Did you know some "libertarian" jerk in college who won’t shut up about Ayn Rand and thought his personal empowerment was the most important thing in the world. Or these days, have you met lots of "libertarians" who are really just NeoCon retreads looking for a new brand name. These faux libertarians make us real libers look like a bunch of crypto-Republicans and grumpy old men.
But if that's all we are, why would we hang out of a progressive blog dedicated to electing Democrats? Maybe we're just the world's least effective concern trolls.
Or maybe libertarians and progressives share many of the same goals and we could work together to better achieve them, if we just understood each other better.
Positive Libertariansism
You can't blame the average Kossack for buying into the idea that libertarians are just ultra-right conservatives. Libers do a terrible job communicating our values. We usually talk in negatives, what government shouldn't do and why your favored policy just can't help but be a disaster.
We rarely emphasize the Positive Side of our ideas, why we think they will make the world a better place. A strong positive message does exist and in my experience many progressives find it very appealing. But it's up to the libertarians to explain ourselves and to make that message clear.
Libertarian Bumper Stickers
While working on this diary, I saw a car with two bumper stickers. One said
Libertarians: We’re Pro-Choice. On Everything.
This nicely sums up the core of our philosophy. Each individual person, family and community is best suited to make their own decisions about their lives. The further you get from those small, local entities, the more opportunity there is for political mischief.
Libertarians have a strong preference for local and state government and an even stronger preference to keep government from intruding unjustly into people’s lives. We do believe that government (at all levels) serves many legitimate functions (if this diary gets any kind of reaction, I’ll write about this another day). We’re not all "drown it in the bathtub" types.
But we recognize that there are limits to what government intervention, even with the best of intentions, can accomplish. Experience has also shown that it's really hard to keep government to its proper role, so we are suspicious of growth and "misison creep" in government programs.
The other sticker said:
Libertarians: Socially Tolerant. Fiscally Conservative. Personally Responsible.
These are the natural consequences of the first bumper sticker.
Socially Tolerant: Freedom of speech, religion and the rest of the Bill of Rights? You won’t find more passionate defenders of our Natural Rights than the libertarians. If you like the ACLU, you’ll love the Cato Institute, at least on civil rights issues. Progressives will definitely have a thing or two to say about their health care plans and other social issues. But, on many of the very important post-Bush issues, we are natural allies.
Foreign policy? Our commitment to the person doesn’t stop at our border. An interventionist foreign policy that tries to force our values on other parts of the world is simple wrong, immoral and unworkable. Ditto on immigration reform. People who just want to work hard and get ahead are an asset for our country. Trying to stop them harms us and moves us closer to national IDs, ugly, useless walls, mass round-ups and the other trappings of a police state.
Gay Rights? It’s none of my business who you love, who you marry or what you do with your genitals. And if it’s none of my business, it’s none of the government’s business. Just make your own choices about what is best for you and, hopefully, be happy.
Fiscally Conserative: We’re fiscally conservative for two reasons. First, the more the government takes from each person for their projects, the less resources people have to pursue their own goals. Less money, less time, less freedom and fewer choices.
Who says the government’s desire for a new aircraft carrier is more important than my desire to take my kids to one more Saturday afternoon movie? Who says the government's "public charity" is more effective than the charities I voluntarily support?
Second, big government draws lobbyists, special interests and corruption the way stink bait draws catfish. When the pot of available money is big enough, special interests will spend a lot to make sure they get their cut. You can’t stop people from chasing after a $3 Trillion prize, but you can cut down on the size of the prize. As that pot shrinks, fewer and fewer groups will find it worthwhile chasing it.
Personally Responsible: There is basic human dignity in personal responsibility. Being able to take care of yourself and your family is a good thing. This is not the same as saying "Every man for himself". If it was Cato won’t need several dozen very smart, sincere people working on economic development, foreign aid and public health policy. They could just say, "There are your boot straps. Pull yourself up."
Building a just society means knocking down barriers to people's success. Sometimes that can best be done through government programs. More often, it’s best left to private efforts. But in the long run, it won’t be accomplished by hand-outs. People must achieve success themselves or it won't be sustainable.
You know the old saying:
If you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. If you give a man a fish, he’ll be back tomorrow bugging you for another fish.
That's All, Folks!
I wrote this from the view point of a left-leaning libertarian and had to paint in pretty broad stokes. Other libertarians with different view points will debate some of this. Or at least be much more strident about it. Just try talking with an Anarcho-Capitalist some time. I know some very intelligent, sincere Anarcho-Capitalists, but they're over the top even for me.
If you made it this far, let me know. I’m always curious if anyone actually reads the longer diaries to the end. Or if we all just skim the first couple of paragraphs, then jump to the comments.