12 thoughts on “Are Libertarians Anti-Government?”
The same people who call Tea Partiers “anti-government” are the same ones who label Republicans as opponents of health care.
By the same logic, some folks could brand our esteemed bloghost as anti-space.
Libertarianism, it’s whatever the pundit-of-the-minute says it is. How about defining some terms, or at least some values, how about some freakin’ references?
Blog is short for Web Logs. This whole “freakin'” blog is a reference. An almost daily one. Try disengaging your keyboard and using the mouse to read a little.
Leland, if you’d bother to read the article that Rand has linked to, you’d discover that the complaint is that media seem to have no idea what a libertarian is.
So, when you wrote:
How about defining some terms, or at least some values, how about some freakin’ references?
You put that on a media website. I apologize for my confusion. I only read that comment here.
When he quoted E.J. Dionne, it highlighted a tactic of many so-called journalists. They lump any who disagree with the nanny state in with the violent extremists to discredit their position. Rinse, repeat until the majority of the public buys it.
To quote John Stossel:
“Libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their lives. And of course today government claims the power to make many of those decisions for us, from where to send our kids to school to what we can smoke to how we must save for retirement.”
That’s one wing. But there’s another wing (or two) of the party that are better described as Libertine-arians,
That is, groups like the Anarchists. “You have no business restricting me in the slightest way, but you need to drive corporations completely our of business. And provide me with free beer.”
Al,
I draw a distinction between small-“l” libertarians and members of the Libertarian Party. The small-“l” libertarians I know are not anarchists; anarchy is fundamentally different from libertarianism. And most of the members of the Libertarian Party fall into the small-“l” libertarian category. Yes, there are some anarchist types that call themselves “Libertarians”, but calling a dog a cat does not make it so. Did you even read Stossel’s piece or David Boaz’s piece?
Oh, I mostly agree.
I’m just saying that people that self-describe as libertarian and libertarian-leaning is a mighty wide swath. Regardless of what the official or pundit-defined definition or demarcation is.
And the whole “Anarchist” group is pretty much ridiculousness-in-naming in the first place.
Just as it’s helpful to remember his distinction between Society and State, it’s also useful to make the distinction one of my intellectual heroes, Albert Jay Nock, made between government and the State. The former is whatever institutions or agencies Society create or use to protect its members from attack (either from invading armies or from gangsters and other predators); the latter is what the government becomes when it goes beyond its rightful defensive function to coercive redistrubute wealth. So one might be fine with government, and be anti-State. As a libertarian friend of mine said he’d like to tell the president (whoever that was at any given moment): “Protect me from bad guys, send me a bill, and then just leave me the hell alone.”
By the way, its what constutes libertariansim so abstruse or arcane? I think its essence is an eschewal of , and opposition to, the initiation of physical force.
The same people who call Tea Partiers “anti-government” are the same ones who label Republicans as opponents of health care.
By the same logic, some folks could brand our esteemed bloghost as anti-space.
Libertarianism, it’s whatever the pundit-of-the-minute says it is. How about defining some terms, or at least some values, how about some freakin’ references?
Blog is short for Web Logs. This whole “freakin'” blog is a reference. An almost daily one. Try disengaging your keyboard and using the mouse to read a little.
Leland, if you’d bother to read the article that Rand has linked to, you’d discover that the complaint is that media seem to have no idea what a libertarian is.
So, when you wrote:
How about defining some terms, or at least some values, how about some freakin’ references?
You put that on a media website. I apologize for my confusion. I only read that comment here.
When he quoted E.J. Dionne, it highlighted a tactic of many so-called journalists. They lump any who disagree with the nanny state in with the violent extremists to discredit their position. Rinse, repeat until the majority of the public buys it.
To quote John Stossel:
“Libertarianism is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their lives. And of course today government claims the power to make many of those decisions for us, from where to send our kids to school to what we can smoke to how we must save for retirement.”
A good outline from John:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/08/john-stossel-on-libertarianism/
That’s one wing. But there’s another wing (or two) of the party that are better described as Libertine-arians,
That is, groups like the Anarchists. “You have no business restricting me in the slightest way, but you need to drive corporations completely our of business. And provide me with free beer.”
Al,
I draw a distinction between small-“l” libertarians and members of the Libertarian Party. The small-“l” libertarians I know are not anarchists; anarchy is fundamentally different from libertarianism. And most of the members of the Libertarian Party fall into the small-“l” libertarian category. Yes, there are some anarchist types that call themselves “Libertarians”, but calling a dog a cat does not make it so. Did you even read Stossel’s piece or David Boaz’s piece?
Oh, I mostly agree.
I’m just saying that people that self-describe as libertarian and libertarian-leaning is a mighty wide swath. Regardless of what the official or pundit-defined definition or demarcation is.
And the whole “Anarchist” group is pretty much ridiculousness-in-naming in the first place.
Just as it’s helpful to remember his distinction between Society and State, it’s also useful to make the distinction one of my intellectual heroes, Albert Jay Nock, made between government and the State. The former is whatever institutions or agencies Society create or use to protect its members from attack (either from invading armies or from gangsters and other predators); the latter is what the government becomes when it goes beyond its rightful defensive function to coercive redistrubute wealth. So one might be fine with government, and be anti-State. As a libertarian friend of mine said he’d like to tell the president (whoever that was at any given moment): “Protect me from bad guys, send me a bill, and then just leave me the hell alone.”
By the way, its what constutes libertariansim so abstruse or arcane? I think its essence is an eschewal of , and opposition to, the initiation of physical force.