Conor Friedersdorf discusses the Yglesias post I linked to earlier here. He agrees that statism is a strange way to frame the difference between liberals, conservatives, and libertarians.
It is, however, a politically strategic way of framing it, which probably explains why so many libertarians have been convinced by it.
Yes, yes, yes ... liberaltarianism, a failed notion from the get go.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, statism - as the term is properly understood (that is the control, planning and often ownership of the economic and social sphere by the state*) - is not a strange way to look at the matter.
*All one need do is look at the DNC platform as a sort of proxy for how liberals think about these things; it is a litany of this sort of stuff: http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/8a738445026d1d5f0f_bcm6b5l7a.pdf
Xenophon - I don't think you'll find anyone here or on the blog I link to claiming that libertarian is a failed notion, from the get go or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYour paranoia is showing again...
Anyway, if you mean that liberals see a broader role for the state than libertarians that is obviously true. Does that make them "statist"? It seems to me we have to have to put some qualitative bounds on this to make it reasonable (libertarians see a bigger role for the state than anarchists, after all, and that certainly doesn't make them statists), and we need talk about the conditions for the legitimacy of state action under liberalism. You don't address either of these issues, which seem to me to be central to the question.
In case it was unclear to anyone else: this blog is not libertarian and will level critiques against libertarianism, but it is by no means anti-libertarian and it would never stand with anyone who dismisses the importance or value, at the very least in a general sense, of libertarian ideas.
ReplyDeleteParanoia? Dismissing something which failed within the first month of the Obama Presidency is not "paranoia." I mean, don't you recall the plethora of articles from liberals at roughly that time blaming the "Great Recession" on the "libertarian policies" of the Bush administration?
ReplyDelete"Anyway, if you mean that liberals see a broader role for the state than libertarians that is obviously true."
It isn't merely just a "broader role," the view of libertarians and liberals regarding the legitimacy of state action is starkly different and it is just beyond obvious that it is so. Whether one wants to frame this as "positive liberty" vs. "negative liberty" or "voluntary" or "involuntary morality," those are the things that divide the two.
Xenophon - you're responding to either me or Friedersdorf here. It's your expression of those concerns in your response to me and him that's paranoid. I don't speak for whoever made whatever critiques you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteAnd how am I or any other commneters to know that you are refering to critiques made a year and a half ago when you (1.) never mention those critiques of libertarianism, and (2.) furnish your "yes, yes, yes... libertarianism is a failed notion from the start" sarcasm in response to a post of mine?
If you are concerned about those people who have those problems with libertarianism, why are you raising your concerns here???
This is not a place to come and just complain about random people who've hated on libertarianism. You can do that somewhere else.
ReplyDelete"Xenophon - you're responding to either me or Friedersdorf here. It's your expression of those concerns in your response to me and him that's paranoid."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is truthful. Liberaltarianism broke down as soon as liberals got into power and this problem with liberals has been the discussion on libertarian blogs ever since.
"And how am I or any other commneters to know that you are refering to critiques made a year and a half ago..."
Because, I don't know, maybe because you're plugging into a four or five year old debate that has been going on in libertarian circles. But by all means, let's go through a point by point rehash of the last five years. In any blog conversation one assumes common knowledge ... and this is all common knowledge in libertarian circles.
But let's get to the nub of the matter:
"It is, however, a politically strategic way of framing it, which probably explains why so many libertarians have been convinced by it."
Is it your position that cannot have a principled position in opposition to your claim about liberals and libertarians?
Xenophon -
ReplyDeleteYou know my position on this crisis far too well to accuse me of thinking that something as ridiculous as "the libertarianism Bush administration" caused it. I don't know why you imagine this post to be another in a five year string of posts along that theme, but it's not. I never said libertarianism was "failed from the get go". Conor never said libertarianism was "failed from the get go". I don't know why you're conflating this post with "the plethora of articles from liberals at roughly that time blaming the "Great Recession" on the "libertarian policies" of the Bush administration?" - it has nothing to do with articles like that. Please get over it. You're swamping another comment section with irrelevancies.
RE: "Is it your position that cannot have a principled position in opposition to your claim about liberals and libertarians?"
ReplyDeleteWhy would you suspect I would hold that position?
No, I do not hold that position. I do think it is possible to have a principled opposition. I also think humans are complicated and usually have a mix of principled, unprincipled, informed, and uninformed reasons for opposition to an idea and I certainly think that political strategy and the appeal of political rhetoric do inform libertarian positions in many cases, as they inform all positions on social or political questions.
None of this is to say that principle isn't there too. I don't know why you'd even worry that I would think that one "cannot have a principled position in opposition" to any of my claims.
You know me and this blog far better than that, Xenophon.
"You know my position on this crisis far too well to accuse me of thinking that something as ridiculous as "the libertarianism Bush administration" caused it."
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about you (you aren't even a liberal as you keep on telling us), I am talking about the debate regarding liberaltarianism (which is really the subject under discussion here).
"You're swamping another comment section with irrelevancies."
Actually, my comments are entirely on point. This entire post concerns a long running debate amongst libertarians regarding the value of partnerships with conservatives and liberals, that value for those who advocate one or the other being based on some supposed shared vision between the two. I reject both allied notions - they are built on faulty premises, one being the notion that we share some similarity with either conservatives or liberals, when in fact we don't. To be allied with such notions is to subject oneself to constant disappointment.
"I don't know why you'd even worry that I would think that one "cannot have a principled position in opposition" to any of my claims."
Because generally speaking, when someone starts talking about how something is "politically strategic" that generally throws principle straight out the window.
"I'm not talking about you (you aren't even a liberal as you keep on telling us), I am talking about the debate regarding liberaltarianism (which is really the subject under discussion here)."
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to understand is why you are talking about this in this comment section when I never said anything like that, Friedersdorf never said anything like that, and Yglesias never said anything like that.
I'm not talking about "liberaltarianism" - I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm talking about liberalism and liberal views on the market. "Liberaltarians" are a different matter entirely.
I'm also not talking about blaming libertarians for the crisis or anything else - and neither were Yglesias and Friedersdorf.
I'm also not of the opinion that libertarianism is a "failed notion" - and neither were Yglesias or Friedersdorf.
If you want to talk about that sort of stuff, feel free to jump on some other post where I do talk about "liberaltarianism".
If you want to talk about common ground - i.e., my claim that liberals, libertarians, and conservatives are not "statists" - then we can have that discussion. I don't have time to comment on it further, but feel free to sound off on it.
ReplyDeleteJust don't turn this post into something that it's not.
"What I'm trying to understand is why you are talking about this in this comment section when I never said anything like that, Friedersdorf never said anything like that, and Yglesias never said anything like that."
ReplyDeleteBecause these days you can't really have a subject where you mention liberals and libertarians together without discussing liberaltarianism.
"I'm talking about liberalism and liberal views on the market."
In the context of talking about libertarians and your apparent claim that liberals and libertarians just aren't that different.
""Liberaltarians" are a different matter entirely."
No, not really.
"I'm also not talking about blaming libertarians for the crisis or anything else - and neither were Yglesias and Friedersdorf."
Which was just a mere example of how liberaltarianism failed.
"I'm also not of the opinion that libertarianism is a "failed notion" - and neither were Yglesias or Friedersdorf."
Sure, there are certainly individuals out there who think that the coalition will work, but it won't.
"If you want to talk about common ground - i.e., my claim that liberals, libertarians, and conservatives are not "statists" - then we can have that discussion."
There is nearly zero common ground between libertarians and either group; what overlap exists due to happenstance, not because of some shared principles. Which means that on specific issues it might be appropriate to associate with conservatives or liberals, but we libertarians should never become associated in any systematic way with either group. We did that with conservatives and it ended badly.
Anyway, when liberals start talking like this, you can tell they are about to get pounded in an upcoming election. We saw the same thing out of conservatives from 2006-2008 ... "oh, there are so many similarities, etc."
ReplyDeleteI have been called a statist on the Mises Institute forum. And I suppose next to Jupiter the earth is small. Perspective can sometimes blind people to important facts.
ReplyDeleteMany liberals have a worrying knee-jerk statism, and those prejudices can be taken advantage of by genuine statists. But when pressed with probing question and to reveal principles, most liberals curtail such excesses.
"But when pressed with probing question and to reveal principles, most liberals curtail such excesses."
ReplyDeleteI'd argue that this is highly issue specific, and generally pertains to whatever overlap exists between liberals and libertarians - that overlap being a few social issues and one or two economic issues.
RE: "In the context of talking about libertarians and your apparent claim that liberals and libertarians just aren't that different."
ReplyDeleteSorry to be confusing on that point Xenophon. I can assure you I think they're quite different.
RE: ""I'm also not of the opinion that libertarianism is a "failed notion" - and neither were Yglesias or Friedersdorf."
Sure, there are certainly individuals out there who think that the coalition will work, but it won't."
Coalition? What coalition? I think you're misreading "libertarianism" as "liberaltarianism"
"We saw the same thing out of conservatives from 2006-2008 ... "oh, there are so many similarities, etc."
ReplyDeleteThe only similarities I've mentioned are:
1. That none of them are statist ideologies, and
2. That all of them place great value in markets
I don't think holding those two things in common and making mention of it tells you anything except that they are all part of a very broad Western liberal tradition.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe term liberaltarianism is based on the notion that liberals and libertarians can enter a coaliton.
"The only similarities I've mentioned are:"
Before 2006 there a fair number of liberals talking about a liberal/libertarian coalition; that talk went away rather quickly after 2006. Now that discussion has been re-entered by liberals in light of the current electoral prospects of liberals.
"...that they are all part of a very broad Western liberal tradition."
Modern liberals abandoned the Western liberal tradition some during the first few decades of the last century. They instead adopted the standard that Hayek called "liberal socialism" in _The Fatal Conceit_.
"The term liberaltarianism is based on the notion that liberals and libertarians can enter a coaliton."
ReplyDeleteI understand that, Xenophon. But you responded discussing "liberaltarianism" to a statement that I made about "libertarianism". I think you thought I was discussing "liberaltarianism" when I was not. I'm aware of what "liberaltarianism" is.
I'm not and haven't been talking about liberaltarianism here. You keep bringing it up.
I will continue to do so because I believe it is pertinent to the discussion. You're free to tell me that it isn't.
ReplyDelete:) You can feel free to.
ReplyDeleteYou keep talking about it with me as if you think I'm talking about it and I'm trying to clarify that you are mistaken if you think I am.
Actually, I don't. I'm creating my own free form riff. Conversations are like, well, jazz - improvisational.
ReplyDelete