Where Do These People Get Off Calling Themselves Libertarians?

Economics Political Theory
1

What is it with the surge of fake-libertarians these days? People like David Boaz are not libertarian by any meaningful definition, at best they are efficiency experts for Statism. Now I am constantly confronted with militaristic, drug-nanny, police-state technocrats who call themselves libertarians and have the nerve to chide me for ‘misrepresenting’ libertarianism when I portray it as anti-statist.

I hate Americans, and how easily they are fooled by this nonsense. We have losertarian liberventionists like Tyler Cowen telling Freedom is Slavery. Lots of people get all uppity when the LvMI or LRC people criticize Cato, Reason Magazine, etc. for being statists. Well, guess what? They are! It is obvious they are! It’s not our fault these people are fakes and poseurs. These people aren’t even classical liberals or Taft Republicans, their sole purpose seems to be injecting creeping statolatry into the libertarian movement. I would rather deal wit the Tea Party than the Cato Institute and if it makes us ‘less appealing’, well, to Hell with the masses: I’m selling libertarianism, if they don’t want to buy it then I don’t want their business. Being correct is more important than being popular any day. How can people be stupid enough to buy into their blatant BS?

2

Collectivism.

You can criticize them all you want, but Cato and Reason are mechanisms that can help pull people to libertarianism who haven’t been introduced to the concepts before.

3

Collectivism.

It was obviously rhetorical. I understand that Jeffrey Tucker is also an American.

But Cato and Reason are mechanisms that can help pull people to libertarianism who haven’t been introduced to the concepts before.

Presuming this is true that doesn’t change the fact that they are not libertarians and are, quite frequently, opposed to actual libertarianism. Look at Virginia Postrel, she’s a war-mongering lunatic.

Also, re: my point that many of these people are statists even by historical standards, such as Taft. Bill Buckley is better on drugs than a lot of these crypto-Nazis calling themselves ‘conservative libertarians’. Bill Buckley. I don’t want to be associated with anyone who is worse than William F. Buckley, Jr.

4

You cannot conceive of any meaningful definition of libertarianism where Boaz is a libertarian? Seriously?

You remind me of the discussions between the Trotskists and the Maoists. They also have a lot ‘I’m the better radical than thou’ discussions, which are completely irrelevant, because it doesn’t boil down to what you try to achieve, but about ways you want to achieve it. Since David Boaz wants a libertarian world, he’s a libertarian. Just because his methods are different and not completely inconsistent, doesn’t mean he’s ‘not’ a libertarian.

"Now I am constantly confronted with militaristic, drug-nanny, police-state technocrats who call themselves libertarians and have the nerve to chide me for ‘misrepresenting’ liberke that, yes. If you want a better example: think the guy from Cato who supports arresting Assange. Cato has a lot of constitutional ‘we want less government’ types, which aren’t necessarily libertarian. Boaz, however, is not such a person. Talk to him for 5 minutes on his ideal society. That really is all the proof you need.

“I hate Americans, and how easily they are fooled by this nonsense. We have losertarian liberventionists like Tyler Cowen telling Freedom is Slavery. Lots of people get all uppity when the LvMI or LRC people criticize Cato, Reason Magazine, etc. for being statists. Well, guess what? They are! It is obvious they are! It’s not our fault these people are fakes and poseurs. These people aren’t even classical liberals or Taft Republicans, their sole purpose seems to be injecting creeping statolatry into the libertarian movement. I would rather deal wit the Tea Party than the Cato Institute and if it makes us ‘less appealing’, well, to Hell with the masses: I’m selling libertarianism, if they don’t want to buy it then I don’t want their business. Being correct is more important than being popular any day. How can people be stupid enough to buy into their blatant BS?”

Tyler Cowen makes a bad argument in that essay - where does he says that freedom is slavery? :?

Could you conceive people from having a different perspective on how to be a libertarian in an unlibertarian world? Because you are basically attacking for not sharing your idea of how to do so. I fail to see any relevance or improvement in that.

You could criticize them - ‘your kind of being a libertarian in an unlibertarian world isn’t good for the overall purpose’ - but you are just defining them out of the movement, because you disagree with them. Feel free to be holier than thou, but I’m not sure if this helps anyone.

5

My rule is simple. If you are not at least as radical as Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia - you are not a libertarian. Even that is a downgrade from classical libertarianism. There is no excuse anymore, none, not to be that radical. These people can only be possessed of ignorance or a religious reverence for States to not be that radical, and neither one qualifies them to speak for libertarianism.

That may seem ‘harsh’, but as far as I am concerned that is just using words properly. There is no logical or historical reason these fools should be considered libertarians; and there is no philosophical basis for their deviationism. Both Maoists and Trotskyites supported total state ownership of the economy; thus they were Communists. The question of who is correctly ‘Marxist’ is beside the point. I am not debating whether Boaz is a Rothbardian or a Tuckerite; he is not a libertarian at all.

6

I did some google and she seems to have some pretty mad opinions, yes.

7

Any ‘movement’ that accepts these - let’s put it frankly, scumbags - is not any ‘movement’ I want to be a part of. It is not ‘sectarian’ to reject these people, it is basic consistency. They are in no way, shape or form libertarian: not economically, not socially, not philosophically, not legally, not even by historical standards of classical libertarians like Tucker or Spooner. I can not see how we can seriously be debating it; they might at best be marginally ‘more’ libertarian than the typical statist lunatics in office today, but so what? Mussolini was probably less statist than Hillary Clinton, that doesn’t make him a frickin’ libertarian.

Frankly, some of the stuff these people endorse makes regular republicans look moderate in their statism. These people are technocrats and social democrats. They have no place in libertarianism. Sometimes they are right - so what? Even Hitler was right about democratic governments. Even Lenin was against WW1. Hell, both Hitler and Stalin are closer to the libertarian position on those subjects than most of these fake-liberventionists.

8

Wow. I’ve never been an avid reader of Cowen’s, but that’s a horrible statement.

And I agree with Brian. As frustrating as some individuals from Reason, Cato or others may be, don’t let that frustration take over and launch into emotional tirades, which make it so easy to lose focus and start denouncing entire groups of people for things some have said. I have read many things under the Cato banner that I did not like, but I have also read a whole lot that I do like and find very valuable, and which may not exist were it not for the well-funded Cato Institute.* And I will appreciate every minor impediment to the growth of the state, every person drawn to libertarianism, and every young libertarian scholar who is able to advance his research and study. I wish they did (or perhaps more accurately, were able to) go further in their policy initiatives, but considering the extraordinary challenge before us, it’s a lesser concern. It’s not as if we would be so much closer to a libertarian paradise if only David Boaz wrote more radical op-eds.

*Cato Unbound, which you link to, is one great example. It has provided a lot of fantastic debate from a host of great scholars.

9

Oke, good; than Boaz is a libertarian. Cool. I shall repeat myself: 5 minute conversation with him. Do it.

Also interesting: ‘classical libertarianism’. Since you have said that libertarianism is different from ‘classical liberalism’ - that it’s a whole new movement - could you explain to me what you mean by the term ‘classical libertarianism’? Who/which group of people defined it, if not someone like Nozick, since he didn’t contribute to ‘classical libertarianism’, but is also a ‘downgrade from classical libertarianism’. So, tell me, who was?

Just for the record; you do realize that Ludwig von Mises, according to this classification, is not a libertarian, right?

Also interesting that you say ‘that there is no excuses anymore, not to be radical’. Even if that’s true, it doesn’t follow that one has to be radical in advocating improvements in the world we live in.

“Both Maoists and Trotskyites supported total state ownership of the economy; thus they were Communists. The question of who is correctly ‘Marxist’ is beside the point.” <= No, actually, you missed the point. Again: 2 people can agree with what ought to be the final state, but can differ widely on what ought to happen in a non-libertarian world. You are basically attacking Reason, Cato and others for not acting upon your ideas of what ought to happen.

Sure; some at reason/Cato are warmongering people who learned to love the leviathan in one way or another. Starting a ‘holier than thou’-war, however, doesn’t make much sense. One could argue that because they support certain policies as an end in themselves, they aren’t libertarian. That is an argument one could make. But since the word ‘libertarian’ isn’t confined to ‘Nozick/Rothbardian ideas’, it doesn’t. If you want to redefine the word; sure. But don’t be agree because people don’t agree with the way you want to use the word.

It’s not ‘harsh’; it just doesn’t make much sense. But if you have need to ventilate your frustrations with some people; feel free to do so.

10

What people are you referring too? De-aggreggate man. Apply some of your insights in social ideas for a change. :confused:

And lose the angry young man attitude, please.

11

Something I added to an above post before seeing this:

Frankly, some of the stuff these people endorse makes regular republicans look moderate in their statism. These people are technocrats and social democrats. They have no place in libertarianism. Sometimes they are right - so what? Even Hitler was right about democratic governments. Even Lenin was against WW1. Hell, both Hitler and Stalin are closer to the libertarian position on those subjects than most of these fake-liberventionists.

Oke, good; than Boaz is a libertarian.

Boaz supported the civil rights act and defended King Lincoln. Those are horrifically anti-libertarian positions. He’s defended warfarism. And that is a deal-breaker: anyone who defends the warfare state is not a libertarian. Full stop, end of story. That is at least 50% of libertarianism.

Also interesting: ‘classical libertarianism’. Since you have said that libertarianism is different from ‘classical liberalism’ - that it’s a whole new movement - could you explain to me what you mean by the term ‘classical libertarianism’?

Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, the early Burke, William Godwin. You know, the people that make Rand Paul look like a National Socialist. Likewise, on the economic front, Bastiat and de Molinari were far more radical than 90% of these liberventionist types. These fake-libertarians are inferior to people in history who weren’t even libertarian, Bastiat was close to libertarianism and quite good for his time; compared to Bastiat Tyler Cowen is nothing but another big-government welfare whore. Acton was better on the Civil War and the Federal Government than Boaz or Tom G. Palmer. I know Palmer calls himself an anarchist, but it seems that he de facto endorses any sort of government intervention that supports his Yankee Cosmo ‘lifestyle’.

Just for the record; you do realize that Ludwig von Mises, according to this classification, is not a libertarian, right?

Right, though lots of elements in his work re: secession, etc. would make him one if he followed it consistently. He was also better on economics, sociology, state power, etc. than any of these people. Again, these people are inferior to people are not libertarian - they do not deserve to be called ‘libertarians’ by any stretch of the imagination.

No, actually, you missed the point. Again: 2 people can agree with what ought to be the final state, but can differ widely on what ought to happen in a non-libertarian world. You are basically attacking Reason, Cato and others for not acting upon your ideas of what ought to happen.

No, I’m attacking them for being statists. Brian Doherty aside, they’re technocrats, again, inferior to people who are not libertarian. They are not as radical as Mises, Bastiat or even Thomas Paine for that matter. It is conceptually retarded to call them ‘libertarians’.

Sure; some at reason/Cato are warmongering people who learned to love the leviathan in one way or another. Starting a ‘holier than thou’-war, however, doesn’t make much sense.

What do you fail to understand about them not being libertarians at all. They might be better than National Review, but so is the Wall Street Journal. Doesn’t mean the WSJ is libertarian.

It’s not ‘harsh’; it just doesn’t make much sense. But if you have need to ventilate your frustrations with some people; feel free to do so.

It makes perfect sense if you have any consistent,. non-retarded definition of what libertarianism is in terms of economics, social order, state power, legal structure, history, etc. Again I will repeat these people are not libertarians, they are inferior to many admitted non-libertarians alive and they are pathetic by historical comparison to people who also were not libertarian. This should not be hard to understand. There is no logical basis by which you can call them libertarians. It’s inane; the only thing they have going for them is sometimes being moderately better than the mainstream - and sometimes worse. So what? How does this make them libertarian? These people aren’t libertarians any more than Leonard Peikoff; they don’t deserve the name, and at least Peikoff has the honesty to reject the label.

This is not about reading Reason magazine. I read lots of non-libertarians. This is about them not being libertarians. I can not understand how it is not obvious. Cowen, Cato and almost the entire Reason staff are inferior on almost every imaginable question to Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat was NOT a libertarian. Ergo, they are not libertarians. And let’s not even bother comparing them to Herbert Spencer.

And lose the angry young man attitude, please.

Lose the smarmy big-tenter attitude, please.

12

I understand that you are a radical anarcho-capitalist libertarian. I am as well. Do you wish for this system to come about, or are you more worried about being more right than everyone else? While you’re patting yourself on the back for your purity, millions of those disenfranchised Americans you “hate” are looking for something that addresses their concerns. One does not jump from basic truths to the logical conclusion in any subject without hitting the steps along the way. Did you, after becoming accustomed to the fact that 2+2=4, immediately jump to differential equations, or even long division?

The folks at Reason and Cato are wrong about a lot of things. They are not perfectly logical, and neglect to carry correct premises to their right conclusions. They are, however, useful. They are very good at explaining why 2+2=4. Many an-caps forget how to do that, or insist on jumping to complex functions when asked for details. Stossel, Boaz and others are libertarians, and they are gifted at spreading libertarianism. An honest search will lead those learning about libertarianism further into the thought behind it, which will lead many to the Mises Institute and to extreme minarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Many of us here (including myself) made that same journey. Your purist angst, while understandable, does nothing to bring about your desired goals. The imperfect logic of Boaz and company, however, DOES help to bring about YOUR desired goal. Logically, that suggests that you are “doin’ it wrong.”

13

Do you wish for this system to come about, or are you more worried about being more right than everyone else?

It’s not going to come about, and especially not with the help of technocratic welfare statists like Cowen. So that’s not even on the table or relevant.

The point is not about being ‘more right’ the point is that THEY ARE NOT LIBERTARIANS. This is freakin’ obvious. Jesus H. Christ, that was the whole POINT of this thread, that non-libertarians are called and call themselves libertarians. They do not qualify in any way whatsoever for the moniker. I can not believe this is ‘controversial’; I can only assume you have no sense of intellectual history.

14

And as this has gotten tangental, I will reiterate that my assertion was that “these people are not libertarians.”

The point was not to ‘attack’ Cato or Reason Magazine. The point was not to accuse them of being crypto-communists; or to prove that the Koch brothers are behind an evil conspiracy to undermine libertarianism. The point was simply to say that these people are further from libertarianism than people who are not libertarians.

Making due exception for individuals such as Doherty or Gerald Gaus I think the answer is obviously 'no, they are not libertarians." We should stop calling them that, and they should stop calling themselves ‘libertarians’. Doing so is either dishonest or confused.

I mean, just compare them to Glenn Beck. Yes, Beck is a doofus. But on history and many issues Glenn Beck is better. And I can’t think of any sane libertarian who would consider Beck to be ‘libertarian’.

15

I can’t deal with so many ‘well, he’s just another warmongering statist’ with any proof.

I hope it’s nice living in your world with the ancient old battle of the good guys versus the bad/sell out guys.

16

I hope it’s nice living in your world with the ancient old battle of the good guys versus the bad/sell out guys.

This is about the fourth time you’ve responded to an argument I did not make. The point is that they are not libertarians. You want proof? Browse the Anti-War.com and LewRockwell.com archives, complete with citations and links. I am not calling these people fascists, and I am not even talking about strategy. I am saying that you have to meet a certain criteria to be a libertarian and, by their own writings, these people do not. This is about using words correctly and properly identifying ones views.

If you’re not against the warfare state, you’re not libertarian. If you favor the civil rights act, you’re not libertarian. If you defend Abraham Lincoln, you’re not libertarian. If you don’t advocate the immediate and radical decriminalization of drugs, you’re not a libertarian. If you defend wealth transfer programs like welfare and medicade, you’re not a libertarian - even if you want to monkey around with the numbers of how it works.

These people may be many things but one thing they are not is libertarian. Not from any sane historical or philosophical definition. And that was all I was saying: they are not libertarians and should not call themselves libertarians.

17

Lol. Yes, denounce other people as ‘have no sense of intellectual history’ because they disagree with you.

Basitat was a statist according to your definition. So was Spooner - using the constitution as an argument in arguing for the abolition of slavery. And let’s not forget he argued for the enforcement of trial by jury. Or what should we make of Paine, who argued for a guaranteed income and the quasi abolition of private property in land. Or Mises, who allowed for government control of education.

In short: everybody who doesn’t agree (1) with your end state of a ideal society ànd (2) the correct way of being a libertarian in this un libertarian world, is not a libertarian.

How do you feel about someone who thinks that voting is a legitimate strategy?

18

So you don’t see the implicit assumption, here?

Let me clarify the elephant in the room: according to your (limited) view of libertarianism, they aren’t libertarians. Yes, I agree that that’s probably true.

However; nobody cares about your beatle in the box, really. And this kind of ‘let’s define the world like x and let’s see who doesn’t adhere to this definition!!!’ is really pointless, imo. That’s why I said: I hope it’s nice living in your world where it is apparently necessary to fight a war against the bad guys who misuse your label. I’m sure you’ll be able to apply your definition consistent.

But please, if you say someone supports government intervention x, please back it up.

19

Spooner’s argument was solely rhetorical in appeal, as you obviously know, he rejected the Constitution. Likewise he favored jury-trial procedurally, that does not mean he wanted a state juridical system.

Bastiat was a statist, though a very limited one. Nonetheless he was far more libertarian on almost any subject under the sun than Boaz. Boaz is not a Nazi, but he is also not a libertarian and should not be called one.

You continue to argue with someone else. This is not about strategy or ‘who’s more radical’. It is about what it means to be a libertarian. These people are not libertarians.

20

Lolz.

I’m glad you have ‘the truth’ on ‘the’ correct meaning of the word. Could you also help us with the rest of the English dictionary?

Do you have any familiarity with Wittgenstein’s work on the meaning of words and the concept of language games, more specifically ‘family resemblance’-theory? (I’m translating, because I have no idea what the correct terminology is in English.)