politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Libertarians smarter?
Source:
Conservative News and Views
URL Source: https://www.conservativenewsandview ... ial/talk/libertarians-smarter/
Published: Feb 5, 2012
Author: Terry A. Hurlbut
Post Date: 2019-08-10 14:33:23 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 18489
Comments: 138
Are liberals really smarter than conservatives? Or are libertarians smarter than anyone else? A recent column in The Daily Mail suggests so. True or not, it shows that “liberal” and “conservative” are not the only two extremes of opinion. In fact, they are special cases of a far more general political landscape. By tradition, “conservative” and “liberal” (formerly “progressive”) stand for two different sets of freedoms on one hand, and entitlements on the other. This linear graph of left-of-center v. right-of-center dates from the National Assembly of Revolutionary France. The only thing that defined the “left” and the “right” then was change. The “left” wanted sweeping change, and the “right” wanted to keep things as they were. But neither side necessarily stood for more freedom than did the other. Instead, those things that a liberal wants to entitle some people to, a conservative does not. But: many of the things that a liberal wants people to be free to do, a conservative does not, either. The reason: a conservative favors a different set of entitlements that are not economic. The conservative would entitle most wives to expect their husbands to stay married to them, and not seek enjoyment elsewhere or end the marriage whenever they saw fit. “Moderates” are more likely to grant more entitlements in some areas, and more freedoms in others, than either side. But this line is a very special case. In fact, the possible mix of entitlements and freedoms should have at least two dimensions, not merely one. Michael Hanlon of The Daily Mail came close to recognizing this: The problem here is how we define ‘left’ and ‘right’ thinking, what this means socially and politically. A moment’s thought shows that the fault lines are not only blurred but they are legion, criss-crossing across traditional political strata and have changed through time. The square political leanings grid, from OnTheIssues.org. True, but incomplete. Many theorists, from Rand to Rothbard, have recognized two different “freedom scales” with which to chart one’s attitudes. One is the economic scale. Zero on this scale is a complete command economy, with input-output analysis dictating who produces what, and with Five-Year Plans, government stores, collective farms, the whole nine meters. At this end of the scale, everyone is entitled to a minimum economic standard but are free to do nothing to break out of that standard, or to take on any task unless the authorities approve. One hundred on this scale is total capitalism, with no role for government in production, distribution, or exchange. At this end, people are free to do anything but entitled to nothing. Whatever they want, they must work for. The other scale is the social scale. Zero on that scale means: throw homosexuals in prison, punish criminals severely, forbid immigration (that is, membership is by invitation only), etc. One hundred means to let everybody in, take all comers, let roommates (same-sex or opposite-, whether they share bed or not) form whatever contractual unions they care to form—but also recognize freedom of association (including the freedom not to associate), and the right of self-defense. Hanlon loses sight of one thing: many “social liberals” are damnably hypocritical along this line. They will not recognize freedom of association. They do not recognize a right of self-defense. They do not recognize any of the flip sides of increased tolerance of homosexuality, adultery, or criminality. As an example, they want to leave two men (or two women) free to be intimate, but then want to entitle this roommate pair to rooms, or an apartment, in any dwelling, whether the would-be host wants to offer them those rooms, or that apartment, or not. Once again: one person’s entitlement is another person’s loss of freedom. A libertarian, by contrast, would respect that host’s freedom. A libertarian would ask that the government leave those roommates free to be as intimate as they please, but not entitle them to rooms or apartment wherever they wish. For those, they must still make a voluntary arrangement with a host or landlord. If one plots his attitudes on the economic and social freedom scales on a square grid, instead of on a line segment, and orient this grid like a baseball diamond, then that grid will yield five different positions, not three. Home plate (zero, zero) is populism, or the Communism of the old Warsaw Pact, or Nazism in Germany. Conservatism lies at first base (100, 0). Liberalism or left-wing-ism lies at third base (0, 100). “Moderate-ism” is at the pitcher’s mound (50, 50). And Libertarianism is at second base (100, 100). So the old left-to-right line passes from third base to first, across the infield, allowing more freedom in economic areas, but insisting on more entitlement on the social, as it goes. Here is what Hanlon noticed: intelligence tracks with moving straight up on the political grid, and then tending toward perfect libertarianism. Lower intelligence tracks with falling straight down on the political grid, toward total populism. With the horizontal movement along the traditional left-right line, intelligence does not change. The implied result: Libertarians are smarter than everyone else. Purely abstract intelligence might track higher with libertarianism. That makes libertarians smarter than liberals or conservatives on that scale. A smart person (unless he hungers for power) wants to be free, either to make a living or to associate (or not) with anyone he pleases. But does common sense make libertarians smarter? Not necessarily. Abstract libertarianism works fine—for a voluntary association of voluntarily consenting adults. It does not work well for children. A child is an inherently dependent, even helpless person. Common sense demands that a society entitle a child to food, water, shelter, and education, that the parents, not the government, should give it. The parents are more likely to have the child’s best interests at heart than faceless bureaucrats would. But in addition, that same society also entitles the parents to a minimum level of “good examples” from other adults. That is why a sound society does not authorize two same-sex roommates sharing bed to adopt children. It is also why a business that caters to “the prurient interest” is not free to locate near enough to where a child might stray within sight. It is why a sound society classifies certain kinds of pastimes as “for adults only,” and recognizes a class of citizen or resident called the minor. As in: Sales of cigarettes to MINORS are FORBIDDEN by law. We support this law. Parents are urged to help prevent violations. The pure libertarian recognizes no such thing as a minor. That’s the equivalent of expecting a cub in the wild to fend for himself before he is ready. As any wildlife biologist knows, that’s not very smart. But in matters of pure economic policy, libertarians might be smarter than most. A sound society does let its children imitate the adults in one key area: business. Whether this business is selling lemonade from a front-yard stand, or offering lawn-and-garden services to his neighbors for a fee, a libertarian would have no problem with this. Nor would a conservative, so long as the child is doing something that he or she has already safely done at home. But a liberal won’t allow this. A liberal wants to entitle a perfect stranger to sell lawn-and-garden services, usually for a higher fee, without having the neighbor’s boy (or girl) compete with that service. The same seems to hold for selling lemonade, though that is even harder to justify. This makes both conservatives and libertarians smarter than liberals. They are smart enough to know that some entitlements have no justification, but only excuses. Are libertarians smarter? In some areas, yes. In others, no. But conservatives are smart to engage libertarians in a debate on how a society ought to run. Liberals haven’t done very well. Libertarians and conservatives might each be able to teach the other something.
Traditional political labels
Are libertarians smarter than everyone else?
Summing up
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 102.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
If libertarians were smarter than everyone else, they would have dumped this crappy grid many years ago. It has far less persuasive power than a Jack Chick tract. Or a state lottery commercial. And they thrust it at you constantly, like you will eventually succumb to the awesome power of a simplistic political Venn diagram. It's just been done to death.
If libertarians were smarter than everyone else, they would have dumped this crappy grid many years ago. Yeah I agree there. The version I took asked only 20 questions and was from at least 8 or 9 years ago - society has changed dramatically in those years. It's impossible to determine one's beliefs with just that few. The questions didn't really cover a lot of the political issues of the day.
I think libertarians really need some new sales brochures. I think they have drifted politically somewhat from Murray Rothbard back in the Nineties to the ideas of Hans-Herman Hoppe at present. You do need energetic thought leaders to write, to persuade. The libertarians aren't producing enough of these to begin with and some of the best prospects get co-opted into the Kochtopus libertarianish propaganda mills. The Kochs are, ironically, the greatest impediment to the advancement of libertarianism. And it is no accident, of course.
They did have some pretty good response to the Ron Paul Revolution Campaign. Even though Congressman Paul ran as a Republican, I think this marketing strategy did much to recruit a new crop of libertarians to the cause of freedom.
But it hasn't accomplished much lately. It may be that RP's podcasts, Rand's Senate speeches and amendments, Rockwell's Von Mises Institute will bring forth the leaders the libertarians need to achieve meaningful victories in elections. So far, it's missed the mark considerably.
All of that is meaningless without a charismatic libertarian candidate who can rally supporters like Ron did. I'd like to see Rand run eventually, preferably as a Libertarian. Justin Amash would be a good running mate. He has already exited the Republican Party.
Sometimes, as with Churchill and a number of other Brit leaders like the Pitts and Disraeli, the time creates the man that history demands. And that seems like mere hindsights of dry historians but I think it really is true that, at times, a particular leader fits the times in which he/she lives. Such a person has the charisma to build confidence that great and unexpected victories can be won, even against a superior foe. Figures like Caesars Julius and Augustus, Constantine, Joan d'Arc, Napoleon, Churchill and others seemed almost to be chosen by history or fate to lead their nation at a crucial juncture. Others, like Hitler, tried to deliberately create that sense of themselves as a fated leader but I think at times a nation can come to see its ambitions and sensibilities uniquely reflected in just one leader who rules virtually by acclaim. At any rate, I think that is how people living at the time in those nations saw these leaders. That guy on the white horse, fulfilling national ambitions and a destiny as a Great Power, striding the earth as the British empire did rather uniquely. Sometimes, you just can't get voters to vote for your policy alone. You have a better chance if you have the most appealing guy/gal, someone with a story the public connects with. Although he ran as a Republican, Trump is a good example of this. Trump had some deep appeal to a large segment of voters. And that was enough to win against Felonia Milhouse von Pantsuit. Trump was, in many ways, the heir of the Ron Paul presidential campaigns of 2008 and 2012. Trump had considered running as a Reform Party candidate back in 2000 and in 2004 but decided against it. You still hear echoes of Ross Perot's speeches when Trump makes certain speeches and his actions on tariffs fits very well with both Perot and Ron Paul. And Trump, like Perot, focuses on trying to improve worker wages and employment. You may recall that Trump also flirted with a 2012 GOP run but chickened out on his maiden voyage as a candidate, up at an airport in NH where he apparently ordered his pilot to fly him back to NYC and Trump's first political rally with full press entourage was cancelled by Trump just deciding to fly away with no notice as to why. LOL However, Ron Paul had demonstrated in 2008 and 2012 that a candidate could get a lot of attention and build a dedicated group of followers who would donate to the campaign if the candidate stood out from the pack of party-approved candidates. And Trump could not have failed to notice that Ron Paul did fairly well overall and had quite a nice little self-promotion machine. So Trump ran in 2016. I saw an interview with a few of his top campaign staff and they had delivered an estimate to Trump that about the best he could hope for in the GOP primary was to capture 12% of the GOP vote, maybe enough to give a speech at the GOP convention. And Trump and Stone were satisfied if they could get that 12%, perhaps hoping to parlay that into a political network that could rival Fox News, maybe with Trump on TV 24 hours a day, telling the world what he thinks of it. So, with the goal of 12% Or Bust, Trump charged into the primary, under attack from the first minutes of the first debates and his support quickly grew. Like cancer it grew. And he saw the structure of the field was weak and that he would win if he stayed aggressive. And that's what he did. The man, the era, the opportunity. You can't separate them. It really is not a mystery to me at all why Trump likes to play golf with Rand Paul. They're both outsiders to the GOP swamp. Trump teaming up with Rand Paul to ridicule Lindsey Graham's warmongering right to his face on the golf course on a Sunday afternoon about a month back was a good example. Donald hadn't humiliated Lady Lindsey like that since the primary when Donald gave out Lindseys personal flipphone number at a press conference, just to be mean to him. Lindsey had to change his number and finally got a smartphone. It pretty much finished off any chance of Lindsey becoming our first non-binary gender-fluid president. Just think of the money we could save when Lindsey could be both president and his own First Lady, all at the same time! And, no surprise, Trump is about as popular with the D.C. GOP and Dem establishment as Ron Paul was back in the day.
I disagree - it WAS Trump's policies that got Trump elected. Voters ignored the womanizing, the "grab 'em by the pussy" comments, whoremongering, marital infidelity and all of the negatives simply because he was "not as bad as" the alternative. It really is not a mystery to me at all why Trump likes to play golf with Rand Paul. They're both outsiders to the GOP swamp. Trump teaming up with Rand Paul to ridicule Lindsey Graham's warmongering right to his face on the golf course on a Sunday afternoon about a month back was a good example. Didn't know about the Lady Lindsey "incident", but you're right - The Donald and Rand do seem to share some common ground, with Trump even naming Rand as a special envoy to Iran in diplomatic talks with Iran's top diplomat amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran. To me. that shows that Trump is trying his best to avoid getting involved in a military fiasco there.
#103. To: Deckard (#102)
You need to check on this … Come on, Deckard, at some time in your life start getting your act together and getting things straight. Since you NEVER fact check or validate anything, I checked for you. “I don’t know anything about that other than I have spoken to Sen. Paul, and Sen. Paul is somebody I have a very good relationship with,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “And I would listen to him, but I didn’t appoint him, no,” he continued. “No he’s somebody I listen to, and I respect Sen. Paul and if he had some ideas I would listen.” Source: Trump says he didn't tap Rand Paul to serve as envoy in talks with Iran
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
The square political leanings grid, from OnTheIssues.org.
#8. To: Tooconservative (#5)
The square political leanings grid, from OnTheIssues.org.
#9. To: Deckard (#8)
(Edited)
#10. To: Tooconservative (#9)
I think libertarians really need some new sales brochures.
#11. To: Deckard (#10)
Even though Congressman Paul ran as a Republican, I think this marketing strategy did much to recruit a new crop of libertarians to the cause of freedom.
#13. To: Tooconservative (#11)
It may be that RP's podcasts, Rand's Senate speeches and amendments, Rockwell's Von Mises Institute will bring forth the leaders the libertarians need to achieve meaningful victories in elections. So far, it's missed the mark considerably.
#23. To: Deckard, hondo68, Vicomte13, Gatlin (#13)
All of that is meaningless without a charismatic libertarian candidate who can rally supporters like Ron did.
#26. To: Tooconservative (#23)
(Edited)
Sometimes, you just can't get voters to vote for your policy alone. You have a better chance if you have the most appealing guy/gal, someone with a story the public connects with. Although he ran as a Republican, Trump is a good example of this. Trump had some deep appeal to a large segment of voters.
#102. To: Deckard (#26)
Trump even naming Rand as a special envoy to Iran in diplomatic talks …
You need to check on this …
Replies to Comment # 102. Trump even naming Rand as a special envoy to Iran in diplomatic talks …
I found that Trump said he didn't tap Rand Paul to serve as envoy in talks with Iran.
Declard. you are one pathetic lost soul when it comes to presenting facts …
End Trace Mode for Comment # 102.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]