DISQUS

Noel Le · 3 years ago

I'm generally skeptical about "applying" a classical thinker's work to current technology policy unless their arguments are immediately relevant. Coase is obviously pertinent to many discussions. But I've seen Bastiat, Hayek, Mises, Rand and even Thomas Jefferson analyzed in ways that neither do them justice nor inform current discourse. These generalizations on TLF often fail to address an important point, namely-couldn't any of these figures' arguments also be interpreted to support IPRs? And why do IPR critics fail to cite today's law and economics scholars who actually support their views? I often recommend books and articles on TLF that challenge my views simply because I believe current IP scholarship is more relevant to tech policy than revisionist history.

Adam Thierer · 3 years ago

Tim.. You need to speak for yourself on this one because I don't think most of the rest of us are ready for a big group hug with the Lefties just because of recent political events. When you make a statement like: "But if the alternative is for libertarians to be chained to an increasingly corrupt and illiberal conservative movement.." ... I honestly don't understand why you think we have to make that choice at all.

First, are you really saying that the Left is really any less corrupt? There have been just as many Democratic scandals and ethics violations over the years. And do you honestly believe that same people who gave us the New Deal, the Great Society and Hillary care will EVER embrace free markets? Come on.

The problem is the entire entrenched political class, regardless of which party they affiliate with. With all due respect to Brink, who I consider one of the most brilliant thinkers I've ever had the privilege of working with, I get a bit sick and tired of hearing my fellow libertarians embrace the party du jour ever time there's been a major electoral shift. Go back to 1994 and check out what some libertarians were saying back then about how we finally might be able to work with Republicans to achieve meaningful, pro-liberty reforms.

It was all a bunch of BS then, and it's all a bunch of BS now. Neither of these parties give a damn about liberty in any consistent, meaningful way. It's all about attaining power and keeping it. Hell, I'll probably spend more time this session of congress fighting off pro-censorship garbage from the likes of Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and company than I have over the past 10 years combined. I can't tell the difference between the Dems and GOP on half the social policy issues out there today. They're all singing out of the same hymnal as they worship at the Church of Big Government together.

So to hell with all this stupid "liberal-tarian" crap. I'm a libertarian, period. And I hope this blog continues to remain rabidly independent and free of such silly, fleeting labels.

Seth Finkelstein · 3 years ago

Sorry, Tim, your heart is in the right place (err, accurate place?), but:

WE TRIED YOUR IDEA AND IT DIDN'T WORK

The idea of a Libertarian-Liberal alliance is a pundit bloviating. That person has obviously never, ever, done anything on ground level.

I want to second Adam Thierer's comment from those of us who have tried to make alliance with Libertarians but aren't Libertarians. Which is, frankly, that Libertarianism Makes You Stupid. Any alliance tends to degenerate into Libertarian proselytizing where the cult of business-worship tries to take over the group, with endless dogma recitations. They drive everyone else away, and then they're happy, because they've "won". I've been there, and it's extremely destructive.

Exhume Goldwater · 3 years ago

IT CAN WORK... and it will in 2008 if we can all get behind the single greatest idea of our generation: Exume Goldwater '08.

Tim Lee · 3 years ago

Adam,

I guess I wasn't very clear. I wasn't claiming that we should all fold up shop and become partisan Democrats. Obviously, the libertarian movement can and should remain an independent voice that criticizes both Republicans and Democrats, as appropriate.

My point was simply that we should do a better job of remaining independent of "the entire entrenched political class"--including its conservative wing. I think that some of the connections libertarians have to the conservative movement have undermined our independence and made it difficult for us to work constructively with libertarian-leaning folks on the left. I don't want to make the opposite mistake and become too incestuous with the left, but I would like us to do a little bit better job of building robust alliances on both sides of the political spectrum. There are smart people on the left who share a lot of our goals, and I'd like them to think of us as allies as much as libertarian-leaning conservatives do.

Finally, I entirely agree that the term "liberal-tarian" is atrocious. I would like it if we could reclaim the term "liberal" from the left, but until that occurs, I intend to continue calling myself a libertarian.

Seth: I'm sorry you feel that way. Fortunately, I have found engaging with the left to be more productive than you describe. I'm also flattered that you continue to read the blog despite our business-worshipping tendencies.

Seth Finkelstein · 3 years ago

As a practical matter, while Libertarians are neither conservatives nor liberals, they are also not equally far from either - they are much closer to conservatives in power than liberals in power. Sort of like Jews are not Christians or Muslims - but they are closer to Christians than to Muslims (so a Jewish/Christian alliance against Muslims is a lot more likely than a Jewish/Muslim alliance against Christians).

From another direction, the saying is "Republicans who like to smoke pot" - not "Pot-smokers who like to vote Republican".

Anyway, Libertarians are very loud in the tech-policy corner of the world. But in terms of general politics - we're talking rounding error significance (except for Ralph Nader-like spoiler situations)

Tim Lee · 3 years ago

Seth, isn't that what I said? It's true--today's libertarian movement is closer to the right than the left. I would like to change that. So I don't see what your point is.

Seth Finkelstein · 3 years ago

Tim, I think you're mixing up cause and effect. Nobody can change it, because it's a fundamental issue with the structure of Libertarianism.

Patrick Ross · 3 years ago

"I don't know of any libertarians who've gotten jobs at the ACLU..."

I remember far-right Congressman Bob Barr, a major privacy advocate, joining the ACLU after leaving office. I also just heard on C-SPAN radio the other day an ACLU event hosting Antonin Scalia, praising him for among other votes his siding with ACLU in the Texas sodomy case. I think you're trying to paint a world to make your point that isn't as neatly divided as you actually paint it. In Washington, anyone will work with anyone if it is in his or her best interest.

Oh, and somehow I wasn't aware of "Adam's push to have more nudity on broadcast TV..." I really must read Adam's voluminous writings more carefully; I thought he was making First Amendment arguments, not promoting any particular programming content.

Tim Lee · 3 years ago

Patrick, that's a good point about the ACLU and Bob Barr. Still, I think my general point holds: Among my libertarian friends, I know far more people who've gotten jobs at right-of-center groups like AEI and Heritage than left-of-center groups like the ACLU or Brookings. Is your experience different?

And I was being a little bit facetious about Adam and nudity on TV. Obviously, Adam is pro-free speech, not pro-nudity. I apologize to Adam if that was unclear from what I wrote.

Patrick Ross · 3 years ago

I guess I've seen more libertarians work right than left. I'd note that for either of us we're probably talking a sample size that wouldn't pass social-science muster. I'd also point out that there have been far more jobs on the right in Washington -- more think tanks and related jobs, more GOP than Dems on the Hill -- so you go where the jobs are.

You also likely go where the power is. It would be interesting, if we have a Clinton-Obama administration starting in '09 and the Dems keep holding the House and Senate, to see if some young libertarian writes ten years from now bemoaning the fact that libertarians are so entwined with the left.