Asymmetrical Information

Yeah - plus there is an awful double standard.

All Professional Power-Grabbing Politicians are the same! Once elected [by means fair or foul], they have only ONE goal in mind: how can we further enslave those slobs out there.

Jane:

If there's such a thing as biorhythms, you're definitely peaking today.
Interesting how the next to last paragraph of this post fits in with the previous post (different world view between hard sciences and uh others.

charlie

There is a commentary at Samizdata on an article at Daily Kos; the commentary follows closely to your thinking. The Daily Kos article is entitled "Bring libertarians into the Dem fold". Based on the article and comments on the Daily Kos, the Democrats don't really get what liberty is and the underlying principles; it's just a big, floating abstraction.

Perry de Havilland's commentary properly skewers the original article.

Jane-

I hardly think that bashing Democrats' failure to fight corporate welfare is a pro-Republican argument. I too want corporate welfare gone, but unless I'm willing to vote Green this time around (I'm not), the Democrats are the best thing I've got on this particular score (unless we go and nominate Lieberman...God help us all in that case).

And the key difference between Republicans and Democrats on drug legalization is that most Republicans are genuinely against it, whereas quite a few Democrats are simply aware that you can't get elected by saying you want to legalize drugs. Who do you want to throw in with, those who are against it, or those who are against it until it is politically possible to be for it?

"it's awfully hard for the state to regulate private things like drug use"

I think that there are a couple of people imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses that would disagree with that statement.

Not that I expect there to be any more chance of you coming over to my side than there is of me going over to yours, but come on. Quite a few of the charges you level at Democrats are equally applicable to Republicans. "Redistributing military spending to people and districts that vote [for their Party]", "starting new government programs without first making the old ones do what they're supposed to", "generally assuming that the solution to every problem life throws at us is to get together and make a rule about it, preferably one that involves taking money from people who don't vote [for their Party]"? Democrats don't do these things; politicians do, regardless of Party. As partisan rhetoric, sure, throw such charges at the Dems all you like, but don't use it as your justification for being against them in the first place. That's just dishonest.

David Beatty-

Perhaps more Democrats would be willing to extend a hand towards libertarians Kos-style if you weren't you self-righteous about your supposed monopoly on the understanding of liberty. When you say things like "Democrats don't really get what liberty is and the underlying principles; it's just a big, floating abstraction", we just say "to hell with them" and go about our business.

Mighty Reason Man:

On the issue of corporate welfare, one has to wonder:

Which party is more likely to oppose free trade? Yes, I know which party's president pushed for steel tariffs and which party's president signed WTO. OTOH, I'd also note that the GOP IN GENERAL seems more willing to allow free trade and the Dems IN GENERAL are more supportive of that "fair trade" thing.

The point being that, from the consumer's perspective (the focus of Anglo-Saxon-style capitalism), which one is more likely to be beneficial? The Dems, who have the trade unions to support and preserve, are far more likely to oppose what ultimately benefits the consumer than the GOP.

As for redistributing military spending, I think you've misread the point. The GOP IN GENERAL supports more military spending. The Dems IN GENERAL do not. Conversely, the GOP IN GENERAL opposes more welfare spending, and the Dems IN GENERAL support it.

The point of the "redistribution" comment, then, is not the redirection of money from military industries in Dem areas to GOP areas, but rather the fundamental redirection of money from the DOD line item to the welfare/social spending line item of the budget.

The "in general" comment above is to obviate the expected response of "But Sen XX or Rep YY doesn't believe that." Perhaps, but the respective parties (at least since the 1970s) as a whole do.

I would accept that unforgiving libertarians and liberals are equally animated by a relativist understanding of individual rights, often falling into the sort of abstractions mentioned by Beatty - and masterfully confronted by Hadley Arkes - where the idea of decentralized, wholly personal moral codes operate independently of society's reality, as if drug use isn't committed by real people who affect the lives of those around them who depend on responsible conduct.

The irreconciable divergence between libertarians and the liberal-commanded Democratic Party is, I think, how variform morality is practiced. Liberals will seek to use government - "political correctness" and "multiculturalism" through judicial activism to name a few - something for which libertarians, who would prefer government not exist or at least provide considerable autarchy of the citizenry, are staunchly abhorrent.

And it's my guess that most libertarians are oriented conservatively, do in fact desire some moral absolutes and will, perhaps not without a bit of grousing or lobbying, stay with the Republican Party.

"it's awfully hard for the state to regulate private things like drug use"

I think that there are a couple of people imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses that would disagree with that statement.

Putting people in prison doesn't regulate the trade. In fact, it's impossible to regulate activities that are illegal.

Jane, the latter part of your post reminds me of the argument I made over a year ago (which set off a little furor in the blogosphere at the time)--that while both Donks and Elephants want to take away our freedoms, the Democrats are much better at it, because their encroachments are an easier sell to the economically illiterate.

To "The Mighty Reason Man":

Is it "self-righteous" to call something what it is?

In it's current state, the Democratic Party platform is anti-individual and anti-liberty. Some examples are as follows:

Against national defense
Against self-defense (for gun control)
For increased taxes, esp. on high earners
Against school vouchers
Against Social Security privatization
For increased individual welfare
For increased Federal involvement with schools
For more subsidized health care/national health care
For sacrificing human progress to the environment
For further Federal land purchases
For further government regulation of business and the economy
For affirmative action

... among other anti-liberty stances.

Yes, the Republicans have many faults as well, but do I really need to explain further?

To follow up a little on David Beatty's comment.

Mighty Reason Man, I have two words for you: Death Tax (or Estate Tax, if you prefer).

What is the basis for taxing people's estates when they die? The arguments have entirely come from the anti-libertarian perspective of "good for society," "give something back to society," or "where will charities get their money from".

How in the world does any of that jibe w/ a libertarian line of reasoning?

(This, mind you, from someone who does not even claim to have libertarian leanings, and in fact believes that some amount of gov't regulation and the like is probably a good thing.)

To David:

I would note, however, that there are some number of libertarians (paleo-conservatives) who oppose national defense, or at least an assertive foreign policy, almost as much as the Dems do. Several of the commentators at Patrick Ruffini's weblog, the folks at antiwar.com, etc., have anti-Iraq war messages that are indistinguishable, IMHO, from that of the more die-hard Lefties.

To follow up a little on David Beatty's comment.

Mighty Reason Man, I have two words for you: Death Tax (or Estate Tax, if you prefer).

What is the basis for taxing people's estates when they die? The arguments have entirely come from the anti-libertarian perspective of "good for society," "give something back to society," or "where will charities get their money from".

How in the world does any of that jibe w/ a libertarian line of reasoning?

(This, mind you, from someone who does not even claim to have libertarian leanings, and in fact believes that some amount of gov't regulation and the like is probably a good thing.)

To David:

I would note, however, that there are some number of libertarians (paleo-conservatives) who oppose national defense, or at least an assertive foreign policy, almost as much as the Dems do. Several of the commentators at Patrick Ruffini's weblog, the folks at antiwar.com, etc., have anti-Iraq war messages that are indistinguishable, IMHO, from that of the more die-hard Lefties.

Dean-

I think perhaps you and I have a different idea of what constitutes corporate welfare.

When I (and, I assume, most people on the Left) say corporate welfare, I'm talking about massive tax breaks for companies that threaten to pack up and move to another state/country, subsidized research the profits of which go entirely to the corporation with not a dime of return on the taxpayer's dollar, granting the rights to public resources at deep discounts or free of charge (mineral-rich land, various portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, etc.), and other such things.

The problem with looking at it as a Union vs. Free trade issue is that, purely on the basis of consumer perspective, the argument is slanted in favor of the GOP. But when you bring other factors into account like safty regulations, anti-monopoly regulations, consumer protections, and product liability, you get a better grip of the big picture (again, purely from the consumer's view). Sure, if you go the GOP route and eliminate all regulation, for a while you'll get a cheaper widget (until competitors merge, eliminating competition, which then stiffles innovation and raises price), but if 1% of your widgets kill someone, and 25% of them cause cancer over the long run, and then the consumer has an extremely limited ability to sue, can you really say that the consumer has been well-served?

As for military redistribution, fair enough, I did read the post wrong. However, it's a gross simplification to say that Democrats want to cut military spending to fund welfare. There aren't too many Democrats who want to actively cut military spending and raise welfare; they simply don't want to raise military funding as much as Republicans, or cut welfare as much as Republicans. It's not the same thing.

Mighty Reason Man:

I'd be willing to accept your argument that Dems don't want to spend AS MUCH on defense, if you'd be willing to accept that GOPers believe that there are declining rates of return on adding still more regulations, rather than over-simplifying it to "Republicans want to eliminate regulations."

The reality is that there is NOT going to be an end to regulation of industry/business in this country (and as a non-libertarian, that strikes me as a good thing). And for all Kucinich's ravings, there won't be a "Department of Peace," either.

That being said, the point still remains: which side of the fence is more likely to draw the libertarians? At base, I believe that many, not all but many, Dems would like to see a more European-style approach to business (union concerns, enviro-concerns, etc. being key factors in biz decisions). I believe that most Dem politicos (different from Dem voters) are leery about defense as a general rule. Ditto for guns.

On the economic side, Dems are hardly in favor of minimal regulations, either at home or abroad. You note that there are benefits to be gained from many types of regulations (something I personally don't necessarily disagree w/), but those same arguments turn off most libertarians.

Which is precisely my point and is what David, I think, is pointing to. It raises the question of fundamental philosophical approach-ability.

There's probably a break-down of libertarians into social libertarians [drugs, sex], economic libertarians [regulation, tax breaks], and international libertarians [isolationism]. The question is whether the second group can be distinguished from the first and the third. If not, then the Dems are fairly doomed in attracting them.

"Both parties are preoccupied with the care and feeding of dinosaurs, but when they do spare a thought for the mammals, the Republicans scatter Purina Rodent Chow here and there haphazardly, while the Democrats set out cheese in rat traps."
-- Henry Spencer, on sci.space.policy

Rand-

In the context of Jane's post, "regulate" means "interfere with" or perhaps "prevent from happening" (this, I assume, is to prevent people from throwing Santorum in her face. You know, "it doesn't matter if certain Republicans don't like drug use and gay sex, they can't keep it from happening").

Mostly, the sentence "it's awfully hard for the state to regulate private things like drug use and sexual behavior" is a way of dodging the fact that Democratic positions on drug use and homosexuality are more in line with libertarian ideals than those of Republicans. By declaring the government's inability to really hurt drug users or gays, she makes this fundamental disagreement between GOP and libertarian values easier to stomach- something along the lines of "It's okay that the GOP is against personal liberty on these matters, because they can't put everyone who does it in jail."

I agree that the government can't put every offender in jail for it, but I think the tens of thousands of non-violent drug offenders that are currently incarcerated would agree that the government can imprison rather a lot of them.

And do try to hold off on charges of economic illiteracy until someone actually discusses economics.

David Beatty-

Not unexpectedly, your conception of the Democratic Party platform is riddled with misconceptions, and the things you do get right display a flawed conception of both political reality and liberty in an equal society.

This gets to the heart of my problem with libertarianism in general. Most of the points you make are involved with personal liberty (except for one or two which are so laughable you should be ashamed you swallowed GOP spin enough to write them..."Against national defense"? Please. Until Tom Daschle advocates selling the nuclear codes to the Chinese, how about we all just assume that everyone is equally opposed to foreign powers floating armadas into our harbors or detonating nuclear devices in our cities. Unwillingness to give the Pentagon every penny it desires does not equal anti-defense), but you fail to take into account that one person's actions affect someone else's liberty. In an equal society (which I'm assuming you support. Right?), certain things must be regulated or restricted so as not to make one group more free at the expense of another. I'm not going to go point by point (that would take a few thousand words, probably), but the overall effect is this: by opposing each and every one of the points you accused Democrats of desiring, you could give greater freedom to some people, but others would remain restricted. So, really, you're just as "anti-liberty" as the Democrats.

Or, maybe we both just have different ideas of how "liberty" should be implemented?

So. My charge of self-righteousness still stands.

(mind you, Kos is the one reaching out to libertarians, not me...I lean heavily toward the "To hell with them" school of thought, as I am not willing to compromise the basic principles of the Democratic Party in order to seduce a few cranky libertarians)

Throwing people into prison does not prevent drug use from occurring--not even in prison...

And as for economic literacy, my general observation on Democrat policies is that they seem to believe that there is indeed such as a free lunch--you just get "them" (whoever they are) to pay for it.

Rand-

Free lunch?

As opposed to "we can push through massive tax cuts without cutting benefits and still have a surplus"?

Regardless of what you think of tax cuts, let's not pretend that the Republicans are any less prone to economic flim-flammery.

As opposed to "we can push through massive tax cuts without cutting benefits and still have a surplus"?

Bush's justification for his tax cuts in 2001 was, in part, the very existence of the overtaxation surplus. The best thing to ever happen to the surplus was its evaporation.

All in all the post makes sense but the flip side is equally silly. My mostly conservative extended family tries to convince me that I should vote Republican because it is the party of morality and fiscal conservatism. When I hear such arguments I can't stop laughing/crying long enough to set them straight. (And no I am not claiming Democrats are any better. But I have yet to see evidence that they are any worse.)

Second point, the Republicans and free trade. Now the Republican party generally advocates free trade because its constituencies more frequently benefit from open trade than do Democractic constituencies. So, in turn, Democratic politicians are more wary about expressing an across the board embrace of free trade and are more likely to favor free trade only when the benefits for their constituencies exceed the costs.

So the distinction is that Democrats are politically pragmatic on free trade, choosing to advocate or oppose such policies on a case-by-case basis (regardless of economic efficiency concerns). Republicans are principled with respect to free trade but slide those principles under the rug whenever the costs of openness exceed the benefits (again, regardless of economic efficiency concerns). What is interesting is that real world observation does not show Republicans to be much better at supporting free trade than Democrats, though perhaps slightly so in Congress. Why is that?

Why was Reagan's record on free trade less auspicious than Clinton's? (Actually that was probably a function of the differing economic circumstances that both faced in office. If Clinton had been President in the 1980s he would have supported the various protectionist measures Reagan did.) A better question is why do Republicans (at least most that I know) seem to detest Bush the elder whose adherence to free trade (and fiscal conservatism for that matter) far exceeded either Reagan or Bush the younger?

Mr. Ubaldi-

There's a great Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin is attempting to launch a giant snowball by placing it on one end of a teeter-totter and jumping on the other end. Instead, it simply bounces up and smashes him into the ground. Calvin says to Hobbes, "I meant to do that."

Hobbes responds "Then it worked very well."

"The best thing to ever happen to the surplus was its evaporation."

I trust you get my point.

Dean-

I think you're right. While I'm very much on the side of civil-libertarians, when you mix in the "tax-cuts at any cost" mentality and free-market fundamentalism that a lot of plain libertarians believe in, you run into problems.

Free-market fundamentalism simply is not compatible with core Democratic values (you'll notice I don't say "all Democrats," because market fundamentalism fits very well with Dems such as Lieberman).

I guess my overall point is that the civil-libertarians would be much more comfortable in the confines of the Democratic Party, and the market fundamentalists should just drop the pretensions and call themselves Republicans.

TMRM: To a libertarian, what you call "civil libertarianism" and "free market fundamentalism" are not separable. They come from the same set of basic principles - to be free, one must not only have theoretical rights, but one must also be able to keep what one has earned to be able to exercise those rights. I can well imagine a Communist or fascist state where you have freedom of the press - but all the paper and ink belongs to the state.

It is quite possible to support one and not the other, but that's a whole different matter than libertarianism. Democrat's get only one half the equation, and so are frequently schizoid on questions of rights. (Freedom of speech...depends on what you're trying to say. Freedom to use your own property...only if the zoning commission, the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the building inspector, and who knows what other government agencies agree.) And too many Republicans really don't give a damn about anyone's rights unless, like the Bushes, they are rich enough to buy their way out of most trouble with the law.

markm-

A damn fine summary. And the heart of the disagreement between Dems and straight up libertarians...although, really, going by your definition, I still think the Democratic Party is a better home for libertarians, but I cannot say I'm unbiased.

The Democrats really don't have a strong commitment to civil liberties, either. It is orthodoxy among them that the state has the legitimate right to silence the speech of those groups of citizens that have exceeded their allotted quantity of speech or who speak in a way too specific to a political candidate at certain periods of time. They dodge this issue by maintaining that "property isn't speech", as if, as previously noted, if the state restricts the speaker's ability to avail himself of the methods of being heard the state has not effectively restricted speech. Worse, the Democrats are completely blind of the incongruity involved in allowing the state to restrict the speech of those citizens that choose to assemble in such groups as Planned Parenthood or the NRA, while leaving another group of citizens, like the Sulzbeger family (which owns the NYT), or the owners of The Weekly Standard, completely without restrictions. That the Democrats are completely unable to comprehend the centrality to liberty of any citizen, or any group of citizens, being able to communicate any political message, by whatever means that they can obtain without theft or fraud, at any time they desire, and as often as they desire, is indicative that they will never be able to attract non-negligible numbers of people who are dedicated to liberty.

I'll just say that the inability to distinguish between "tax cuts" and "tax rate cuts" is one of the many evidences of economic illiteracy on the part of Democrats. And I'm not at all happy about big-goverment Republicans, but with them, I at least stand a chance of smaller government, since they at least profess it as a goal, even if only eventually and a large enough congressional margin. With Dems, I have no prayer.

A new more libertarian style of politics that excludes the obvious brain dead thinking of both party's is the only realistic step forward. I think a party that stays the hell out of my beadroom and the hell out of my wallet is a start. It would even be better if it wasn't whoring for dollars in corporate boardrooms.

The suggestion that Democratic politicians secretly want to relax drug prohibition but are lying about it to get elected raises a couple of questions: Why am I expected to find such mendacity reassuring, and why should I assume that drugs are the only issue on which they're a lot more radical than they let on? For all I know, they might also want to nationalize all major industries and establish a federal hate-speech code, and they're also lying about that in order to get elected.

Will-

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your ideas about the Democratic Party, but I'm fairly certain it's not from a left-wing or even mainstream source.

"It is orthodoxy among them that the state has the legitimate right to silence the speech of those groups of citizens that have exceeded their allotted quantity of speech or who speak in a way too specific to a political candidate at certain periods of time."

Orthodoxy? Apparently I missed the latest edition of Democratic Policy Position Quarterly, because this is completely foreign to me. Silence groups when they have exceeded their alloted quantity of speech? Unless you give me an example or two, I'm going to have to regard this as something you made up on the spot, because it is more than a little ridiculous.

Unless of course you are referring to such things as abortion clinic free-access laws? Or cross burning? Because those are cases where the line between "speech" and "intimidation" is crossed, and if you can't understand that, then something is very wrong.

And let's not rehash money-is-speech vs. money-is-not-speech argument right now, except to say that it is both completely wrong and more than slightly dishonest to say that there is no thought on the Left about just such questions. Believe me, the arguments for and against are still being thoroughly discussed over on my side of the aisle. Democrats are not blind to the consequences and philosophical implications of our stances on the issue.

"...allowing the state to restrict the speech of those citizens that choose to assemble in such groups as Planned Parenthood or the NRA..."

Again, please do explain just what the hell you are talking about. Has an NRA rally been shut down by state troopers without my hearing about it?

"Democrats are completely unable to comprehend..."

You can belittle the intellects of Democrats as often as you wish, it does not make it any more valid.

"of people who are dedicated to liberty"

The presumption that you and your ideological brethren are the only ones who care about liberty is exactly the kind of self-righteous drek that I accused David Beatty of earlier in the thread. You're welcome to believe it if you want, but that's the sort of thing that makes everyone, Right and Left, want to throw up their hands and say "To hell with you all."

Rand-

I think that, in a medium that forces one to be fairly brief, "tax cuts" can be assumed to be shorthand for tax rate cuts, increases to various tax credits, elimination of various taxes, etc.

Unless the discussion gets into the details of a specific plan or type of cut, please assume that people at least vaguely know what they're talking about, and refrain from haphazardly hurling accusations of economic ignorance. It makes for much more polite discussions.

The smaller government argument I'll grant you, at least as far as privatizing various government functions. The GOP will privatize more functions than the Democrats, true. But that's an ideological difference that isn't going to be bridged; while the Democrats don't believe that everything should be state-run (despite rumors to the contrary, we aren't socialists, after all), we do believe that there are a handful of industries that are more reliably by the government (such as utilities), and certain functions of government that should not be run as a for-profit operation (which is, of course, what privatization entails).

Matt-

Sign me up.

Paul-

"The suggestion that Democratic politicians secretly want to relax drug prohibition but are lying about it to get elected"

I said nothing of the sort. A reasonable number of Democratic politicians feel that the war on drugs is largely ineffective in its current form, but no one is willing to make legalization (or even decriminalization) a major policy plank, because that's a good way to lose an election. It is in no way equivelent to a massive conspiracy, so please spare us the hyperbole of your Communist revolution scenario.

The Mighty Reason Man wrote: ...although, really, going by your definition, I still think the Democratic Party is a better home for libertarians, but I cannot say I'm unbiased.

How do you figure that? As a previous commenter pointed out correctly, there is only one sort of liberty, not 'private liberty' and 'economic liberty', there is just liberty. Both the Dems and the Republicans are quasi-collectivist statists, so for a libertarian to 'support' either can never be more than a short term tactical matter with limited objectives. To be honest I regard the state under either party (and face it, it is always under both when viewed as a whole, regardless of who sits in the White House) as little different materially than a slightly bettered mannered version of a mafia protection racket. You refuse to pay for unwanted 'protection' that you never agreed to and some goombah in a black suit comes around to drag you off... you refuse to pay for unwanted 'public services' that you never agreed to and some goombah in a blue uniform comes around to drag you off. The reason I urge people to not vote whilst the system is structured the way it currently is, is that it gives ammunition to the argument that voting is tantamount to asking for those services you are being taxed for.

We may disagree or agree on tactical matters, but the reason we are 'self-righteous' is that we do not actually want to play by the same rules as you, and yes, we do indeed see our positions as objectively morally superior to yours on pretty much every level. Of course that does not mean we have a monopoly on truth, but at least our ideas are not centered on violence-backed coercion regardless of the absence of prior consent.

The state is strong enough at the moment to prevent all that many people for simply telling it to take its democratically sanctioned theft and shove it, but that is indeed what most of us would do if we could, rather than just playing with who gets to control the political process of incrementally dismantling civil society and replacing it with a regulatory state a la Rousseau.

If we are being frank, I regard The Mighty Reason Man and just about everyone else who votes for other people's taxes to be spent on anything other than keeping Genghis Khan at bay as little more than robbers. I realise that makes folks like me seem a rude and intolerable lunatic fringe to anyone else who just accepts the quasi-collectivist statist status-quo. But I suspect such folks only have a faint inkling how we really feel about them and why we all like the idea of private households being armed to the teeth.

For a libertarian who has actually thought it all through, arguing whether the Democratic Party or Republican Party is a better 'home' is like arguing which cotton plantation treats its slaves better. At the moment it just happens to be the one with the Elephant on the big gateway at the end of the long drive, but so what?

Yes, please keep saying "to hell with us" as the last thing I want is for the less well thought out people attracted to the idea of liberty to get confused by the sort of Chomsky-style linguistic gymnastics employed to get people to vote for their own robbery. "To hell with them" is exactly the sort of language I love to hear from folks like The Mighty Reason Man. Cheers.

I trust you get my point.

But it's based on the assumption that conservatives, like liberals, appraised the surplus as a spending opportunity rather than a refund opportunity. In fact, they saw it as the latter.

To Perry:

Thanks, you did an admirable job of hitting the essentials of the argument. While I have to hold my nose when I vote Republican (and I vote Libertarian when it makes sense), right now it's a better choice than voting for the Democrats.

To Mightly Reason Man:

Yes, I'm damned self-righteous when it comes to defending liberty, i.e. the ability to exercise my rights without interfering with someone else's ability to do the same.

With regard to national defense, considering it's a Constitutionally defined power, one that's been on the spending backward slide for most of the last 50 years (currently around 3% GDP, IIRC) and the Democrats have been the majority party for most of that time, yes, I consider them anti-defense.

Finally, most of us who value liberty have already said "to hell with you" when it comes to the Democratic Party.

To Dean:

Yes, I'm aware of Anti-War, among other libertarians that are against the war on terror. I think their thinking is muddled when it comes to national defense.

A reasonable number of Democratic politicians feel that the war on drugs is largely ineffective in its current form, but no one is willing to make legalization (or even decriminalization) a major policy plank, because that's a good way to lose an election.

Why, that's nothing at all like lying!

The implication that a reasonable number of Democratic politicians are willing to make legalization or decriminalization a minor policy plank is pretty dishonest in its own right; the truth is that almost no one is willing to make it a plank at all, with the handful of exceptions being scattered across both parties (the lone dissenter to the 2001 extension of the Drug-Free Communities Support Act, for example, being a Republican).

Note that neither of my questions (which mentioned neither a conspiracy nor a revolution) go away regardless. The Mighty Evasion Man may get some sort of philosophical comfort out of believing that Democrats will start voting against the War on Drugs the day they lose interest in getting elected, but of what practical benefit is that? And if I'm going to buy his line of argument, why shouldn't I wonder how many Democrats feel that medicine is largely ineffective in its current form, but aren't willing to make a British style NHS a major policy plank because that's a good way to lose an election?

But it's based on the assumption that conservatives, like liberals, appraised the surplus as a spending opportunity rather than a refund opportunity. In fact, they saw it as the latter.

In fact, they saw it as both; that's why it's not there any more. I hope the resulting deficits will spook everyone enough to exert downward pressure on spending in the long run. But it hasn't happened yet.

Perry's remarks are spot-on. As to one who loftily self-appraises his powers of reason, I wonder if he ever read the McCain Feingold Bill, or noticed the level of support it received in his party. The bill states that some citizens who exceed their allotted quantity of speech, as measured by the private property they have used to disseminate that speech, and how they have chosen to assemble, will be prevented by the state from using any more of their private property to further disseminate speech. Such restrictions, of course, do not apply to those citizens which have assembled themselves through the control of CNN, or FOX, or ClearChannel, etc. Those citizens can expend as many resources as they wish in disseminating their preferred speech. Thus, the state discriminates between citizens as to their liberty in disseminating speech.

Even worse, some assemblies of citizens can be prevented from disseminating candidate-specific speech within 60 days of an election. Thus the state not only restricts quantity of speeech, but also restricts the content of speech. Hopefully, this provision will be struck down, along with the entire bill, but depending on the whims of 9 unreliable judges is cold comfort.

People can shout "to hell with you" in response, but intellectual honesty demands asserting that anyone who supports dreck like the McCain Feingold bill has very little concern for the preservation of the liberty to disseminate political messages, and thus has very little ability to strike common ground with those who hold that liberty as essential.

Perry-

Well, it seems that the two of us are working from two different sets of premises, and so our political differences are going to be irreconcilable. That's fine. You keep trying to get as many people as possible to vote your way, and I'll do the same. As long as you don't start shooting at people, I'm certain your kind and mine can continue to live together peacefully.

Cheers!

Paul-

"The Mighty Evasion Man." That's cute.

You're absolutely correct. I erred in saying "major policy plank", as that does indeed imply that the Democrats are willing to make it a minor plank. So, let's just pretend I left out the word "major" and continue on with our business.

"Why, that's nothing at all like lying!"

My friend, if you seriously believe that every single politician in the country does not hide their feelings on certain issues in order to get elected, then I suggest you stop reading the Politics section of the newspaper, because you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of heartbreak and despair.

"believing that Democrats will start voting against the War on Drugs the day they lose interest in getting elected"

Or, perhaps what I meant was that they will start voting against the War on Drugs when popular sentiment begins to turn sour on it, as it is already beginning to? But you're right, saying that I'm waiting for the day Democrats don't want to be elected makes me sound stupid, so by all means keep doing it if it makes you feel better about yourself.

And no, I am not about to get into a discussion on medicine in this space. I'm fairly certain a discussion between a Democrat and a handful of libertarians on that subject would quickly fill several short novels. Or end in a gunfight.

Will-

"As to one who loftily self-appraises his powers of reason"

Actually, when I made up this handle many moons ago, it was very deliberately over the top; I keep forgetting that some people actually take it seriously, rather than as the self-parody it is.

This all comes down to the money-is-speech vs. money-is-not-speech argument, and I already stated above that I have no interest in rehashing it right now. If you would like to talk about the restrictions of speech when speech is not money, I'm all ears.

Yes, yes, the two are inseperable, you can't talk about one without the other, blah blah. We are all reasonable people here. Even though you see money as speech, surely you can, for argument's sake, restrict yourself to instances of speech where we aren't talking about money? Or is it just not possible to have that discussion around these parts?

David Beatty-

"With regard to national defense, considering it's a Constitutionally defined power, one that's been on the spending backward slide for most of the last 50 years (currently around 3% GDP, IIRC) and the Democrats have been the majority party for most of that time, yes, I consider them anti-defense."

Well, let's see. In the last fifty years, economic growth has been phenomenal, we have won the Cold War, we have developed into the greatest military power in history, minority rights have grown at a near-exponential rate, democracy has flourished across the globe, we are currently undergoing a socioeconomic revolution that is at least as significant as the industrial revolution, and we've eliminated smallpox. And since Democrats have been the majority party for most of that time, I would say that we have become the incarnation of human progress and strength.

So if that's the way you want to argue, fine, but don't expect to make much headway.

Mr. Ubaldi-

"But it's based on the assumption that conservatives, like liberals, appraised the surplus as a spending opportunity rather than a refund opportunity. In fact, they saw it as the latter."

You do recall reading somewhere about that massive national debt thingie, right? I believe there was some talk about paying at least a good chunk of it off.

thmrm, my altered moniker was parodic in nature also, and was not intended to be hostile. Actually, for the purposes of this thread, which is about the ability of Democrats to attract people who are labeled libertarians to their fold, we cannot reasonably seperate political speech from the means by which speech is disseminated. A person who says that they think it legitimate that the state be able to prevent certain assemblies of people from disseminating their political messages, messages devoid of the intent to instigate illegal violence, by whatever use of resources that are theirs, can be a fine person, but is not a person for whom the civil liberty of free speech is important. The same can be said for a person who thinks that certain assemblies of people can legitimately have the content of their political speech restricted within a certain time of an election. It is unreasonable to say otherwise.

TMRM wrote:

I hardly think that bashing Democrats' failure to fight corporate welfare is a pro-Republican argument. I too want corporate welfare gone, but unless I'm willing to vote Green this time around (I'm not), the Democrats are the best thing I've got on this particular score (unless we go and nominate Lieberman...God help us all in that case).

In what alternate universe was this written?
Democrats are arguably more likely (due to their more socialist leanings) to support welfare subsidies for business as corporate welfare is the carrot of industrial policy with regulation serving as the stick. Most agricultural subsidies were created by Democrats (and during the short-time they controlled the Senate recently Tom Harkin made it a priority to restore the agricultural subsidies eliminated under Freedom to Farm) although it has become a bipartisan scandal (espcially ethanol). During the 1995 budget debate, Clinton wanted an additional $15 billion in corporate subsidies which the House and Senate Republicans pushed for repealing. During the Enron melt-down it was the Bush administration who (rightfully) let the market punish a poorly run company and while it was Robert Rubin who tried to persuade the administration to prop up the company.
Oh and don't kid yourself about the Greens, they tend to favor business subsidies as well such as their ridiculous support for subsidizing wind power and "micro credits" overseas. They just tend to favor subsidizing the ones least likely to succeed.

And the key difference between Republicans and Democrats on drug legalization is that most Republicans are genuinely against it, whereas quite a few Democrats are simply aware that you can't get elected by saying you want to legalize drugs. Who do you want to throw in with, those who are against it, or those who are against it until it is politically possible to be for it?

Actually the Democrats tend to have their own War on Some Drugs but they tend to target tobacco in addition to the already illegal ones.

And I agree with Jane, this is a rather minor issue all things considered and is vastly outweighed by the anti-liberty positions of the Democrats on issues such as educational choice, freedom of association, equal protection under the law, RTKBA, freedom of political speech, and a number of other issues where the Republicans have a stronger pro-liberty (albeit inconsistent) stance.

I think that, in a medium that forces one to be fairly brief, "tax cuts" can be assumed to be shorthand for tax rate cuts...

That can sometimes be assumed, but when the only subject on the table is tax rate cuts, and they're still called "tax cuts" one has to assume that the person discussing it assumes they are synonymous, which is indeed a sign of economic illiteracy, just as I would call someone who didn't know the difference between velocity and acceleration ignorant of physics.

Of course, I suppose that it's possible (and in many cases even likely) that they actually do understand economics, and are instead demogogues...

All right, all sniping and Party-bashing aside, I really have learned a bit from this thread. So, I have a few questions that have been raised here that I honestly would like to have answered from a libertarian perspective. (assuming anyone is still reading this thread)

1. Campaign contributions- While I disagree that money is speech, I understand the logic behind the assertion that it is. I also agree that McCain-Feingold has some serious flaws (although what the full ramifications of those flaws will be won't be clear until next year, or more likely the 2006 midterms). But I assume that most libertarians agree with the basic idea that winning an election should not be all about raising the most money. So, what is a method of limiting the influence of money on elections that would satisfy a libertarian?

2. Is there anything that is currently a function of the state besides defense and keeping the streets paved that a reasonable libertarian would agree should not be run on a for-profit basis (which is the result of the only real alternative to the state, privatization)?

A libertarian might agree that, in some metaphysical sense, elections should not be about raising money. (A political operative would tell you that in fact, they aren't -- money buys access, not laws, and it alters legislation only at the far margin, generally shifting the balance between two corporate interests. Votes always trump money.) Libertarians do not believe, however, that because we want something to be so, it is therefore possible to make it happen. I want to fly like a bird, but as delightful as that would be, it's not physically possible.

Vanishingly few societies have ever chased money out of politics; the only one I can think of is Sparta, and I don't think we'd like the cure. As far as I can tell, all the campaign finance laws have succeeded in doing nothing except push the money out of the public eye. Yet no one on the other side of the aisle ever even asks themselves the question "Can we stop this at reasonable cost?" The assumption is that there is a legal way to prevent people from seeking their own self interest, and that the only question is which combination of rules is the magic bullet.

I think tmrm buys into the theory that raising the most money is a guarantor of electoral success. Any number of failed, self-funded, centimillionaire candidates show otherwise. Their example shows that the premise of elections being "all about money" is a false premise. True, one cannot be a failure at raising money and have electoral success, but there is no reason to view that as a weakness. The inability to find substantial financial support is indicative of being unable to effectively organize and communicate, and more importantly, is indicative that the candidate's platform just isn't in line with a very broad segment of the public's views, at least the views that they have substantial emotional investment in. Furthermore, a repeal of campaign finance limitations would INCREASE the opportunity of heretofore relatively unknown candidate with a popular message to get the ball rolling. Eugene McCarty's anti-war campaign in 1968 had significant impact on the Democratic Party precisely becasue he was able to solicit very large contributions from a small base of contributors. It is only after a resonant message has been adopted that the money becomes significant.
If McCain Feingold were repealed tomorrow, and Bill Gates suffered a stroke and became a LaRouchite, 'ol Lyndon still wouldn't be able to take up residence on Pennsylvania Avenue. Now, we may not not like the way elected officials grant access depending on financial contribution, but the effect of such access on legislation is overrated, as Jane notes. Countless wealthy people failed at getting legislation passed that was emotionally offensive to the broad electorate, prior to campaign laws. In any case, there is no campaign regulatory "solution" for an electorate that will not take the time to observe the behavior of their elected officials, and hold them accountable, and attempts to construct such "solutions" merely have the perverse effect of reducing transparency, which harms the attempts of those voters, the ones who who are not apathetic, to do so.

TMRM wrote:

Campaign contributions- While I disagree that money is speech, I understand the logic behind the assertion that it is. I also agree that McCain-Feingold has some serious flaws (although what the full ramifications of those flaws will be won't be clear until next year, or more likely the 2006 midterms). But I assume that most libertarians agree with the basic idea that winning an election should not be all about raising the most money. So, what is a method of limiting the influence of money on elections that would satisfy a libertarian?

The premise is flawed since there is no evidence that winning an election is "all about raising the most money."

However if you really want to clean up elections than you ought to look at getting politics out of money. The real corruption is not that people contribute money to candidates, it is that candidates bribe voters by promising to redistribute wealth - i.e. promise senior citizens an increase in "their" Social Security and Medicare, promise the teacher's union an increase in funding for the government schools (when most of the money goes for wages, salaries, and benefits), etc.

But frankly ending a system in which candidates promise to rob Peter to pay Paul is not consistent with the beliefs of Democrats and hence they have no real interest in clean elections in any meaningful sense.

Is there anything that is currently a function of the state besides defense and keeping the streets paved that a reasonable libertarian would agree should not be run on a for-profit basis (which is the result of the only real alternative to the state, privatization)?

Another flawed premise since most charitable organizations are not run on a "for-profit basis."

TMRM wrote:

Campaign contributions- While I disagree that money is speech, I understand the logic behind the assertion that it is. I also agree that McCain-Feingold has some serious flaws (although what the full ramifications of those flaws will be won't be clear until next year, or more likely the 2006 midterms). But I assume that most libertarians agree with the basic idea that winning an election should not be all about raising the most money. So, what is a method of limiting the influence of money on elections that would satisfy a libertarian?

The premise is flawed since there is no evidence that winning an election is "all about raising the most money."

However if you really want to clean up elections than you ought to look at getting politics out of money. The real corruption is not that people contribute money to candidates, it is that candidates bribe voters by promising to redistribute wealth - i.e. promise senior citizens an increase in "their" Social Security and Medicare, promise the teacher's union an increase in funding for the government schools (when most of the money goes for wages, salaries, and benefits), etc.

But frankly ending a system in which candidates promise to rob Peter to pay Paul is not consistent with the beliefs of Democrats and hence they have no real interest in clean elections in any meaningful sense.

Is there anything that is currently a function of the state besides defense and keeping the streets paved that a reasonable libertarian would agree should not be run on a for-profit basis (which is the result of the only real alternative to the state, privatization)?

Another flawed premise since most charitable organizations are not run on a "for-profit basis."

But pretty much every libertarian (sans the anarcho-capitalists) favors law enforcement as a government function. Most agree that the money supply should be part of the government (but those might be fighting words on an econ-related forum) and foreign policy as well.

TMRM wrote:

I agree that the government can't put every offender in jail for it, but I think the tens of thousands of non-violent drug offenders that are currently incarcerated would agree that the government can imprison rather a lot of them.

How many of those “tens of thousands” includes “non-violent drug offenders” who dealt to minors or who recruited kids to help them sell drugs?

How many of them have other offenses on their rap sheets or are we supposed to infer from this claim (which I’ve never seen substantiated) that the majority of these are simply run-of-the-mill citizens who were thrown in prison simply for buying or possessing recreational pharmaceuticals as opposed to generally being dirt-balls that would probably be imprisoned for some other offense even if we didn’t have these drug laws?

Keep in mind, I’m sympathetic to the argument that the War on Some Drugs is a repeat of the same policy mistakes made during Prohibition and do not generally support laws designed to protect people from their own stupidity but have always found this claim to be questionable and possibly misleading.

Until Tom Daschle advocates selling the nuclear codes to the Chinese, how about we all just assume that everyone is equally opposed to foreign powers floating armadas into our harbors or detonating nuclear devices in our cities.

This is a nice strawman but it doesn’t really refute David Beatty’s charge that Democrats are by and large against national defense. We saw this during the Cold War in which the Democratic Party began a meltdown on foreign policy in which they went from being supporters of American efforts to oppose the Soviet Union to taking more of an appeasement-coexistence stance. Post Cold War there was a noted deterioration in our military as well as a tendency to increase deployments in areas in which the United States had no real strategic instance. We saw this also during the 2000 presidential elections when Senate Democrats reneged on an earlier agreement to allow military personnel to vote on base and later attempted to discount the absentee ballots of some military personnel. And while Democrats were essentially forced by public pressure to support our campaign in Iraq, they had to drag their feet and talk out of both sides of their mouths every step of the way in order to appease a base which has become increasingly dovish.

In an equal society (which I'm assuming you support. Right?), certain things must be regulated or restricted so as not to make one group more free at the expense of another.

Yes and that would the initiation of force or fraud which (minarchist) libertarians agree there is a role for government in stopping. However that has nothing to do with the opposition on the part of the Democratic party to school choice, RTKBA, Social Security Privatization, and most of the other issues David Beatty referred to from the Democratic party platform which do not “make one group more free at the expense of another” as opposed to the redistribution of wealth favored by Democrats which clearly does infringe on the rights of one individual purportedly for the benefit of another.

I sometimes lament that there are only two parties in the system, The Democrats seem to lean toward the poverty side and the Republicans lean toward the Wealthy side. The Democrats want to tax us to death to assist the poor and the Republicans want to allow the rich to get richer. As a card carrying member of the middle class, I get hit from both sides, no matter what. Our wages go down because the rich get richer, and we get soaked supporting the poor, until we join their ranks. I think we would be in better shape if we put the Indian Nation back in control of this country, but then there is not enough buffalo (actually bison) left to support us all.

I sometimes lament that there are only two parties in the system. The Democrats seem to lean toward the poverty side and the Republicans lean toward the wealthy side. The Democrats want to tax us to death to assist the poor and the Republicans want to allow the rich to get richer. As a card carrying member of the middle class, I get hit from both sides, no matter what. My wages do not go as far because the rich want to get richer and prices go up, and with being taxed to death supporting the poor, I fear I may be soon joining their ranks. I think we would be in better shape if we put the Indian Nation back in control of this country, but then there is not enough buffalo (actually bison) left to support us all.

The first of the two above comments was inpreview mode when my stupid third-world phone company disconnected me (several times). I was busily composing the revisions. So, I apologize for the haphazard styling of the first comment and for having posted two almost identical statements.

Comments are Closed.