Sunday Discussion Group

December 17, 2006

A couple of weeks ago, the Cato Institute’s Brink Lindsey sparked a flurry of discussion when he proposed a new breed of “liberaltarians” — a new ideological synthesis between liberals (limited government on social issues, activist government of economic issues) and libertarians (limited government on both). For Lindsey, if the left would get on board with some key libertarian agenda items from the economic sphere, Dems would pick up enough votes nationally that they’d begin to dominate the political landscape.

The catch, of course, are the agenda items Lindsey had in mind.

Allow me to hazard a few more specific suggestions about what a liberal-libertarian entente on economics might look like. Let’s start with the comparatively easy stuff: farm subsidies and other corporate welfare.

….Tax reform also offers the possibility of win-win bargains. The basic idea is simple: Shift taxes away from things we want more of and onto things we want less of. Specifically, cut taxes on savings and investment, cut payroll taxes on labor, and make up the shortfall with increased taxation of consumption.

….Entitlement reform is probably the most difficult problem facing would-be fusionists….One possible path toward constructive compromise lies in taking the concept of social insurance seriously….Social Security and Medicare as currently administered are not social insurance in any meaningful sense, because reaching retirement age and having health care expenses in old age are not risky, insurable events. On the contrary, in our affluent society, they are near certainties….We need to move from the current pay-as-you-go approach to a system in which private savings would provide primary funding for the costs of old age.

For most progressive observers (including me), this more or less came across as, “If Dems would only be willing to embrace nearly all of the libertarians’ economic agenda, and give up on central tenets of the party, libertarians would vote Democratic.” I suppose that’s true, but it hardly inspired confidence in Lindsey’s provocative idea.

Nevertheless, the idea has gotten much of the political world thinking: can the gap between the left and the libertarians be bridged?

In the new issue of The New Republic, Jonathan Chait argues that Dems not only shouldn’t bother, but that it’d probably be a disaster if the party even tried.

Lindsey’s political strategy … presupposes that any new libertarian voters the Democrats attracted could simply be added to their preexisting base. In reality, it would cost them support.

Boaz and Kirby inadvertently demonstrate this very point. They stress that President Bush’s share of the libertarian vote dropped precipitously between 2000 and 2004. But, during that time, Bush’s total share of the vote rose by almost 3 percent. So, however many voters were turned off by the prescription-drug bill or the Patriot Act, many more were turned on. This demonstrates the obvious (to nonlibertarians, anyway) point that wooing a small bloc with unpopular views is not a sound political strategy. Likewise, if Democrats were to denounce psychiatry and quote endlessly from the works of L. Ron Hubbard, they could jack up their share of the Scientologist vote, but it probably wouldn’t help their overall popularity. […]

In fact, the politically fertile terrain seems to lie in the anti-libertarian direction. The most impressive Democratic performances in 2006 came from candidates like Bob Casey, James Webb, and Heath Shuler, who combined economic populism with social traditionalism. The ideological counterpart to this strategy would be to flesh out a kind of liberal-populist fusionism, rooted in fighting the ways that massive inequality and income fluctuation have undermined traditional family life.

Am I saying that libertarians should just vote Republican? Not at all. As Lindsey notes, the libertarians’ alliance with the GOP has mostly failed. They now have two electoral alternatives. One is to vote for social views they find abhorrent combined with debt-financed big government. The other is to vote for social views they find congenial combined with tax-financed big government. From a libertarian perspective, Democrats would clearly seem to be the lesser evil. They should vote Democratic because they have no better choice.

Regular readers can probably surmise that I’m sympathetic to Chait’s approach to libertarian principles here, but like Ezra, I’m nevertheless intrigued by the notion of bringing more libertarians into the Democratic fold. And while I disagreed with much of Lindsey’s starting points of “negotiation,” I can’t help but like the notion that libertarians are open to the conversation in the first place.

So, what do you think? Do Dems run away from libertarian ideas screaming, or is there a chance for some compromise? Should libertarians be ignored or engaged? Do Dems need libertarians as part of an electoral strategy?

Discuss.

Libertarians I’ve encountered are mostly clueless political dilletantes who have no understanding that the rule of law costs money and that “the market” doesn’t arbitrate anything but who has the most firepower when settling disputes.

Occasionally you can get one to admit that courts = regulation, and turn the discussion into a more adult discussion of how much societal regulation is appropriate, but not very often.

That said, we can get some of the children on board with a sensible agenda with slogans like “US Out Of My Bedroom” and the like. However, other than for the raw votes, I’m not sure that it’s worth it. Once you go beyond “that government governs best which governs least” I’m not sure libertarians have much to offer in the arena of ideas.

  • Until the big “L” and small “l” libertarians can admit to themselves that corporate welfare is a redundancy, their movenment has no meaning. As long as they continue to support unregulated and unfettered corporations -which are, after all, government charted entities – they are hypocrites shilling for the wealthy.
    Nonetheless, I frequently vote Libertarian just for the monkey wrench in the works effect;>

  • I’ve considered myself a liberal libertarian for a long time. Markos wrote a brief essay about his identification as one earlier this year. I think democrats can appeal to libertarians and should, based on personal liberty. The hard-core anti-everything-government types will never go along with it but a different view of the role of government would appeal to many who might not otherwise identify with the democratic party. That view of government is that it stays out of the lives of individuals but also has an obligation to protect individuals ansd the environment from other people and, especially, institutions (business and industry, religious groups, law enforcement, etc).That’s not a very sophisticated statement but it’s all I got before my second cup of caffeine.

  • I try (very tough) to listen to folks from all stripes because no one has a monopoly on good ideas.

    I’m a social liberal/fiscal conservative (meaning I’m a cheap bastard…), but I believe that government doesn’t need to get involved in all of areas (which a libertarian I know seems to think I agree with his economic ones and I don’t.)

    Libertarians should not be ignored, but not totally engaged. No regulations on everything is pretty stupid. Just ask how well that worked out for French Aristocrats in the early 1800s. How many libertarians are out there? Not very many at all compared to their policy influence. Only one noted libertarian, Dr. Ron Paul, in congress.

    Simply put, screw the CATO economic libertarians who are taking corporate dough. Their ideas of free unregulated markets boils down to high tech feudalism for those of us in the non-ownership class and which is what we are seeing more and more these days. Dems don’t need to get the Grover Norquists of the world in the tent (Grover and his ilk need to be given uber atomic wedgees from the the nearest flag pole.)

    Put emphasis on adopting a few of their social ideas. Keep out of the bedroom for one (no more buggery laws and marriage amendments.) Also end the War on Drugs. I’d rather decriminalize and tax the soft stuff (pot, hash) and have the cops go after the hard stuff (crank, coke, etc.)

    Also, most Libertarians (aside from Grover) are against foreign involvement and are rather pro peace/anti interventionalist. Adopting a less interventionalist foreign policy is a start (or as the folks at Antiwar.com are fond of calling, stop the War Party.)

    You’re not going to get all of them to agree with you (they can’t even agree among themselves), but they do have the odd good idea (IMO.)

  • What an ass backward way to ask the question. Should the inquiry not be: are there libertarian policies and values which could translate into positive societal accomplishments and should therefore be supported by all people of good faith? I would add, in looking at just one issue, that in the dark days when it appeared that embryonic stem cell research might well be criminalized, libertarians were among those who first stood up to denounce the imposition of religious beliefs upon the rest of us.

  • “cut payroll taxes on labor, and make up the shortfall with increased taxation of consumption.”

    The first thing you learn in a decent public finance course is that payroll taxes are a form of consumption tax.

    So I will happily join with the libertarians when they stop being a shills for the rich and corporations and start having a clue.

    e

  • What this all boils down to, in the end, is that the Libertarian bloc wants to play “Political Borg.” Libertarians offering to “vote Democratic” if only the somewhat-nonsensical Democrats allow themselves to be assimilated into the Libertarian collective is nothing more than a honey-coated offer for Democrats to strike their party’s camp, and convert to the mantra Libetarianism.

    To this, I emphaticallt say: F-off, you Libertarian meatheads, you.

    The fundamental bemchmark of the Democratic Party is that a strong, centralized Government can accomplish various things in much greater measure that 50 disparate states. It’s the same mentality that drives single-payer healthcare. It’s the same mentality that Henry Ford adopted in building automobiles on the production line. It’s the same mentality that allows a big-box like WalMart to crush their competition.

    Doing a given thing in mass volume is substantially less expensive than doing it piecemeal.

    Unfortunately, Libertarians just don’t “get it.” Sure—they’ll accept the economic equation what it benefits their unique agenda—but they won’t accept that the same equation is applicable in all sectors of society. Perhaps it’s because of where the Libertarian’s money lies—in the vaults of banks; in the profit-and-loss statements of Wall Street; in the boardrooms of insurance companies and multinationals.

    Here’s “MY” proposal: Let the Libertarians—Big L and little L combined—examine what’s really better for “all” of society: A society that embraces meeting the needs of all citizens, or a monarchy that embraces a tiered class structure and government programs that are both criminally intrusive and socioeconomically restrictive.

    Bluntly put—Liberals and Progressives owe the Libertarian camp nothing, except the occasional reminder (preferably with the business end of a baseball bat) that they empowered the disaster that America has experienced at the hands of the current federal administration. “LunkHead”-Tarians have no business inviting Democrats to “share the blame” of their ethically-challenged, morally reprehensible defacations upon the People, and the Constitution….

  • Sorry—that should be “mantra of Libertarianism.” Benchmark, instead of bemchmark. “Than” 50, rather than “that.” When, instead of what. Other than that, I think it’s okay.

    (Coffee. Must…have coffee………………grumph….)

  • Although I self-identify as libertarian, I think that a hardcore ideological adherence to the philosophy is as unrealistic as socialism (i.e. it’s a great idea, but it requires a species other than humans as we currently know them to implement properly). The key adaptive point, as I see it, is to distrust all institutions equally. Uncritical pro-corporate sentiment is every bit as abhorrent to me as uncritical pro-government cheerleading.

    I think that separation of powers and checks and balances (two concepts that have fallen by the wayside in this admin) are the most important concepts in American society and need to be considered a part of the general social environment. Beyond the three branches of government, I would include media, business interests, and an informed adversarial public as part of this network.

  • Be suspicious of anyone/ any group that espouses that problems will just go away if you ignore them. Libertarians, at least the people and screeds I have come across, give me the impression that other people’s money should be used to fund government and they always come up with theories that leave themselves economically unscathed while taxing the other guy. I don’t appreciate the “trust funder” approach that says that the investment into this nation that other generations put forth should not be equalled,at the very least, by their own.

    The fact they are against government waste and unnecessary intrusions into private affairs are Democratic and common sense principles. Don’t make bargains with broken clocks that happen to be right twice a day. If the Dems use sound judgment to do what they believe is the right thing to do for America, people with common sense from all parties will come to their side.

    Most “small governement” folks are people who lack the understanding of the various functions of government and, like George W Bush, don’t mind destroying things they fail to comprehend.

  • Big L is atavistic at this point in time (and maybe little l is too) …a time where big corps rule and are destroying the Earth we need for life. It is a point in time where governmental forces (neocon?) have joined with these corporate bottom liners to wrest freedom from the people in this same quest for profit.

    If government does not/cannot intercede with corporations…and work to conserve our earth for future generations… it is all just alphabet rhetoric and pointless…we will all be big D….for Dead.

  • As a voting bloc, libertarians are too easily swayed by the emotional, but intellectually bankrupt, rhetoric of the right wing noise machine. I used to have more respect for them as a political party until the Clinton admin, when they were all to gleeful to act as the repub’s attack dogs.

    While I’m sure there are some intellectually honest libertarians out there, most of the libertarians I’ve known can seldom see deeper than a slogan from a bumper sticker. Like their GOP brethren, they can’t seem to distinguish between fact and spin. Gun regulation = taking everyone’s guns away. Taxes = armed robbery by government. Taxes on the rich = lower wages and unemployment.

    Sure there are a few votes here and there to picked up, but what would they really bring to the party that would help in the long run?

    Progressives should stick to advocating common sense solutions that can directly advance the common good. Pandering to people, who until recently thought Rush Limbaugh had things right, is begging for a train wreck.

  • First let me say that there were several good comments upstream. Please forgive me for repeating some of the ideas therein.

    The only libertarians I have ever known were wealthy and I believe disingenuous. By adopting a libertarian pose they can argue directly from principle for economic policies which benefit their class without all of the messy thinking that goes into analyzing the costs, benefits and consequences of the policies they propose. This is intellectual laziness at its worst. Look at the policy examples that Lindsey offers as a starting point for a Democratic-libertarian synthesis, tax cuts on savings, investments, and payrolls coupled with increased taxes on consumption and privatize social security. Who would benefit from such a policies? While the tax policy is couched in terms of encouraging savings the people who will benefit immediately are those with high investments and savings and low consumption. For the payroll tax cut is thrown into make the deal look fair but for those who have low wage earners with low or no payroll tax obligation and high consumption this is a loser. I won’t reiterate the arguments against privatizing Social Security and Medicare since we went through them in detail when Bush was pushing the idea.

    In short, I believe libertarians are intellectually dishonest. There is no need to welcome such a group into the progressive camp simply because of some superficial agreement on social issues and I believe there is a danger in doing so. They are not a majority and they will never be a majority. What in fact they are is a parasitic political movement which must take over a larger group and get them to advance parasite’s agenda. The Republican have just coughed them up and they are looking to take over another political organism.

  • Getting libertarians to vote the Dem ticket is like getting Stalin to fight on the Allies side: after the war you’re gonna have BIG problems with each other.

    I don’t see how Dems and Libs can ever square their attitudes on social programs, whatever interim cooperation you may get for the time being.

  • I think the more important question is, what will Democratic voters think if the party began to lean libertarian? {Sound of people running away screaming}

    In life, we must make choices. If a libertarian believes the fiscally conservative views of the ReThugs make up for their socially conservative agenda, fuck ’em. I mean, let them vote Republican. If they think social conservatism is the greater of two evils, they can of course vote Democratic. Or they can not vote. Or they can work to create a viable third party. No one needs to “woo” libertarians any more than the radical Christian base needed wooing.

  • The fatal flaw in Libertarian philosophy is that, if left alone, people will conduct themselves in an ethical and morally acceptable manner. Libertarians remind me of people who agree that children should have limits placed on their freedoms but adults are smart enough to act without limits.

  • Well, I would definitely be in favor of ending the corporate welfare known as “agricultural subsidies” unless the farm in question was actually owned by those working the land and living there. If we were to stop subsidizing corporate farming, it wouldn’t be so profitable and corporations would stop doing it, which would mean farms would stay with those who know them and love them and don’t see them as “widget factories,” which would mean we’d be getting better food. Also, ending the subsidy would mean we wouldn’t be driving all the Mexican campesinos off their land when they can’t compete with the prices of the below-cost food we export through NAFTA, and this would do more to lower illegal immigration than anything else the government could do.

    There’s all kinds of corporate welfare I’d be happy to attack.

    The rest of the libertarian-moron agenda deserves to go to the place you send anything that comes from idiots too stupid to live in the real world: the round file. Libertarianism only works if everyone in the society was educated in altruism. Sorry, the world doesn’t work that way, and that’s why none of their proposals ever make sense if you have an IQ higher than room temperature.

  • I know, let’s called the conflated movement ‘Compassionate Libertarianism’.

  • I don’t think Liberatarians are a large enough (or cohesive enough) group for Dems to have to negotiate with. There’s more room in Dem governance for libertarians than there is in Republican.

    Has any regime been more anti-Libertarian than Bushco? I don’t think so.

    I think Libertarianism has been mostly co-opted by the right and consists of unrealistic principles especially concerning faith in the market to correct itself. Just as a democracy needs a bill of rights to protect minorities from the raw will of the majority, the market needs government regulation to protect the vulnerable from rapacious corporations like Big Oil.

    Realistic libertarianism (of which there is very little) can be used as a sort of Occam’s Razor to think about government. Just another perspective. For instance I believe in Universal Healthcare, but I don’t believe in the draft or universal service.

    The problem of the more simplistic Libertarians is that there is no free market (if there ever was). Corporations run a lot of the government especially with Republicans (although Dems haven’t been immune to the big monoey either). There ain’t no John Galt, but there are plenty of Wesley Mouches.

  • Timpanist @10 pointed out one fatal flaw in Libertarian philosophy. I’ve found that a philosophy rarely matches conditions on the ground.

    What are the fatal flaws in the Democratic Party philosophy and in the Republican Party philosophy?

  • [sorry I couldn’t get this in earlier – weather has played havoc with the internet in the Pacific Northwest]

    In my experience, Libertarians are always open to discussion — that’s practically all they ever do — but rigid as hell in their “principles”, most of which center around a delusional version of the “self-made man” myth. That is to say, they’re generally selfish and inhumane: “I’ve got mine and fuck everybody else”.

    Thomas Hobbes imagined a mythical era, before there was any society, when lives were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” – a virtual “war of each against all”. Taking off from here, the Philosopher of Capitalism Herbert Spencer argued that two institutions, made possible our escape from that life. Government was originally invented out of “fear of the living”, just as religion was invented out of “fear of the dead”. Through them we were able to increasingly corral destructive self-interest, compelling others to serve the common good. Now that we in the Industrial West, through government and religion, have conquered Nature and other still-backward societies, he said (in the Victorian era), it’s time to reap the benefits of voluntary contributions of others, primarily in the marketplace. This can only be done by weakening government and religion, to their minimal functions, thus freeing the individual to freely make his contribution as he sees fit. All modern conservatives are doing nothing more than echoing Herbert Spencer.

    Spencer’s dream died (in the minds of everyone except the Libertarians and Marxists) with the pointless slaughter and catastrophe that was World War I. Trouble is there never was a time, through all of human evolution, which matched Hobbes-Spencer’s atomized view of humans. As in all the apes we evolved with, there has always been “society” … dependence of groups members on other group members and on the group itself. There was never a time of self-interested individuals acting rationally. We have always been social.

    Compared with us, early man had a life which was far from “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Humans have always, until quite recently, been familial and clannish, not solitary. There may not have been much wealth, but early humans were no “poorer” than are other apes and monkeys and animals generally; there was almost always food to eat. Warfare was seldom and never total. “Nasty and brutish” compared to what … World War II, the daily lives led by those in our ghettos? It’s also a myth that we were short-lived. The lower average life-expectancy was due to the fact of high infant mortality; if you made to age 20 in the ancient world (beginning or record-keeping) the odds your making it to 70 were about what they are now.

    What happened in the modern world is that it’s now technologically possible for inherited social structures, which did use to channel and direct our behavior, to fall apart, Through modern transportation I can move thousands of miles away from those who raised me, being “on my own” while escaping the responsibility of obeying or caring for those who raised me (or whom I might be able to help raise). Through modern transportation and communication I can learn of many other cultures and subcultures, thus evaporating the hold of those traditions that used to guide us. The only thing which guides is now is our own self-interest. But, as Emile Durkheim pointed out in condemning Spencer, nothing is as changeable as self-interest. Today it binds me to you; tomorrow it makes me your enemy. We live in what Durkheim called an “atomized society” constantly bordering on anomie.

    As I see it we have two primary institutions operating in society today, and we need them both. We have the corporations, which increasingly organize all of our economic life. To regulate and balance those we need socially conscious, powerful governments. There is no other viable option. Trying to lose one or the other, or trying to fuse corporate organization and social responsibility, is what led to all the aberrant, failed forms of society/government in 20th Century. I think the Europeans are on the right track. They ought to be … they’ve had far more experience than we. What I don’t understand is why Americans seem so obsessed with simple solutions, like Libertarianism or GOP corporatism. Maybe it goes back to our Puritan origins. Maybe we really are brainwashed, through TeeVee, by our corporations. Or maybe it’s because our immediate ancestors were smart enough and brave enough to actually flee from oppressive governmental and religious obligations. Can’t we start there, and also be smart enough and brave enough to be humane? That, it seem to me, is the core Democratic value, one which is the very opposite of Libertarianism or Corporatism. Not “hooray for me and fuck you” but “hooray for all of us”.

  • “It’s also a myth that we were short-lived. The lower average life-expectancy was due to the fact of high infant mortality; if you made to age 20 in the ancient world (beginning or record-keeping) the odds your making it to 70 were about what they are now.”

    Sorry…this is absolutely false. It’s true that high infant mortality skews life expectancy lower, but palentology and archaeology show that humans were definitely not living past about 30 in significant numbers before civilization arose.

    We can see evidence for this in our reproductive biology today–puberty hits in the early to mid-teens because that was the ideal breeding age to ensure that you lived long enough to care for your kids. Furthermore, women hit menopause because they have outlived their evolved life expectancy. If people lived to 70 that long ago, the ones who had the most kids (and thus the ancestors of most of us today) would be ones with big honkin’ ovaries who kept bearing into their golden years.

  • Robert,

    I don’t disagree with you. I wrote “if you made to age 20 in the ancient world” — i.e., If you survived infant and child mortality and made it to age 20 in ancient Greece or Rome — the odds of surviving into old age were pretty good, and not substantially different from now. I was countering the still-popular myth (understandibly common in Hobbes’ day) that “people died by age 23”.

  • I see. The shift from prehistory to history right at the end there threw me. Even so, 70 sounds a bit high…my impression was that 50 or 60 was attainable but still uncommon, and anything older was worthy of legend.

  • The CatoLibertarians have advocated destroying everything that the Democrats have stood for over the past decades. Joining up with them would be like asking the evangelical movement to adopt Satan as their Pope. Ok, that’s a bad analogy since the current evangelical movement have been advocating exactly the opposite of what Christ taught. Would some people make such an evil bargain? Yes, many people have done so, such as the evangelical movement. Should the Democratic party do such an evil deed as to drop their pants and take it in the pooper for a few more votes? No.

  • The libertarians I know are sick of the pandering of polititicos of both parties to wealth and power and vote for another party. If the Dems can clean up the House and Senate, reduce pork barrel and K Street umbilical cords, then the Dems can expect to attract the libertarians I know. The bureaucrats of the Democratic party are as uninspired and uninspiring as the bureaucrats of the Republican party.

  • Seems to me that what Lindsey is proposing is no different than what Bush is after — do everything my way and I’ll play nice.

    You’ll notice that Lindsey is not proposing any philosophical adjustments on the part of libertarians ; it’s all to be done by Dems. We can keep our ideals of low govt intervention into bedroom issues because they happen to coincide with those of the libertarians but, wherever there’s a divergence, *we* are to change the course. Excuse me? The tail wagging the dog?

    Woo them by abandoning half of our core principles? For the sake of a few maybe-votes? I should think not. There’s no profit in it for us — something that libertarians should be able to understand easily 🙂

    rege, @15. I don’t think ‘pubs coughed them up; I think they’re thinking of moving to a more salubrious environment, because ‘pubs have “gone off”. But, otherwise, I agree entirely: they’re a parasite in search of a new host to invade and try to “reform” more to their liking.

  • Libertarians fail to understand the following:

    We don’t have traffic laws because we’re all lawbreakers. We have traffic laws to deal with the moron weaving through rush hour who never got the memo that the world doesn’t revolve around him.

  • Libertarians? Just Republicans who want to smoke pot. Neal Boortz is a self-professed libertarian. That’s all you need to know.

    What usually comes after the phrase “out of sght”? Bon Herbert reminds us in “Out of Sight”, about NOLA residents and their children going without a home for the 2nd Christmas in a row.

  • jurassicpork, from what I’ve gathered, you just nailed it with libertarians=Republicans who want to smoke pot (or gamble or patronize prostitutes, or otherwise indulge in “vices” opposed by the Elmer Gantry wing of the party). Similarly, I think the support for the Green party is largely alienated hippies, AKA Democrats who want to smoke pot.

    It seems fashionable in Progressive Web circles to argue accomodating greens and/or libertarians is a loser proposition, but I wonder, even though the public has a majority of voters still anti-pot (roughly 40% for legalization, though medi-pot polls in the high 70s, though the demographics seem to be trending favorably for potheads), how many of the anti-pot hard core are the same Elmer Gantry Republicans that the Democratic party is never going to pick up no matter what they do? My guess is about half. Medical marijuana seems like a clear winner (can’t understand why Hinchey- Rohrabacher keeps tanking in the House).

    The big question for me is, treating cannabis more like alcohol or tobacco than cocaine: would advocating or delivering such a policy result in a net gain in votes in a close race?. Nader voters in Florida 2000 would have put Gore in the White House if it didn’t mean turning off more centrists.

    Jon Stewart once said if you want the youth vote, legalize pot. I think cannabis liberalization is the most likely grounds for any liberaltarian alliance since compromise with libertarians on the social safety net is clearly oout of the question. Is it worth it? I’d sure like to think so.

  • They now have two electoral alternatives. One is to vote for social views they find abhorrent combined with debt-financed big government. The other is to vote for social views they find congenial combined with tax-financed big government. From a libertarian perspective, Democrats would clearly seem to be the lesser evil. They should vote Democratic because they have no better choice.

    Libertarians are, above all else, most concerned with not paying taxes. This is what motivates a large number of them, far beyond any socially liberal issue. Social liberals simply vote Democrat.

    So I think there is a flaw in Chait’s reasoning that libertarians view Democrats as the lesser of two evils. They prefer debt-financed big government to tax-financed big government because they know that the former (Republican option) is unsustainable, and the latter (Democratic version) is sustainable. This is where what Reagan termed “starve the beast” comes into play, and why libertarians aren’t going to join with the Democrats over our positions on abuses of government power.

    • Comments are closed.