Libertarianism again

Well, my response I'm sure is predictable but...

I liked this line from Meyerson:

As for pure libertarianism, by denying a role for the state and dismissing the threat to liberties increasingly posed by the dominant corporate sector, it is about as germane to the American future as Trotskyism.

And that a lot of the little l's ideas of what libertarianism is are misplaced:

Markos quotes an entry that a reader posted on his Daily Kos blog in which the reader cites his realization that corporations are becoming more powerful than governments as the key to his switch to a neo-libertarianism concerned with regulating corporations. But surely, concern over disproportionate corporate power has been a main concern, if not the main concern, of populism, progressivism, and liberalism dating back at least to the 1890s.

Regulation of corporations is definitely not consistent with even more mainstream libertarian groups like Cato.

And finally:

In sum, the Democrats embrace of individual liberties in many spheres is actually an old story. But the new growth of selective libertarianism in the Democratic ranks is hardly going to be the main source of controversy in coming party debates. More likely, that debate will pit those who think retraining is the answer to our more layoff-prone society (thats the Bob Rubin solution) against those who think that retraining needs to be supplemented by, for instance, publicly funded alternative energy programs that would generate millions of jobs (thats the solution of a number of union leaders, and one that I favor as well). The latter position is clearly more in the New Deal liberal mode, but Rubins is hardly libertarian. Ultimately, the Democrats arent going to proceed very far down the libertarian road, for one simple reason thats far more pragmatic than philosophic: It doesnt lead anywhere.

Did I mention Meyerson rocks? He did the obvious thing, he pointed out that Markos doesn't actually have a good idea of the appropriate descriptors for his ideology. Markos is liberal, new deal, populist, and, at most, civil libertarian.

So, I think in summary what Reed and Meyerson have written in response to Kos is that 1) He's not really a libertarian, more of a populist, and 2) Libertarianism consistently fails as a practical ideology, and the pragmatism of the liberal mindset rejects things like deregulation, privitization, that stupid invisible hand (I think it's attached to a retarded monkey), increasing corporate power, and the unenlighted self-interest of flat tax/no tax libertarianism.

quitter,

that's a famous denouncement of libertarianism that you have on your blog, and it is common to run into people that espouse the arguments indicated in that essay. I've often just shied away from arguing the premise of "self-ownership" because it seems antiquated and stunted relative to political theory of the 20th century. Of course, if you don't agree with logical consistency according to whoever defines the concepts then you're a lunatic (at least to them). I think they may be wrong because despite ongoing accusations of lunacy, I haven't been institutionalized yet...

I run into people all the time that start with some perceived ideal and then fixate on the "logically consistent" and "chain of logic" as if they all attended the same school somewhere and that school never discussed social democracy or democratic socialism but has beat into their skull the talking points on communism and totalitarianism as if it was taught in a madrassa. However, when we look at countries that practice elements of modern social democracy and modern democratic socialism, they seem to kick our ass in a number of cultural areas that count.

I don't know where this libertarian school is, but I have a feeling it's a lot like the Steve Martin routine where he says, "Hey, lets play a trick on your kid -- teach him how to talk wrong, so that when he gets to school, the first things out of his mouth is, Can I dogmoo to the banana patch?. Get that kid outta here... Get him a special test."

To me, a lot of the criticism of the notion of a "libertarian Democrat", by focussing on narrow definitions of libertarianism is missing the point. This is because these same arguments can be aimed at the notion of a "libertarian Republican". A pure Libertarian position cannot be completely reconciled with either the Democratic or the Republican parties, or in fact with an American government, or the US Constitution. Much of the criticism I have seen of the article written by Markos Moulitsas (hereafter Kos) has set up the straw man that he was arguing that Libertarians (i.e. people who would vote for a Libertarian party candidate) should vote Democratic, which is ridiculous, irrelevant, and clearly not the case.

Kos was obviously making a much more limited argument:
1) that libertarians who have sought representation of their political views by electing Republicans have been ill-served. And
2) that there is an opportunity for them to forge an alliance with Democrats instead.

I think this is an important argument to make, only because there is an assumption that the Republican party is the natural home for pragmatic libertarians. Watching the current Republican administration eviscerate Habeus Corpus, while it replaces the free market with corporate socialism (e.g. 18.5 Billion dollars to Halliburton for Iraq with no competitive bidding) should disabuse people of that misconception.

When the argument is properly understood as "This Republican government is subverting the marketplace while extending the power of the central government, therefore a defection from the Republican party by libertarians is warranted." the argument seems perfectly sound.