How do you compare libertarianism and the Tea Party conservatism?

The title of this post is a recent item posted for discussion online at the Wall Street Journal.

There are only 23 comments at this point, but a few of them are thought provoking content that you might enjoy.

Libertarians Against the Regime

Almost the opposing view point of some of the myths stated below by Lee Roscoe can be found in Libertarians Against the Regime. Especially related to the Koch brothers:

Because the very idea of Charles and David Koch leading a national resistance movement involving civil disobedience on a massive scale is laughable: to anyone who knows them, or knows of them in more than a glancing way, this can only provoke gales of unrestrained laughter. It is sheer laziness to believe this. Indeed, if only the Brothers Koch, and the plethora of organizations their money has funded, were that radical! Unfortunately, they are not: a stodgy, boring conservatism marks both their methods and their politics, and always has.
Ames and Levine need to do some real research. It was the anti-Koch wing of the libertarian movement, centered around LewRockwell.com, that first gave John Tyner’s act of defiance the publicity and velocity that made it go viral. And if LRC is a front for the Koch brothers, then we have truly entered Bizarro World. In that case, so too is Antiwar.com a Koch front – and so why have we been doing this fundraising campaign for the past two weeks, begging our readers to save us from oblivion?
Gee, it seems like that check from the Kochs got lost in the mail! Charles, could you please look into that? Thanks.

Where progressives and libertarians agree and differ

This was an interesting one since I am admittedly more of a "liberal libertarian" than very liberal or very libertarian -- Seattle PI Blogs:

Both progressives and libertarians oppose government corruption. The difference between progressives and libertarians is that the former still believe that Big Government can be redeemed. Progressives believe that, despite the dangers of corruption and tyranny, we can't forgo the benefits of government. When government isn't corrupted by special interests, it acts as a counter-weight to corporate and private interests. It regulates and polices the private sphere. It performs necessary planning and bailouts and nurturing and research and police work and and health care initiatives and education. It provides a safety net. It supplies certain public goods that the market system can't provide.

Red light means go

“That’s the first sign you know you’re a libertarian. You see the red light. You stop. You realize that there’s not a car in sight. And you put your foot on the gas.” - Gary Johnson

Quote that I read on The Liberty Papers as part of a blog post that talked about why it's time to start looking at Gary Johnson as a potential 2012 Presidential candidate.

David Boaz's definition of libertarianism

It's worth reading -- Link to piece and one part in particular I wanted to point out:

People have rights that governments may not violate. Thomas Jefferson defined them as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When I’m asked what libertarianism is, I often say that it is the idea that adult individuals have the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions about their own lives. More categorically, I would say that people have the right to live their lives in any way they choose so long as they don’t violate the equal rights of others. What right could be more basic, more inherent in human nature, than the right to choose what substances to put in one’s own body? Whether we’re talking about alcohol, tobacco, herbal cures, saturated fat, or marijuana, this is a decision that should be made by the individual, not the government. If government can tell us what we can put into our own bodies, what can it not tell us? What limits on government action are there?

Libertarians and Liberals in harmony...

Conor Friedersdorf takes a look at a recent article written by Tim Carney in the Washington Examiner on the topic of Brink Lindsey. It's a recommended read -- The Longer Libertarian game with the point being made:

Mr. Lindsey's project has never been about the 2010 midterms, or the 2012 presidential election, it's been about gradually reorienting America's ideological coalitions in a way that makes liberals more friendly to libertarian ideas, and libertarians less captive to the worst aspects of conservatism. Libertarian donors ought to fund efforts to oppose President Obama in the short term. They also ought to invest in intellectual projects with longer time horizons that only bear on particular electoral and legislative outcomes indirectly. If they can't distinguish between those projects, or if they actually display thinking as immature and counterproductive as "Obama is the devil" and "maybe he's not the devil" equals "lukewarmness for liberty," they're inadvertently sabotaging their own cause. Were I a wealthy man, I'd help fund Mr. Lindsey if only to avoid keeping all the libertarian eggs in the right's less than reliable ideological basket (the short time horizons apparently extend backward too).

The Tea Party Could Bring Fascism to America

More and more libertarians are speaking out against the Tea Party movement and stating it's not libertarianism that is being promoted by a majority of Tea Party groups. This opinion piece by George Donnelly is a good example. Part of the recommended read:

The Tea Party is not a libertarian movement. It co-opted a libertarian message, but in reality it is a rightist movement. It's pro-war, intolerant, ultra-patriotic, pro-torture, into corporate apologism and ready to scapegoat paperless immigrants. As soon as the GOP recaptures the gun that is government, I expect these people will go back to sleep.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is a consistently peaceful position. We're against war, we don't care much about those imaginary dotted lines on the map called borders and we recognize that the evils of corporatism are borne of the state. We don't oppose government only when people we dislike are in power. We seek to solve the problems liberals worry about with more peaceful means than state mandates. We're not like those Tea Party folks. And you can see this in the above video where a libertarian is violently removed from a Tea Party event!

Beyond Libertarianism

Peter Orvetti has a blog post over at the Moderate Voice, Beyond Libertarianism that struck a few chords with me. We share a similar history as far as not knowing where we "fit in" as far as the political spectrum. I also find his suggestion that a strong political ideological alliance can be based on personality to be one that may merit consideration.

Part of this recommended read:

The more time I spent in the libertarian movement, the more uncomfortable I became about defending positions I did not honestly hold. The first year of the Obama presidency was a breaking point, as the collapse of the financial sector, the rancor over healthcare, and the hateful tactics of the president’s adversaries made me realize I could no longer keep that company.

In point of fact, I have always been less a libertarian than what might be termed a liberal-tarian. I am wary of deficits and excessive spending, and fear the role of ever-larger government agencies that seek to regulate personal behavior. I fear the so-called “Nanny State” that seeks to ban things simply because those things may not be “good for you” — rather than letting personal liberty guide these decisions. But I also see a role for government, even big government, when it comes to the basic well-being of the citizens of a wealthy industrial nation.

78 year old Julian Heicklen still in jail...

Heicklen is a libertarian and jury rights advocate who was arrested on May 25 for the "crime" of attempting to distribute Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) fliers on public property in front of the US District Courthouse in Manhattan. The formal charges against the 78 year old man are "disorderly conduct" and "resisting arrest."

He is currently being held in the New York City Jail at Riker's Island awaiting a scheduled June 8 hearing though it appears when reading a blog that has been focusing on his case, (link) that there's some concern that the date might be extended. Normally you'd expect someone charged with that level of crime to be out on bail, however he is being held without bail.

When reading another site, jailed activists it's suggested that there was no bond in this case due to a prior failure to appear. I also recommend reading Heicklen's self bio...

Attorney General Eric Holder at the Constitution Project's awards dinner

Highly recommended blog post over on the American Prospect on the recent speech given by Holder. It makes some thought provoking points, one:

Following a surprisingly good showing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week in which he managed to parry one baseless Republican criticism after another, Attorney General Eric Holder, delivered a speech before a civil libertarian crowd at the Constitution Project's awards dinner. What transpired as Spencer Ackerman writes, was pretty much a political science textbook definition of a Sistah Soulja moment:

Like every person sitting in this room, like the President and those who serve this Administration, and like every Member serving in our Congress, I am determined to win this war. I know we can, and I am certain we will. But victory and security will not come easily. And they won’t come at all if we approach this work by adhering to a rigid ideology or narrow methodology.

The civil libertarian community is basically the only constituency Holder has had at his side since he announced the decision to try the 9/11 defendants in civilian courts. The GOP has continually smeared him as a weakling whose commitment to this sissy "rule of law" stuff prevents him from doing what it takes to Keep Us Safe. With his speech, Holder implicitly compared the people in the audience -- the people who have supported him through his extended media flogging -- to the very "rigid ideologues" whose attacks they have defended him from.

Another recommended blog post on this speech is from FireDogLake.

Crypto-libertarians?

There's been quite a bit of discussion recently as to questions such as Will Crypto-Libertarianism Doom the Republican Party? It's being expressed by some that there is a fear that the libertarian wing of the Republican party will emerge like the socialist wing of the Democratic Party.

What exactly is a Crypto-libertarian? One of the earliest references to that term is found in a 1999 Salon article but it gives no definition.

Gary Reed notes the same lack of definition, on Reason to Freedom:

The term crypto-libertarian pops up all over the politicosphere where everybody uses it but nobody bothers to define it.

Merriam-Webster Online defines "crypto" as: Hidden; not openly avowed or declared; a person who adheres or belongs secretly to a party, sect, or other group.

Meanwhile, a simple modern American definition of libertarian is: "maximum freedom, minimum coercion."

Which implies that a "crypto-libertarian" is a "secret freedom advocate."

“Tea Party” means nothing

It's a bit of a stronger take than the earlier post about the way in which the original intent of the Tea Party movement has been basically hijacked. I can't say I disagree with it, since part of my reason for not supporting the whole tea party concept was who was out there in front of it. Hence, I recommend Why “Tea Party” Means Nothing! from United Liberty. Just one small portion:

Here’s the problem: the tea parties were not entirely made up of libertarian uproar about BOTH parties, but instead have become a combination of libertarians, paleo-conservatives, and of course neo-cons. Ever since I saw Sean Hannity have a live show at a tea party and talk up the tea parties, I knew that there was a serious misinterpretation about what the tea party movement is and what the true identity is.

Tea Party as a kind of political equivalent of the 1960's countercultural movement?

First, as one who leans Libertarian, I don't embrace nor support most of what those who call themselves "Tea Party" people do. Though many connected to the Libertarian party started the concept of the Tea Parties, I do agree it's been taken over by others in many areas and has gone beyond the principles they started out with. That's been referenced in previous posts about the Right versus the Libertarian when it comes to the Tea Party topic...So, being born in 1960, I found this comparison by Right Side News, interesting:

Think of the Tea Party as a kind of political equivalent of the 1960's countercultural movement - just post Woodstock. That was when it ceased to be a kind of generational expression and became instead a vehicle that could support all sorts of commercialization. There was lots of money to be made. It could be the Tea Party is approaching that point now - a point of exploitation by the powers-that-be. The Tea Party movement is the first big populist movement of the 21st century, and populist movements, being popular, tend to sprawl across the board, meaning different things to different people. Eventually they are ripe for exploitation.

You know, we could tell this past year that something was happening. We sensed that the Tea Party movement was becoming at least partially co-opted because the high profile names suddenly seemed to change from people we'd never heard of to people we had. And we noted that pro-military establishment commentators like Sean Hannity were styling themselves as Tea Party supporters and saw how mainstream political strategists were suddenly proclaiming their fealty to the movement and we began to wonder if a schism was in the offing.

We wrote we didn't "get it." We didn't see how you could support America's military-industrial complex and be pro-freedom and smaller government at the same time. We wrote about these views several times in order to unpack what was and remain a confusing situation because we think the Tea Party now falls into at least three camps. There are those political organizers and commentators who are manipulating the Tea Party movement in order to reap benefits for the Republican party. Then there is the libertarian group that believes in what they perceive as the foundational profile of the Tea Party movement as an anti-tax, pro-freedom movement. Finally, there are likely millions of Tea Party supporters who have a "big tent" approach to the Tea Party's goal and are perhaps satisfied with its anti-government flavor (as it pertains especially to domestic programs) and "give 'em hell" mentality. Whether "conservative" or not, they may make up the biggest group of all - and are no less sincere or motivated than any others.

More on the Cato study on the number of Libertarians...

It's a highly recommended read, especially if you take the time to read the complete material shared and not just the summary by David Boaz. It's creating a great deal of discussion in the Libertarian online communities out there.

Something they found surprising but I didn't find surprising given my years of political debating online:

Finally, we commissioned Zogby International to ask our three ANES questions to 1,012 actual (reported) voters in the 2006 election… We asked half the sample, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” We asked the other half of the respondents, “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?”

The results surprised us. Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the first question. That is, by 59 to 27 percent, poll respondents said they would describe themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.”

The problem is as the next part shows:

The addition of the word “libertarian” clearly made the question more challenging. What surprised us was how small the drop-off was. A healthy 44 percent of respondents answered “yes” to that question, accepting a self-description as “libertarian.”

Most people don't think of that as the definition of Libertarian, so if you were to ask them outside of that type of a polling they'd have a concept of someone who was pro-pot, pro-gun and anti-government. The media has helped to contribute to the impressions people have been given as to what a Libertarian really is, and even those who call themselves Libertarian don't always agree on the complete platform. Which is not only normal, but the same with all of the political parties out there. One of the reasons I believe a good number of people don't label themselves...

Young Libertarians Flaky?

The title of this post by Katherine Mangu-Ward (no relation) Young Libertarians Flaky, Increasingly Republican-Leaning caught my attention...Most of the article is based on a study that in part said:

Libertarians are about 14 percent of the electorate. Libertarian voters swung away from Bush and the GOP in 2004 and 2006, but in 2008 they swung back, voting for McCain by 71 to 27 percent.

Younger libertarians voted 59 percent for Obama versus 36 percent for McCain. But their enthusiasm for his policies may be short-lived. Younger Americans are an optimistic generation, but easily shaken when things go badly. If unemployment continues to remain weak, an economic issue that disproportionately affects young people, this generation of voters could quickly become disillusioned with Obama’s policies.

Libertarians want smaller goverment, Religious right wants larger government that discriminates

The title of this post is the basic summary of this piece I recommend from Washington Monthly shared on Alternet; Tea Party Split Between Libertarian Faction and Religious Right? by Steve Benen. For those of you who lean libertarian (like me) but have not been able to buy into the whole Tea Party concept? You are going to want to read this in full. One part, I found especially thought provoking:

This is not a group of mainstream Americans. Farah's conspiracy-driven website has taken the lead in peddling Birther nonsense; Bachmann is mad as a hatter; Moore is a theocrat who doesn't believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states and was removed from office for ignoring federal court orders he didn't like; and Scarborough is a radical preacher best known for being a Jerry Falwell acolyte, writing a book called Liberalism Kills Kids, and trying to establish his own mini-theocracy in Texas several years ago.

With that in mind, the speakers' list offers some hints about the direction of this "movement." There have been fissures between the libertarian-minded factions and religious-right-style theocrats whose agenda expands well beyond taxes and "socialized medicine."

Indeed, the tension between the factions matters a great deal -- the former wants smaller government in all instances; the latter wants bigger government to prevent abortions and discriminate against minority groups right-wing activists don't like.

The left thinks they are on the side of the angels and the right thinks God is on their side.

I'm an interesting mix of political philosophies, leaning libertarian when it comes to federal politics towards a more constitutionist standpoint believing less federal government equals better federal government but I am more left when it comes to state issues and social services provided by the state. This division in mindsets is what created this blog as the alter-ego of Liberal Common Sense. That shared, there was a great deal of truth in Neither Left Nor Right on "Before it's News" - that is well worth reading. One part in particular that struck me:

For many progressives it all seems to be about how they feel about themselves and the sense of self-righteousness that their "generosity" affords them. Of course, self-righteousness is hardly the domain of the left. Having lived through the reign of terror of the "religious right" and their devotion to their belief that they are Gods true representatives on earth, well, it was scary stuff. The left thinks they are on the side of the angels and the right thinks God is on their side. Libertarians dont presume that they can divine the intentions of the almighty beyond the fundamental belief that we are all created equal and are endowed by our creator (whatever "creator" means to you) with certain inalienable rights.

Free our inner Yankee

I came across this blog post while surfing for Libertarian news, The Inner Yankee. I recommend heading over and reading the work of Phil Maymin. One part I particularly enjoyed:

In the world of academia, it is a cliché to observe that the more educated the faculty the more likely they are to be socialists, but that might be a combination of effects, including the ivory tower feeling that we can and should control the masses, if only we had the right people in charge.

You probably knew all there really is to know about right and wrong when you were a toddler: Don't take other people's stuff; don't hit. Since then, you've grown a lot smarter. Now, it is okay to take other people's stuff if someone else wants or needs it more; that's called "redistribution." It's okay to hit someone your government considers an enemy; that's part of "spreading democracy."

There's much more, you'll enjoy it, trust me :-)

Garry Reed compares reaction to blog post to storming the Bastille

When I read the earlier piece on Examiner.com, Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians, I didn't quite agree with all that Garry Reed shared, but he was expressing his opinion.

Apparently quite a few took issue with his piece, hence, Calling all laissez-faire sovereign individual Libertarians was penned, where Reed stated in part:

The satirically titled article Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians published on Wednesday immediately attracted the ire of contemporary socialism's apologists who stormed the "add a Comment" box on the article's page like they were storming the Bastille.

The article posited that in today's politico-philosophical world, anyone who embraced the oxymoron of "libertarian socialism" should have no problem with accepting the absurdity of "Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarianism."

The socialists (or "progressives," that being the modern, trendy camouflage word for "socialist") angrily pontificated that the libertarian label belonged exclusively to them, that the socialist usage could be traced back 150-200 years, that the libertarian label was stolen from the socialists in 1971 by the Libertarian Party (many non-libertarians harbor the illusion that the LP is somehow the beginning of modern libertarian's existence), and that "anarcho-capitalist" rather than "libertarian socialism" is the true oxymoron (because socialists make no distinction between "capitalism" which is accepted by libertarians as a synonym for voluntary free trade while "corporatism" is an invention of coercive government and is therefore rejected by libertarians, but that's another article).

Perhaps I'm a bit more of a realist, but I think the amount of time we waste on arguing about labels and who is really what just takes us away from some of the larger issues out there that perhaps solutions could be found for. Or at a minimum we'd know which solutions are not going to ever be agreed on.

Each person's concept of what their "political label" is can vary, there is no set formula as it if you believe A then you are this and if you believe B you are this, because at times people believe or don't believe in both A and B at the same time. It's all a matter of degrees. To some, I am very liberal, to others I am very libertarian, to others? I am no way even close to their concept of what a liberal or a libertarian would be. Yet to me? I'm still the same, liberal on some issues and libertarian on others...

You have no right to free speech on a blog

Recently I was forced to ban someone from my local political blog that at one time was a friend of mine. He continually violated the rules for civil discussion I had for everyone on the blog as well as calling me several times a day to take issue with me when he had been edited. In one of his last emails to me he stated I was the poster child for needing freedom of speech and called me a neo-con.

It would have been amusing had it not been for the fact that I ended up losing a friend over my feeling as if he should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Then there are a few others, including one blogger in particular who likes to complain about how things are on my blog, yet is not very different from those he complains about.

There is no right to freedom of speech on a blog, especially one owned and managed by a person, it is up to that person to allow you to comment, and to allow your comment to stay. It's also up to them to determine if they want rules on their site or if it's going to be this wild, wild west free for all.

Some bloggers make every comment have to be moderated, they can decide to publish or not to publish your comments.

So, there is no right to free speech on a blog...