In the last few presidential elections, the Libertarian Party presidential candidates presented policy positions watered down in a way that made them more acceptable to the center and left.
I am currently at Porcfest in New Hampshire. One person I spoke with there made the interesting point that, whether or not one trusts Trump to do any of the things he promises Libertarians, the fact that he makes those promises means that he is openly trying to attract libertarian votes, and having the major parties competing for Libertarian (better for libertarian) votes is a good thing, a way of getting a few of our ideas into the mainstream.
> My own view is that the Libertarian Party ought to use elections as a way of spreading libertarian views, not as a way of supporting either either major party candidate.
A related idea is how to use existing policy to do so. Given that most people in the US are not Libertarian (or libertarian), it might make sense for Libertarians to get behind certain current policies that show the benefits of "private ordering" as they say in academia. And that requires prioritization.
For example, a school choice program can show the benefits of more choice and competition in education. Even an imperfect school choice program can do the same. (For example, greater public school choice, or charter schools). Once people see the benefits of that, people might be more receptive to private school choice. But it is their experience with more modest but politically feasible programs make this possible.
On the other hand, Libertarians arguing for full-scale implementation of more extreme plans sees not only an act of futility, but reinforces the image of Libertarians as a bit crazy. Richard Epstein once told me a funny story. He was teaching at USC in the mid-1970s and became friendly with John Hospers, the 1972 Libertarian candidate and a philosophy professor at USC. Hospers was not actively involved in the Libertarian Party at that time, and Epstein asked him why. Hospers -- the former standard bearer -- said "Those guys are crazy. When I go to a meeting, there is endless discussion of trivial issues. For example, if a Libertarian candidate became president, would it be ethical for him to accept a salary?"
Libertarians should view their current job as educating people about the benefits of their policies, not advocating marginally fringe ideas that are rejected by most people. (BTW, I would offer the same advice to socialists and the Green Party, although I am much more confident that they will fail in the quest.)
This view sort of resonates with me. One of the Libertarian presidential debate was hosted by John Stossel and I remember most candidates discussing very esoteric issues which might be intellectually interesting but politically not important such as legalizing heroine and prostitution.
I think it was Milton Friedman who spoke at one of the Libertarian party conventions and advised the party to focus on principles rather than just winning elections. I think that was a sound strategy. Libertarian think tanks like Cato Institute has done an excellent job of advocating libertarian views on real hard issues.
Marijuana is not benign. I quit most drugs forty years ago. Compel me to indulge and offer the choice between LSD, coke, heroin, psilocybin, meth, and marijuana, and I'll take anything else before marijuana.
Dope really gums up the calculator and the hangover lasts days. Your mileage may vary.
Amen, I've casually used most of the common drugs on occasion at various points in my life and the only one that put me in the hospital was marijuana. I had a full psychotic dissociative break for an entire day which took about two months to recover from. People forget marijuana is a hallucinogen, it's in the same class as LSD.
Trump offered to pardon Ross Ulbricht. It’s obviously not clear how much his words can be relied on, but this gives me a reason to consider voting for him. Biden and Trump both seem like disastrous choices. I am not sure how to decide which victory would do more harm to our society.
The possibility of seating more Supreme Court judges also might be relevant. While a libertarian is unlikely to agree with any sitting judge on every issue, those nominated by Republicans seem to adopt acceptable positions slightly more often.
I live in a solid blue state, so my vote is purely symbolic. Well, maybe someone might notice that even in Hawaii, some people are annoyed enough with the Democrats to vote for orange man.
I don't know whether Trump, if elected, will pardon Ross Ulbricht, but if he does it is a tiny part of what libertarians want, promised in the hope of getting a few more votes, not evidence that he is on our side. I interpreted McArdle's emphasis on that issue as demaguery designed to make it less obvious that she is a Trump supporter.
Since your vote will not affect the outcome you should vote, or not vote, for whomever you feel best about voting for, which is not likely to be either Trump or Biden. That is what I will be doing.
I agree that Trump is likely to appoint better judges. In my view Biden would almost certainly be very bad, Trump a loose cannon who could be much worse. Or not.
In 2016, I didn't support Trump, precisely because of those concerns about his being a loose cannon. I voted for Johnson. But by 2020, he had had four years to show himself to be a loose cannon, and had quite failed to do so. His policies weren't all that libertarian, though both his efforts at deregulation and his judicial appointments were points in his favor; but he wasn't doing crazy things or abusing governmental power to create a totalitarian state. So I'm inclined to discount your "loose cannon" fears.
Of course, in 2016, I lived in California, which was going for Clinton no matter how I voted; in 2020 and now, I live in Kansas, which is going for Trump no matter how I vote.
Perhaps support of Trump is based on thinking that another term of Biden would move the US even further to the left and make it even harder for Libertarian thought to become more mainstream. If Trump is to do what he says, something i question, then the support of Trump hardly pushes forward a Libertarian platform.
And further with respect to Biden(assuming he is the candidate of the Dems), it is highly questionable that he will make it through a full four years and could be out within two years. K Harris taking over is not a pleasant thought; in fact it is a scary one.
Do you have any position on "Tiktok ban" ? As a matter of principle do you think foreign governments should be able to own and operate media apps, sites, channels etc. targeting American public ?
In US there is no traction for libertarian policies, public figures or even mainstream awareness . If and when Javier Milei succeds in Argentina that would generate some practical examples .
But more importantly to change status quo in US there needs to be pressing issues to be resolved . Right now everything is peachy, money flows freely. Not an environment for change
"In US there is no traction for libertarian policies, public figures or even mainstream awareness"
Unhappily, I agree. If one assumes that politicians are accurately telling people what they want to hear and then observe their speeches....
One will note that any politician's speech will mention security or safety multiple times. Many, many times. But it is a rare political speech that actually uses the word liberty or freedom, except in the most general (meaningless) sense.
The problem is Milei isn't libertarian, he's Libertarian like Johnson, I.e. "let the rich get richer and tax is left but God forbid kids can smoke crack, you can own a machine gun, and businesses can refuse to sell to blacks" (Argentina equiv). I've yet to see Milei renounce Argentina's claim on the Falklands for example nor decriminalize assisted suicide.
Milei actual walks the walk in the areas which matter to me the most - e g. cutting down government bloat and bureaucracy . And he doesn't even have cooperative parlament. So he has to overcome huge resistance of deep state.
You gotta start somewhere and move in right direction. Which he does. Unlike certain guy who is loud and talks a lot, but even when he was president and had senate did absolutely nada
Libertarianism is a great economic theory. It's when they attempt to apply it to social policy, or issues of war and peace that things really go wrong.
That's why I call my position "free marketeer". I don't share the typical Libertarian confidence in drug legalization. I part company on environmental policy and immigration. No, you don't get to bring snakes to Hawaii.
Thank you and you actually make my point and I don't say that in snark. It's a point I often make, "Libertarian" (capitol L) thinkers are often just free marketeers, they have no interest in liberty, often are outright hostile to it and the NAP, and fail to recognize, intentionally so, under libertarianism free markets are just a positive byproduct, not the other way around.
That might be the winning political strategy but it's not libertarianism (small L).
(Peter): '[Ffree marketeers] have no interest in liberty ..."
That's a wild mischaracterization. Prioritization of liberty has an upside and a downside. A compassionate person weighs costs and benefits to other people.
In your scheme, "should" people be at liberty (have the freedom) to release snakes into Hawaii? To introduce invasive agricultural pests or diseases to the US? To genetically engineer virulent, highly transmissible diseases? Who owns public property (air, rivers, wildlife)? Who owns the machinery of government?
If you accept that -some- collective property has to exist, then (for example) advocates for unrestricted immigration give away other people's property. Is that a Libertarian thing to do?
Which is irrelevant, it's about liberty and, secondarily, cost ratio benefits. Handing a methhead $40K a year to not rob people < $80K prison but you know, spite.
That is the sort of comment that makes me less likely to find the position it represents persuasive. If you have an argument, make it. This comment section is intended to be a conversation, not a cheering section.
I am currently at Porcfest in New Hampshire. One person I spoke with there made the interesting point that, whether or not one trusts Trump to do any of the things he promises Libertarians, the fact that he makes those promises means that he is openly trying to attract libertarian votes, and having the major parties competing for Libertarian (better for libertarian) votes is a good thing, a way of getting a few of our ideas into the mainstream.
> My own view is that the Libertarian Party ought to use elections as a way of spreading libertarian views, not as a way of supporting either either major party candidate.
A related idea is how to use existing policy to do so. Given that most people in the US are not Libertarian (or libertarian), it might make sense for Libertarians to get behind certain current policies that show the benefits of "private ordering" as they say in academia. And that requires prioritization.
For example, a school choice program can show the benefits of more choice and competition in education. Even an imperfect school choice program can do the same. (For example, greater public school choice, or charter schools). Once people see the benefits of that, people might be more receptive to private school choice. But it is their experience with more modest but politically feasible programs make this possible.
On the other hand, Libertarians arguing for full-scale implementation of more extreme plans sees not only an act of futility, but reinforces the image of Libertarians as a bit crazy. Richard Epstein once told me a funny story. He was teaching at USC in the mid-1970s and became friendly with John Hospers, the 1972 Libertarian candidate and a philosophy professor at USC. Hospers was not actively involved in the Libertarian Party at that time, and Epstein asked him why. Hospers -- the former standard bearer -- said "Those guys are crazy. When I go to a meeting, there is endless discussion of trivial issues. For example, if a Libertarian candidate became president, would it be ethical for him to accept a salary?"
Libertarians should view their current job as educating people about the benefits of their policies, not advocating marginally fringe ideas that are rejected by most people. (BTW, I would offer the same advice to socialists and the Green Party, although I am much more confident that they will fail in the quest.)
This view sort of resonates with me. One of the Libertarian presidential debate was hosted by John Stossel and I remember most candidates discussing very esoteric issues which might be intellectually interesting but politically not important such as legalizing heroine and prostitution.
I think it was Milton Friedman who spoke at one of the Libertarian party conventions and advised the party to focus on principles rather than just winning elections. I think that was a sound strategy. Libertarian think tanks like Cato Institute has done an excellent job of advocating libertarian views on real hard issues.
Marijuana is not benign. I quit most drugs forty years ago. Compel me to indulge and offer the choice between LSD, coke, heroin, psilocybin, meth, and marijuana, and I'll take anything else before marijuana.
Dope really gums up the calculator and the hangover lasts days. Your mileage may vary.
Amen, I've casually used most of the common drugs on occasion at various points in my life and the only one that put me in the hospital was marijuana. I had a full psychotic dissociative break for an entire day which took about two months to recover from. People forget marijuana is a hallucinogen, it's in the same class as LSD.
Trump offered to pardon Ross Ulbricht. It’s obviously not clear how much his words can be relied on, but this gives me a reason to consider voting for him. Biden and Trump both seem like disastrous choices. I am not sure how to decide which victory would do more harm to our society.
The possibility of seating more Supreme Court judges also might be relevant. While a libertarian is unlikely to agree with any sitting judge on every issue, those nominated by Republicans seem to adopt acceptable positions slightly more often.
I live in a solid blue state, so my vote is purely symbolic. Well, maybe someone might notice that even in Hawaii, some people are annoyed enough with the Democrats to vote for orange man.
I don't know whether Trump, if elected, will pardon Ross Ulbricht, but if he does it is a tiny part of what libertarians want, promised in the hope of getting a few more votes, not evidence that he is on our side. I interpreted McArdle's emphasis on that issue as demaguery designed to make it less obvious that she is a Trump supporter.
Since your vote will not affect the outcome you should vote, or not vote, for whomever you feel best about voting for, which is not likely to be either Trump or Biden. That is what I will be doing.
I agree that Trump is likely to appoint better judges. In my view Biden would almost certainly be very bad, Trump a loose cannon who could be much worse. Or not.
In 2016, I didn't support Trump, precisely because of those concerns about his being a loose cannon. I voted for Johnson. But by 2020, he had had four years to show himself to be a loose cannon, and had quite failed to do so. His policies weren't all that libertarian, though both his efforts at deregulation and his judicial appointments were points in his favor; but he wasn't doing crazy things or abusing governmental power to create a totalitarian state. So I'm inclined to discount your "loose cannon" fears.
Of course, in 2016, I lived in California, which was going for Clinton no matter how I voted; in 2020 and now, I live in Kansas, which is going for Trump no matter how I vote.
Perhaps support of Trump is based on thinking that another term of Biden would move the US even further to the left and make it even harder for Libertarian thought to become more mainstream. If Trump is to do what he says, something i question, then the support of Trump hardly pushes forward a Libertarian platform.
And further with respect to Biden(assuming he is the candidate of the Dems), it is highly questionable that he will make it through a full four years and could be out within two years. K Harris taking over is not a pleasant thought; in fact it is a scary one.
My state's (New Hampshire's) Libertarian Party has rejected the national LP's nominee. ( https://twitter.com/LPNH/status/1801596698956857767 )
Chase is based, and Mises can go suck a dick.
David,
Do you have any position on "Tiktok ban" ? As a matter of principle do you think foreign governments should be able to own and operate media apps, sites, channels etc. targeting American public ?
In US there is no traction for libertarian policies, public figures or even mainstream awareness . If and when Javier Milei succeds in Argentina that would generate some practical examples .
But more importantly to change status quo in US there needs to be pressing issues to be resolved . Right now everything is peachy, money flows freely. Not an environment for change
"In US there is no traction for libertarian policies, public figures or even mainstream awareness"
Unhappily, I agree. If one assumes that politicians are accurately telling people what they want to hear and then observe their speeches....
One will note that any politician's speech will mention security or safety multiple times. Many, many times. But it is a rare political speech that actually uses the word liberty or freedom, except in the most general (meaningless) sense.
The problem is Milei isn't libertarian, he's Libertarian like Johnson, I.e. "let the rich get richer and tax is left but God forbid kids can smoke crack, you can own a machine gun, and businesses can refuse to sell to blacks" (Argentina equiv). I've yet to see Milei renounce Argentina's claim on the Falklands for example nor decriminalize assisted suicide.
Milei actual walks the walk in the areas which matter to me the most - e g. cutting down government bloat and bureaucracy . And he doesn't even have cooperative parlament. So he has to overcome huge resistance of deep state.
You gotta start somewhere and move in right direction. Which he does. Unlike certain guy who is loud and talks a lot, but even when he was president and had senate did absolutely nada
Libertarianism is a great economic theory. It's when they attempt to apply it to social policy, or issues of war and peace that things really go wrong.
That's why I call my position "free marketeer". I don't share the typical Libertarian confidence in drug legalization. I part company on environmental policy and immigration. No, you don't get to bring snakes to Hawaii.
Thank you and you actually make my point and I don't say that in snark. It's a point I often make, "Libertarian" (capitol L) thinkers are often just free marketeers, they have no interest in liberty, often are outright hostile to it and the NAP, and fail to recognize, intentionally so, under libertarianism free markets are just a positive byproduct, not the other way around.
That might be the winning political strategy but it's not libertarianism (small L).
(Peter): '[Ffree marketeers] have no interest in liberty ..."
That's a wild mischaracterization. Prioritization of liberty has an upside and a downside. A compassionate person weighs costs and benefits to other people.
In your scheme, "should" people be at liberty (have the freedom) to release snakes into Hawaii? To introduce invasive agricultural pests or diseases to the US? To genetically engineer virulent, highly transmissible diseases? Who owns public property (air, rivers, wildlife)? Who owns the machinery of government?
If you accept that -some- collective property has to exist, then (for example) advocates for unrestricted immigration give away other people's property. Is that a Libertarian thing to do?
> I don't share the typical Libertarian confidence in drug legalization.
Frankly, under current conditions drug legalization, would simply end up putting more people on state support.
Which is irrelevant, it's about liberty and, secondarily, cost ratio benefits. Handing a methhead $40K a year to not rob people < $80K prison but you know, spite.
(Peter): "Which is irrelevant (1), it's about liberty and, secondarily, cost ratio benefits (2)."
1. To you, perhaps. Not to everyone else.
2. Morality evolves. It's --always and inevitably-- about costs and benefits.
I have read and recommend Posner, "The Law and Economics Movement", _American Economic Review_.
And this kind of self-defeating idiocy is why libertarians keep failing.
> Handing a methhead $40K a year to not rob people < $80K prison but you know, spite.
The point is to prevent people from becoming methheads.
That is the sort of comment that makes me less likely to find the position it represents persuasive. If you have an argument, make it. This comment section is intended to be a conversation, not a cheering section.