I've recently became a subscriber to the Reason magazine and I really like it. I find myself more sympathetic to libertarian views. I'm more inclined towards Rothbard than what most of the libertarians think though. I"ve been reading the reason magazine for a bit.
It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view, they may want individual states to micromanage all of their lives (as if states would be smaller government than the federal government), and they tend to be in favor of using the government to even force their ideological ends on everyone else (not just with regards to basic individual liberties, most people want the state to ensure people's liberties). But, they want the state to break up unions, and that kind of thing.
So are a lot of libertarians really frauds, and, not really for small-government? I just don't see how you can say that you want small-government but be at the same time for the individual states to micromanage your entire life. I don't think that's what Rothbard would want.
Libertarian is pretty broad.
Around here, most people are Anarcho-Capitalist Rothbardians. However, the Libertarian front extends about to the semi-conservative lines of the various "Liberty organizations" in the USA, though the people who state they believe in Libertarian principles rather then say they believe in "freedom" are usually leaning towards the minarchist school of Mises and Hayek.
SilentXtarian: It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view...
It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view...
I think it's the other way around. Conservatives have been moving towards the concept of small-government and minarchism. So, it's not about libertarians being frauds, but conservatives being frauds by calling themselves libertarians.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I think it's the other way around. Conservatives have been moving towards the concept of small-government and minarchism. So, it's not about libertarians being frauds, but conservatives being frauds by calling themselves libertarians.
Conservative has lost its meaning though. Liberal means something other than what it used to mean. What is one to call oneself?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: SilentXtarian: It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view... I think it's the other way around. Conservatives have been moving towards the concept of small-government and minarchism. So, it's not about libertarians being frauds, but conservatives being frauds by calling themselves libertarians.
I think I get it. I guess that would confirm another suspicion I've had. So, a lot of these so-called libertarians are just conservatives that have gotten tired of being ridiculed for their beliefs who want a new banner to hang over their head. It gets hard not to conflate conservatives and libertarians because at times people blur the two, almost making them synonymous with each other.
SilentXtarian: So, a lot of these so-called libertarians are just conservatives that have gotten tired of being ridiculed for their beliefs who want a new banner to hang over their head.
So, a lot of these so-called libertarians are just conservatives that have gotten tired of being ridiculed for their beliefs who want a new banner to hang over their head.
well, the thing is that "conservative" means so many different things. I could tell someone I'm a conservative and they might think it's a synonym for "evangelical christian." Of which I am not.
SilentXtarian: I've recently became a subscriber to the Reason magazine and I really like it. I find myself more sympathetic to libertarian views. I'm more inclined towards Rothbard than what most of the libertarians think though. I"ve been reading the reason magazine for a bit. It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view, they may want individual states to micromanage all of their lives (as if states would be smaller government than the federal government), and they tend to be in favor of using the government to even force their ideological ends on everyone else (not just with regards to basic individual liberties, most people want the state to ensure people's liberties). But, they want the state to break up unions, and that kind of thing. So are a lot of libertarians really frauds, and, not really for small-government? I just don't see how you can say that you want small-government but be at the same time for the individual states to micromanage your entire life. I don't think that's what Rothbard would want.
Now, many self-proclaimed libertarians might not be fully-developed or might be simply confused, but I think it is a stretch to call someone a fraud. So I ask: Which specific libertarians are you referring to?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
bloomj31: Jonathan M. F. Catalán: I think it's the other way around. Conservatives have been moving towards the concept of small-government and minarchism. So, it's not about libertarians being frauds, but conservatives being frauds by calling themselves libertarians. Conservative has lost its meaning though. Liberal means something other than what it used to mean. What is one to call oneself?
You know, you could always just go label-free. That's what I do.
You can't even call yourself a minarchist because that's what a lot of Republicans do and by going under that identity- you're opening yourself up to the same philosophical criticisms they get.
SilentXtarian: You know, you could always just go label-free. That's what I do. You can't even call yourself a minarchist because that's what a lot of Republicans do and by going under that identity- you're opening yourself up to the same philosophical criticisms they get.
Perhaps I will.
bloomj31: Conservative has lost its meaning though. Liberal means something other than what it used to mean. What is one to call oneself?
I mean "conservative" in the "neoconservative" sense.
Daniel Muffinburg: SilentXtarian: I've recently became a subscriber to the Reason magazine and I really like it. I find myself more sympathetic to libertarian views. I'm more inclined towards Rothbard than what most of the libertarians think though. I"ve been reading the reason magazine for a bit. It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view, they may want individual states to micromanage all of their lives (as if states would be smaller government than the federal government), and they tend to be in favor of using the government to even force their ideological ends on everyone else (not just with regards to basic individual liberties, most people want the state to ensure people's liberties). But, they want the state to break up unions, and that kind of thing. So are a lot of libertarians really frauds, and, not really for small-government? I just don't see how you can say that you want small-government but be at the same time for the individual states to micromanage your entire life. I don't think that's what Rothbard would want. Now, many self-proclaimed libertarians might not be fully-developed or might be simply confused, but I think it is a stretch to call someone a fraud. So I ask: Which specific libertarians are you referring to?
Let me get out my reason magazines!
The specific "libertarians" in question are Veronique de Rugy, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and I think Andrew Potter. Veronique was the one who advocated for states-rights conservatism, Katherine wrote the article in favor of giving government (rather than the market) the control of hiring and firing teachers, and Andrew Potter wrote a surprisingly pro-corporate article in favor of globalization defending it against Naomi Klein (without doing the standard criticisms of globalization we'd see on www.mises.org about how this free-trade we're seeing isn't really free-trade).
SilentXtarian: Jonathan M. F. Catalán: SilentXtarian: It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view... I think it's the other way around. Conservatives have been moving towards the concept of small-government and minarchism. So, it's not about libertarians being frauds, but conservatives being frauds by calling themselves libertarians. I think I get it. I guess that would confirm another suspicion I've had. So, a lot of these so-called libertarians are just conservatives that have gotten tired of being ridiculed for their beliefs who want a new banner to hang over their head. It gets hard not to conflate conservatives and libertarians because at times people blur the two, almost making them synonymous with each other.
they aren't really that closely related. Although some conservatives at times like to talk like libertarians on some topics. But libertarians should be able to find common ground with just about everyone that isn't a complete authoritarian.
SilentXtarian: Daniel Muffinburg: SilentXtarian: I've recently became a subscriber to the Reason magazine and I really like it. I find myself more sympathetic to libertarian views. I'm more inclined towards Rothbard than what most of the libertarians think though. I"ve been reading the reason magazine for a bit. It occurs to me that many libertarians have moved away from Rothbard and they've moved more towards the conservative fiscal federalism view, they may want individual states to micromanage all of their lives (as if states would be smaller government than the federal government), and they tend to be in favor of using the government to even force their ideological ends on everyone else (not just with regards to basic individual liberties, most people want the state to ensure people's liberties). But, they want the state to break up unions, and that kind of thing. So are a lot of libertarians really frauds, and, not really for small-government? I just don't see how you can say that you want small-government but be at the same time for the individual states to micromanage your entire life. I don't think that's what Rothbard would want. Now, many self-proclaimed libertarians might not be fully-developed or might be simply confused, but I think it is a stretch to call someone a fraud. So I ask: Which specific libertarians are you referring to? Let me get out my reason magazines! The specific "libertarians" in question are Veronique de Rugy, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and I think Andrew Potter. Veronique was the one who advocated for states-rights conservatism, Katherine wrote the article in favor of giving government (rather than the market) the control of hiring and firing teachers, and Andrew Potter wrote a surprisingly pro-corporate article in favor of globalization defending it against Naomi Klein (without doing the standard criticisms of globalization we'd see on www.mises.org about how this free-trade we're seeing isn't really free-trade).
I haven't read any of their works, so I'll refrain from making comments about them.
I've talked to Naomi Klein and she is no libertarian. She recognizes the "closing of society", but hey even Robert Reich seems to have gotten a dose of reality. Reason Magazine is quasi-libertarian. It is political libertarianism, thus incoherent.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Communist Naomi Klein and "libertarian" should never be in the same sentence.
E. R. Olovetto: I've talked to Naomi Klein and she is no libertarian. She recognizes the "closing of society", but hey even Robert Reich seems to have gotten a dose of reality. Reason Magazine is quasi-libertarian. It is political libertarianism, thus incoherent.
I know that. I was talking about a libertarian writer who defended globalism against Naomi Klein. By defending globalism and not attacking NAFTA, and, other non-free trade deals, it lead me to the conclusion that the alleged author supported the WTO, and, non free-market ideas, and that the author was really a corporatist, and not a libertarian at all.
SilentXtarian: The specific "libertarians" in question are Veronique de Rugy...
The specific "libertarians" in question are Veronique de Rugy...
I've heard her speak. I haven't read much of her work for Reason Magazine, but you should beware of libertarians who water down their message in order to be perceived as less radical. She may not be an anarchist, but I don't think she is a conservative disguised as a libertarian; from what she said during Cato University she is a minarchist.
I've been doing this lately and have received so many unexpected rebuttals that have nothing to do with my beliefs. For instance I was talking to a fellow student last week outside of my US government class and was shocked when he responded to me by saying, "Communism is beautiful in theory but does not work in practice". I guess because I was agruing that the government is a band of theives and a burden on society he assumed I was a communist. Anyway I had to take the next 10 minutes to explain to him that communism doesn't even work in theory.
socialdtk: "Communism is beautiful in theory but does not work in practice".
"Communism is beautiful in theory but does not work in practice".
Heard that nonsense spouted all the time from my high school history teachers in Catholic school.
Joe:Heard that nonsense spouted all the time from my high school history teachers in Catholic school.
My history teacher said the same thing. I asked him in class what he thought about communism (I idealized communism at the time) and that was essentially his response.
Yes, some are. http://www.takimag.com/site/article/who_is_matt_welch/
Daniel Muffinburg:Now, many self-proclaimed libertarians might not be fully-developed or might be simply confused, but I think it is a stretch to call someone a fraud. So I ask: Which specific libertarians are you referring to?
Beat me to the punch.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael