The Myth of the Libertarian Democrat

[Updates below.]

The Libertarian Dem

Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad.

That's because libertarianism is generally concerned with one thing: reducing the prevalence of aggression (the initiation of physical force or the immediate threat of it) in society. That's the prime political principle and all else flows from it. It isn't a simple-minded hatred of government. It's an integrated, clear-minded hatred of what government does.

And that is in turn based upon an understanding of reality and the human condition, an understanding that says individuals have the capability and the right to think and act for themselves.

It isn't about just flipping the bird at Uncle Sam.

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want.

What is "libertarian" about public transportation? Individual liberty is threatened and infringed when taxes are imposed to pay for public roads. Individual liberty is threatened and infringed when arbitrary political forces impose limits on what we can do on "our" roads. Furthermore, what is "libertarian" about a statement praising freedom of movement that omits the crucial exception of trespassing on private property?

A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked.

What is "libertarian" about telling people how to run their businesses? Individual liberty is threatened and infringed when the state assumes the authority to regulate productive activity. I know it is incredibly difficult for statists to understand this, but there is a coherent and reasonable body of theory and research that supports the existence of private tort claims courts to resolve local problems amongst organizations and the individuals living next to them or affected by the activity in which those organizations engage.

A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers.

I repeat the above, here. I have zero confidence that Markos Zúniga's concept of "exploitation" is remotely sympathetic with one that functions with individual liberty and human reason at it's core. Furthermore, what is "libertarian" about assuming individuals cannot decide on their own what is best for themselves when it comes to workplace treatment?

A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness.

What is "libertarian" about stealing from one person and giving to another (taxation), which is how so many of these programs are funded? What is "libertarian" about assuming individuals cannot create security without the aid of coercive collectivism?

A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care.

What is "libertarian" about stealing from one person and giving to another (taxation), which is how nearly all of these programs are funded? What is "libertarian" about raising people to believe they don't have to be responsible for their own health and financial security?

Kos tried to pull this bullshit before and it was just as weak and lame then as it is now. His pitch has been tweaked but the essentials haven't changed.

The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.

His emphasis.

This is such a fantastic contradiction I don't know where to begin. How about here:

If [Mike Thompson] wants to leave the good ol' US of A, he can agitate all he wants. There should be a place where racist, xenophobic, bigoted, crazies can congregate and create a 13th century utopia, where such things as Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to live one's life absent government interference need not apply.

-Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

My italics.

Why do people listen to this guy?

UPDATED 10/2/2006 2:21pm
Contradiction as Innovative Political Strategy

Posted by Drizzten at June 07, 2006 03:06 PM