Haven’t you ever read anything with more than one possible interpretation?
Do you claim Horwitz is such a bad blogger that he can not make a clear blog post, but that each instead ends up with many possible interpretations?
Because if your blog posts have more than one interpretation, then you are doing something wrong.
“But in the long run, the young will never sign on to a movement rooted in cultural conservatism.”
and?
speaking as a youth, who cares? you will never see a libertarian or ancap society develop from an overwhelming support from the masses. if anywhere, you will see it spring up from the ashes of a crumbling or decayed society, much like America, the Italian city states, etc. and if you are lucky enough to see it, it will be the product of a small number of wealthy and intelligent (which means they are most likely culturally conservative) men, not a grassroots organization.
you gotta brace the remnant, not pander to the crowds.
on the topic of Ron Paul, he braces the remnant, but for whatever reason its turned into some kind of sensational phenomena which attracts masses.
At the end of the day, it’s just another opinion by another person. Giving someone credit for being more important to libertarianism as a movement (if it is possible to be a movement) is pointless.
I’ve never regarded as Steven Horowitz as a leading libertarian theorist.
“I’ve never regarded as Steven Horowitz as a leading libertarian theorist.”
<= Nor does he aspire to be. I think he would consider himself to be an economist first and a libertarian second.
Interesting question; who are the leading libertarian theorists, i.e. who theorize about libertarianism as such?
Why are you answering for him?
You made a statement and I thought a qualifier was needed, so I gave one. Feel free to disagree.
I’m not very knowledgeable about Ron Paul, but I really don’t think his stances on immigration or abortion are necessarily “unlibertarian.” Neither of those issues are settled amongst libertarians.
It’s not about disagreeing or agreeing. You made claims on behalf of him, I am trying to understand why you feel qualified to do so.
“It’s not about disagreeing or agreeing. You made claims on behalf of him, I am trying to understand why you feel qualified to do so.”
<= The points I make are conditional and based upon conversations with him, spread out through the last 3 years, combined with readings his blog for over a year now. For example; he makes the point that he prefers a non-libertarian ECONOMIST over a LIBERTARIAN economist - or something similar. (I’m paraphrazing from memory here.) But again; they are, obviously, conditional. I’m not speaking in name of him; just my understanding of him, which could be wrong or correct. I’m, however, pretty sure that Horwitz doesn’t consider himself a leading libertarian philosopher, but is first and foremost an economist.
Yes, well, I don’t think the claim is that receiving money from racists is wrong. I think the claim is that, when the public knows he received money from racists, that makes it harder for liberals to embrace libertarianism, or some such.
Ron Paul exposed tons of people, myself included, to the ideas of liberty. Were it not for him, I know many people would still be stuck in the Democratic or Republican parties. Liberals I’ve talked to at least respect him for his honesty, consistency, and principled stances. Conservatives tend to love everything about him except his foreign policy (the neo-con talking heads hate him, but in my experience even conservatives that don’t really like his ideas at least respect him). That’s just my experience though.
If you’re talking about genuine, committed conservatives, the reason they like him on economic questions is either that they don’t understand their own views, or they don’t understand him.
I think conservatives tend to be more ignorant of economics than libertarians (especially an-caps), but they’re strides better than liberals for the most part. This has just been my experience, but I feel conservatives understand basic economics to some degree, they just don’t tend to be the best at articulating those views. When it comes to business cycle theory, banking, minimum wage sometimes, trade policy, etc. there tends to be much more diversity of opinion and more ignorance, but like I said, I feel most conservatives usually get the basics.
It does get annoying that they focus so heavily on taxes as the end all be all of economic policy. And I’m not saying conservatives are better than liberals on everything because I certainly don’t believe that either.
Again, that’s just been my experience.
Well, I have to ask who you’re talking about. If you mean conservatives in the street, not only are they ignorant of economics, but also of their leaders views on economics. If you mean the leaders, though, set aside knowledge of economics for a moment and focus on policy. Is it true that they suggest a policy which is better than that of the liberals, from a libertarian perspective? I suggest not. I suggest that corporate welfare, subsidies, and protectionism are not better than the welfare state, they are worse.
A parable: There once was a small nation of 100 families, each with their homesteaded plot. There arose a government called A, which took all the land and gave it to two people. The rest became renters. The B party opposed this, but seeing they had lost, fought for some concessions. They managed to institute that the two privileged owners be taxed, and the money distributed to the dispossessed, and that rents be fixed at a low rate. Later, the A party changed its tune. At this point, the A party started campaigning on private property and freedom - in particular, who the hell was the government to tell the two landowners what rents they may charge, and what was with this commie-pinko redistribution of wealth? Is A libertarian?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that the Republicans ever actually support laissez faire. Whether or not the Republican politicians really believe in free markets or not, they rarely actually support them. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I believed they did.
As for the average conservative on the street, I guess my point was that in my experience he/she tends to be better on economics than the average liberal or the average moderate. If asked how to stimulate the economy, most conservatives would probably say tax cuts (some will say spending cuts) while most liberals would say regulations, more government spending, and higher taxes on the rich. Conservatives might not be brilliant on economics, but they’re not entirely stupid. If the average conservative could actually implement their ideas of lower taxes and spending, we would be better off than the status quo. It’s at least in the right direction. I also find conservatives are more open to learning about economics than liberals, but again this is just personal experience.
Would we? Is it better to cut the welfare state and taxation, while maintaining or increasing corporate welfare, or is the statist quo better? I’d suggest that corporate welfare and other privilege must be the primary target to be attacked.
I meant if the budget is cut in general. If we’re going to assume that only welfare can be cut, I’d still take a cut in welfare and taxes as opposed to leaving them at their current level. As long as the total level of government goes down, I say we’d be better off. I’m not in favor of corporate welfare, but nor am I in favor of anything the government does. I’d like to see it all shrunk or eliminated, even if one piece at a time.
I opposed the bailouts, as I’m sure you did. I remember hearing some liberal groups floating the idea of taxing people who made money off the bailouts at the precise rate that they profited. Now, I objected on many grounds - I oppose writing laws that are in essence bills of attainder, and the lesson to the government would be that this is a great way to raise funds - hand out money, then tax it back. So politically I strongly opposed it, as much as I hated the bailouts. Yet, economically, wouldn’t it have been great?
Why are the poor poor? Isn’t it because of government policies, from economics to the war on drugs, at least in large part? Doesn’t the government create a large underclass, and aren’t some people the beneficiaries of this? Politically, I cannot advocate taking the beneficiaries to pay for welfare. I cannot believe that those who created the problem will fix it. Yet if this could somehow be done with a guarantee that it would be done properly, could I oppose the economic outcome?
I like to say he won in 2008. He didn’t win the election, but he won my mind, and many others.