Many pixels have given their life on this site in discussions about how supporters of constitutionally limited government must ‘compromise’ to achieve their goals. Such people urging compromise are usually ‘sensible conservatives’ but see us wild eyed ‘libertarian’ types as potentially useful ‘fellow travellers’ if only we would learn to be more pragmatic.
And my view is usually to find out if the person telling me to compromise supported Bush or McCain, if American or Cameron if a Brit. And if they did, I try to discover if they are having serious buyers remorse… and if not, I tag them not as a ‘fellow traveller’ but as a political enemy to be opposed at every level.
But as in the USA there is at least a viable opposition movement to the Leviathan State whereas in the UK the now out-of-office Demonic Party and the ruling Stupid Party/Stupider Party coalition agree on all the Important Roles of the State, I will confine my remarks to America-centric ones because the vast majority of folks in the UK seem to rather enjoy the whole ‘circling the drain’ sensation and after all, the NHS is ‘the envy of the world’.
It seems clear that the best chance for ‘small staters’ (which means small-L libertarians, classical liberals and genuine conservatives) in America is taking over the Republican Party and that is exactly what the Tea Party is all about.
However the self identified libertarians, classical liberals and genuine conservatives within the Republican Party over the last 15 years have not been the solution to anything, indeed they have been the root of the problem…
…why?
Because in thinking that they must compromise on even the fundamental core principle of constitutionally limited government, large numbers of ostensibly pro-liberty people have voted for and abetted Big State Republicans like George “I started the bailout” Bush and John “I support the bailout” McCain. If you can ‘compromise’ to that extent, you are either lying about being in favour of limited government or you have no conception of what the word ‘limited’ means. ‘Limited’ does not mean “vast-but-growing-less-than-the-other-guy”.
It is the very fact so many people who want a smaller state refused to ever say “THIS IS A DEAL BREAKER“… and really mean it… but rather kept endlessly holding their nose and voting for The Lesser Evil that made it possible for the state to keep growing remorselessly under Republican governments.
But the Cold War in over, we won, so Reagan’s excuse no longer applies.
I have nothing against compromise with fellow travellers and usually see little value in obsessive purity tests, but the key here is compromise with fellow travellers (such as libertarians compromising with conservatives and visa versa), but what has happened over and over and over again is endless ‘compromise’ with people whose objectives are in fact antithetical.
So in short, what oh so many ‘small staters’ have been calling ‘compromise’ when they hold their nose and vote for a Big State politician just because he is running as a Republican, is not “compromise” at all… it is surrender.
What possible reason did the likes of Bush or McCain have to accommodate the views of ‘small staters’ when they knew they would vote for them regardless of how much they grew the state? No reason at all. None.
You want to know the problem? Look in the mirror and the problem will look back at you. That was the realisation that spawned the Tea Party and I was calling for that before the Tea Party even existed.
I’ve long thought that the best description of libertarianism is “the conscience of conservatism”. Just as libertarianism runs off the cliff into anarchy when taken to its extremes, conservatism does ditto when it starts getting too involved in people’s private lives: religion, sex, morality and so on.
The plain fact of the matter, however, is that most people need governing, because they’re incapable of self-government. Unpleasant, but true, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that. It sounds paternalistic, but it’s really just historical fact.
Libertarians, most of whom reside on the upper end of the intelligence bell curve, keep arguing that this just should not be be so — that all people are capable of self-government — but practically speaking (that unfortunate phrase), that’s not the case.
Hence, the occasional need to compromise — as a practical matter. I’ve heard all the arguments against compromise — that it involves going to hell, just more slowly, for instance — but that’s a load of nonsense. Physics states that brakes need to be applied for changing direction, and that’s as true for politics as it is for a car on the highway.
As the man said: the just-past election is a restraining order, not a mandate, because like almost all conservatives, I don’t trust the Republicans to be conservatives.
And libertarians are a valuable asset in the struggle to stop raging communitarianism and its ultimate end, statist communism.
BUT: if you want to see the ultimate fate of libertarianism in the polity, you have only to look at the U.S. election returns: where there was a 3-party election, the libertarian candidate has always struggled to reach 3% of the popular vote, and this time was no exception.
People are getting all excited about the Tea Party movement, but we all need to remember that the Tea Party is NOT a political party: it’s a political philosophy.
Just like libertarianism.
As for the “compromisers are the enemy” idea: remember that fifteen years ago, you could carry a concealed weapon in only a couple of states. Now it’s forty (and Wisconsin will soon make it forty-one). To get there, we gun owners had to make lots of compromises (most of which stick in my craw) — for one, allowing the state to set “qualification” standards for a CHL/CCW permit (which is completely un-Constitutional). But at the end of the day, that will change: already, two states have negated the “permit” condition; more will follow. Had we gunnies stuck with a “no-compromise” attitude from the start, we would have gone down to a principled, magnificent failure, and I wouldn’t be able to carry my Colt 1911 today.
Compromise is often lousy. I admit that freely. But sometimes, it’s the only way to set the stage in order to get what you want, eventually. Libertarians need to admit that, too, or else run the risk of being a group of perennially-magnificent failures.
Both this post, and the one from January 2009 to which you link, are absolutely to the point.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you completely.
Politicians seem to work on the principle that enough people be fooled enough of the time to get their agendas through.
Yes, Bush should never have allowed the bailout but perhaps they said: You do this or America is toast?
I must confess I still do not understand him, or the scenario of his presidency.
Kim, what comes out of your comment to me is your shallow lack of understanding what libertarianism is and is not, and I do not mean that as an insult, I really don’t, just that you are therefore a typical conservative ‘fellow traveller’. We can probably work with you but you ain’t one of us, that’s for sure.
Libertarianism in its rational forms (and just like conservatism and every other -ism, we have our lunatics too) does not argue that people ‘do not need governing’ in the sense that human social behaviour can occur without some shared rules (i.e. avoiding chaos and maintaining the degree of order civilisation itself requires), but rather than there are other better ways of generating viable social rules than via modern leviathan post-Westphanian nation states.
@ Kim d T –
Perhaps; but then the issue becomes how are we (incapable) individuals to be “governed” (steered in conduct) and by whom in all our interactions with one another and with our surrounding physical world?
That latter set of questions is the crux of the (l) libertarian enquiries.
So far, those enquiries have led to the conclusion that the mechanisms for the operations of “the State,” representing social forces have adverse effects in a social order unless limited to specific institutional functions.
It has also been observed that a “spontaneous order,” which is dynamic, not static, develops to “govern” the subject interactions – Civil Society.
All of the constructs (fabrications) generated to “govern,” are oriented to objectives that are subjectively determined; hence they become static and fail.
Apologies for taking up so much space for the issue Kim raised.
Back to basics in the evolution of U.S. politics, and the current “grass roots” movements in most jurisdictions (but note where it has been least predominant geographically and demographically):
Consider how (and what kinds of) political choices have been determined over the years for the general electorate at the various levels of governments.
From the earliest, we have had “factions.” These evolved into the larger units of “parties,” initially dominated by our homegrown “aristocracts,” who resolved amongst themselves who would be the “elite” (available to be elected – as in Athens).
As the levels descended to the localities there was lesser then little, ultimately no, “elite” effect.
We moved to established parties, within which particular memberships determined who should be available for election.
We moved to direct election of all federal, and most state, legislators.
We moved to direct primaries, which continued the erosion of the functions of “Parties;” but, still the choices of those to be available for election fell within internal (“establishment”) party machinations (mainly a matter of financing).
What the current movements bring is a “new” (or at least broader, more diverse) mode of determining the choices to be made available for the electorate.
These movements have had effects on the “party system” in the areas of both finance an “ideologies.”
They arise and coalesce as the “like-minded,” or nearly so, find one another.
These movements are another phase in the evolution of how each level of the political choices are to be determined.
Perry,
An interesting article, but as a ex-pat Brit who has lived in the US for over fifteen years, I’m not sure the Americans are the rugged, self-reliant individualists they like to think they are. This is not meant as a criticism, just a statement of fact.
In the abstract Americans may agree with the sentiment that the government taxes too much, is wasteful, incompetent and interfering. But they tend to love programmes from which they themselves benefit – and there’s more such people than you might think. Additionally, people in the UK are mislead into thinking the US is a low tax, small governement country because welfare here takes different forms.
The two biggest government programmes are Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security (old age pensions). It is generally agreed the finances of both, particularly the former, are unsustainable: by some estimates their unfunded liabilities are over $100 trillion! But talk of reforming them is political suicide: a poll last summer showed only 7% supported cutting the Social Security budget and about 11% Medicare. There’s also the practicalities of any cuts: many older Americans have no retirement savings of their own, and for those that do, the amounts are often totally inadequate. Meanwhile, without Medicare, how many of the elderly would get medical treatment? Private insurance complanies don’t want to insure them, as they would simply be too bad a risk. For all their talk about individual freedom and responsibility, I cannot see any Tea Party influenced, Republican controlled Congress doing anything to cut either of these programmes. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.
Other not-so-obvious forms of American welfare include infrastructure projects. The western states might be ideologically conservative, but that has not stopped them happily benefitting from federally-funded highways, dams and the like. Then there’s the military. It’s welfare aspects extend from the young person who receives money for college in return for signing-up, to the numerous towns where the nearby military base is the major employer.
Finally, let’s not forget the housing market, which has been dominated by the federal government for decades. Mortgage interest up to $1.1 million is tax deductible – and that’s for any home you own, not just your primary residence. Meanwhile mortgages themselves are a one-way ratchet. When interest rates fall, you simply refinance and lock-in the new, lower rate for the next thirty years; should they subsequently rise, you’re sitting pretty. Americans are aghast when I tell them that in the welfarist People’s Republic of Great Britain all mortgages are adjustable rate, while there’s no interest deduction. Again, I cannot see any Tea Party Republican congressman changing that; not unless he wants to very quickly become an ex-congressman.
Regrettably I think people like big government. Our job is to persuade them there is a better alternative; it won’t be easy and is definitely a job for the long-term. Creating big government took about a century; dismantling it will probably require another one.
At the risk of sounding a trifle circular, my belief is that those men who need to be governed are those men who believe that men need to be governed.
Libertarianism isn’t a particular political structure; it’s a state of mind. Any community- yes, any collective- whose “community spirit”- that is, the general beliefs of the people- is libertarian will become libertarian. The creation of libertarian society is thus the creation of a new libertarian consciousness in the mass of the people.
Or, one can very strongly argue, a return to that consciousness which predominated in the mass of the people in England and America up to about 1800, give or take. Either nation at that point would have easily functioned under full liberalism since the people in general had a generally liberal consciousness. That was gone by 1900, and the processes that destroyed it are what fascinate me.
The mass of the people currently are not “libertarian man” and until that can be changed will need to be governed, because they believe they need to be governed. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg thing, at the moment, and a matter of self-fulfilling prophecies. Those who believe that removal of governance will lead to a Hobbesian catastrophe ensure that one would happen if governance were removed; just as, for instance, the New Labour cabal’s belief in the natural corruption of mankind made them the most corrupt administration in our modern history.
Unfortunately this is the reality –
Compromise will have to be entertained as libertarians do their best to change the masses of children growing up now. Those over 25 are a lost cause. Therefore it is necessary to make inroads against Statism, just as Statism built itself slowly but surely over the last 100 years.
BUT, there simply isn’t enough time. The benefits of implementing libertarianism into the culture – peaceful and productive people producing, saving, and consuming in proper balance with a clear notion of what equity is, how it is measured, and to whom it belongs – cannot be implemented in time.
So, the time to push the agenda yet compromise in the efforts, was about circa 1980-1983. It was begun to some extent, but while taxes were cut, programs were not, and our horrendous borrowing schemes began. It is thirty years too late. The best we can now hope for is that out of the inevitable civil instabilities we are in store for is that a libertarian based minarchic governing form will emerge. To my mind that is about as much chance as the election results have shown – 3%. It is much more likely we will have a hard left or hard right model emerge out of the collapse.
I can’t abide either and don’t expect to flourish.
Perry,
Sorry, but I actually have a very clear understanding of libertarianism — having advocated the inclusion of Ayn Rand’s and Lysander Spooner’s works into the university political science curriculum, back in the 1970s.
There’s no point in denigrating my understanding of the topic — hell, I was even analyzing anarchism in the 1970s, and I understand that lump of shit only too well. Libertarianism has always got respect from me — maybe even more than it should, because I’m (believe it or not) quite an idealist.
Finally, I don’t think that a philosophy which has traction among a sliver of the population (around 3%) should have the temerity to call a philosophy (supported by well over a third of our population) “fellow travellers”; surely, the opposite is true.
My point was, and always is, that libertarianism serves a valuable purpose in the political process — but only as an (unattainable) ideal which serves as a reminder of what we’re trying to achieve. As a stand-alone method of practical governance, though, libertarianism ranks with strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords.
That’s because libertarianism- liberalism that is- isn’t a “method of practical governance”. It is, well, just a preference or a tendency to minimise governance. It is saying, “let us not govern what does not need to be governed”.
Kim, imagine if (alcohol) Prohibition had stuck, instead of miraculously getting repealed as it was. What would Conservatives be saying now? They’d be saying, “those crazy 3% libertarians going on about legalising beer, they’re barmy they are! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” That’s what you’d be saying, isn’t it? Be honest now.
The very reasonable libertarian argument is that the current form of governance- expansive statism, supported by both left and right- does not work. There seems to be lots of evidence that it does not work. It really isn’t doing very well. It hasn’t entirely collapsed yet, but that is hardly an endorsement is it?
So anyway, this is why Conservatism remains, as a philosophy, fantastically useless. It is just a pick’n’mix form of the Statism which, when it suits it, it declares opposition to. Conservatism has failed to stop Statism because it doesn’t want to and- here’s a prediction- this wonderful Tea Party is going to be another catastrophic failure as judged on the criterion of “reducing the State”. Because it’s Conservative, and when those sad-assed mithering Conservatives actually get to the moment of rolling back the State, they won’t because then they’d have to give up control. And Conservatives don’t want to do that. They want to sing songs to Liberty while rifling through your house looking for illegal plants.
Libertarianism isn’t some kind of idealised “conscience of Conservatism” and in one thing you’re right; we aren’t fellow travellers. Libertarianism is, in the general if not always the specifics, correct, but not currently popular. Conservatism is just plain wrong. I may be an idealist, but I’ll stick with the one that’s right, thanks.
Mmmm.
Human nature loves to be in charge. (Not to say that someone doesn’t need to be, in situations. It’s the love of it that screws us.)
So I suppose Brad has a reasonable view of it.
Whether we are bossing the country, the peasants, or the misinformed.
There was, indeed, a window 30 years ago but it was squandered because the love to boss carried the day, ably helped on by those who desire control.
And it seems it always will.
Libertarians should forget about trying to change society from within, its impossible. There are too many people who want the State to provide for them, to have power over them and others.
What they should put their hand to is agitating for the individual right to opt out of the State system. To forgo the things the State provide (education, health, welfare etc) and be allowed to exist outside that system. Just paying a minimal amount for national defence and the justice system.
If that were possible and enough people opted out the remainder would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
It should not be a case of ‘We want this system of governance (small/limited/zero state provision) for everyone’ but ‘We do not want to be part of your system, let us go our own way’
It is unlikely that such a thing would ever be granted, for sure. But it is more achievable (especially in baby steps) than imagining that the State Leviathan can be halted and turned around in any other circumstances other than violent revolution or some form of financial collapse induced dissolution of the State.
The other side of the “no compromise” principle came up today on Isegoria.
True politics requires compromise – it is an unavoidable part of seeking power. The problem is that seeking power is anathema to libertarianism – in the overwhelming majority of cases the libertarian thing to do with political power is to not use it, whereas any other politician uses “spare power” to build and maintain his power base.
The turning of broad libertarianism against the Republican Party establishment is significant, but I think it represents more an opportunistic putsch against a weakened rival than a repudiation of compromise per se.
Jim, it’s not really practical to try to opt out of the State. States are geographic entities. You can’t opt out of the law, and you can’t opt out of regulations, and you can’t live in a non-libertarian State as if it were a Libertarian one. The infrastructure is too different, and predicated on the existence of the State. You can’t get around without using the public roads, you can’t use private healthcare because the State has reduced it to a rump which is heavily regulated, and so on.
All you could actually practicably do is impoverish yourself by not using State services for which, in the non-libertarian State, there is no private alternative.
If you want to have any meaningful interaction with the rest of humanity, you’re going to have to play by the same rules. The only way forward is thus to change, or rather abolish, the rules themselves.
Sifting through these comments one might wonder what would be the responses to:
What are the purposes of governments?
1. To Classic Liberals?
2. To “Conservatives”?
3. To the “Socialist-Oriented” ?
4. To “Progressives” (U.S.) ?
5. To Libertarians ?
Then consider how the responses would set the functions of governments.
Jim, maybe you should start up some alternatives to the State schemes. I have often wondered if you could pay people in wagers not wages. If you bet them an ounce of gold that they will not work on whatever project you have, then you could pay up (No taxes) at the end of each day. They would need to be libertarianly inclined, but could bets replace payrolls?
Yeah, like I said, you really don’t understand 🙂 Many conservatives, i.e. the ones who are not actually prone to deeply fascist ideas when push comes to shove (i.e. probably half of them), are potential hyphenated ‘libertarians’ who just need it demonstrated that there is a viable route there that does not involves shooting at people.
You think most of the ideas that define the essence of libertarianism are supported by 3% of the population beacuse so few vote for the capital L libertarian Party. Nope. Very few of the pukka libertarians that I know in the USA vote for the LP yet they *are* libertarians.
Also a great many people who would not know what a libertarian was if they sat on one nevertheless support broadly libertarian ideas when you actually pin down what they think amidst the contradictory kack people keep in their heads.
Perry, when I read Kim’s original comment, I realised that you could do things in small steps. I think the trouble is that the UK doesn’t have enough states! Perhaps what you need is more Power to the Parishoners! Let this be settled on a small scale.
RRS-
1) A small administration to anchor a hegemonic legal framework and court system, and act on behalf of the people in external policy and defence.
2) As (1) plus the imposition of a hegemonic moral system by whatever force is necessary, without which society will dissolve into a Hobbesian holocaust.
3 and 4 (which are the same)) As (2), with some differences in the moral system required to prevent the Hobbesian holocaust, plus the provision of divers moral goods.
5) As (1) since they are the same, unless they’re anarchist libertarians, in which case the purpose of the government is to extinguish itself.
No kidding. I never thought otherwise and I have also lived in the USA for about 15 years.
Oh I doubt there are more of them than I think, hahaha. However there is nothing like a nice touch of economic reality landing on people’s lives with a sickening crunch to change people’s perspectives.
Libertarianism is only of value insofar as it reflects reality.
Reality would seem to be that the more we are individually responsible for our lives, and free to pursue our individually responsible goals, the better for ourselves and everyone else.
So why not?
Because some people want to rip off others and be carried on the tide of other people’s effort while they tell you how hard they are working telling everyone else what to do and assuming the superior position necessary to do that?. (We don’t want to learn their style, for sure.)
I think it simply comes back to individual freedom and individual responsibility. The rest follows.
@IanB: Are you sure its not possible to have ‘One country, two systems’? The way the the State seems to be moving towards allowing Muslims to have Sharia law (OK they haven’t got it now, but who’s to say they won’t in 10-20 years time?) indicates that it COULD be possible. And perhaps libertarians should be working on the first few steps to a similar goal.
The culture thing solves inteself – if there is a strong culture.
For example, immigrants (or many of them) get converted to the local religion.
“But if they do not Paul” – well then the local culture is already rotten, the immigrants are just exposing the problem (not creating it).
Anyway all these cultural issues are a side show (as any Tea Party candidate would tell you – the Federal government should have no influence over these matters, EITHER WAY).
What matters is the credit bubble financial system, and out of control government spending, plus high (and insanely complex) taxes, and the giant spider’s web of regulation (a Shelob style spider’s web).
If a candidate is sincerely interested in rolling all this back – then they should be supported, even if they are not in favour of rolling it back as far as libertarians would like.
However, if a candidate is not interested in rolling back the government (if they are interested in “working with the Democrats”, “earmarks” and so on – yes I mean you Mitch McConnell) then they should not be supported.
It really is that brutally simple -and I think every libertarian is in agreement on this, whatever our disagreements on other matters.