill Clinton look like Barry Goldwater).

But Bush’s denial of his own hypocrisy seems to be ending with this statement:

US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from “collapse.”

“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,” Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision “to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.”

Is Bush finally willing to admit that his legacy is one that most left-wingers before 2000 couldn’t even dream of? Al Gore did not even have such left-of-centre ambitions in 2000. Yet, Bush has effectively done his part in sabataging what is left of the US “free” market after nearly a century of intervention. The fact that he (a “conservative” president) can now do this in the open (as Democrats have generally been openly socialistic for seventy years now, at least in rhetoric) marks a significant moment: where both left and right in the US are now officially and openly the socialist-left and socialist-right parties. A Mike Huckabee nomination, an even more open right-wing-socialist than Bush, in 2012 will cement this trend in American politics.

The media is still catching up (from just below the quote in the story):

Bush’s comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.

Bush’s “advocacy” for an “unfettered” free-market has never existed, ever. When offered the choice between wielding government power and allowing market forces to act, Bush has almost always chosen the former.

This kind of consequentialist language is the new mantra for the Republican movement. Despite the fact that it is completely illogical to presume to save a “free market” by sabotaging it. This sounds like the statements from the villains in Atlas Shrugged, who made the same arguments about their interventions.

Bush’s legacy in many ways, can be summed up by this statement – his desire to promote freedom and capitalism by using forces that are in direct opposition to these things – promoting the freedom of men by invading their countries, killing them, subjugating them and threatening them  – and promoting capitalism by using government prevent industries from failing, subsidizing others, increasing regulations, nationalisation, tariff and quota rises and increasing the power of government.

At least one thing is now clear – we can no longer call Bush a fraud or a liar in this. He has finally admitted the truth.