Put a Libertarian on the New York Times' Op-Ed Page

For this to-the-hilt liberal, “Libertarianism in the Age of Obama” seemed like a shady name for the talk Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch, the top brass over at Reason Magazine, were slated to give via The Modernist Society (think hipsters, alcohol and more hipsters). But as a now devout reader of the publication—and with a decent sense of the kind of dialogue Welch and Gillespie offer—I figured why not: The special was a four-dollar glass of decent bourbon and I was pretty strung out from the day before.

What seemed like a very tiny showing turned into a boisterous crowd by 10 or so. There were ties and jeans and argyle and rectangular frames and a terrible bartender; the mood seemed joyous, and I thought to myself, “Libertarians are hipper than liberals? I dare say.”

When the talk finally got started, Gillespie had the room gaffed on his style of wit: asked about Reason’s relationship with the Libertarian Party, Gillespie replied, “We bring the party”; they "hate black presidents for all the same reasons they hate white presidents"; “crony capitalism is better than crony socialism”; “The Price is Right is a libertarian TV show, because the price is always right”; etc.

As the questions started rolling in from the audience—though not a single one came from one of the bedecked scenesters—Gillespie and Welch switched off answering, and it became abundantly clear to me that both men understand the issues inside and out. They discussed 19th (or was it 18th?) century political theory, civil liberties, economics and everything else thrown their way.

While no expert on libertarian ideology, I left Bourbon that night slightly drunk and with a greater understanding of what it means to view government and policy through a lens other than politics—in other words, the line “free minds and free markets” isn’t just “stay off my lawn and let me do whatever drugs I want.” It’s reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s patented moral objectivism, where one’s morality corresponds with one’s politics. A free, unadulterated market needs to be protected as fiercely as the freedom of speech.

I in no way wish to draw any real comparison between Rand and libertarianism (indeed, when asked in a 1971 interview what she thought of the Libertarian Party, Rand responded, “I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis.”). Look at this small example: A great many liberals believe this country’s drug laws aren’t working; now, there are myriad suggestions as to how to fix this, but in dozens of conversations I’ve had over the years, few of those in favor of decriminalizing marijuana are in favor of decriminalizing crystal meth. One reddens your eyes, the other kills you. I haven’t met many liberals in favor of getting rid of seatbelt or helmet laws, either.

Where’s the tipping point between civil liberties and, to put it glibly, the government looking out for you? This question was running through my head for the length of the discussion, and I saw in the libertarianism espoused by Welch and Gillespie an ideology at ease with itself. I haven’t turned in my liberal card, but conservatives and liberals alike could use a few voices as clear as Gillespie and Welch’s.

And it is with confidence that I nominate both men as possible candidates to replace Bill Kristol as The New York Times’ new op-ed columnist. Kristol, who cold not find it in himself to utter anything of worth for an entire year, left a legacy of boilerplate drivel and a hard-to-conceal erection for Sarah Palin. Good riddance.

As for his open position, we see a parallel in the tough choices governors must make in the appointing of a senator to fill a vacant seat. There are a lot of factors to consider, and chief among the Times’ situation is the notion—gasp—of balance: “How do we present a diversity of opinion and thought that reflects the whole spectrum?” Surely we’re not all Dowds and Kristols.

And while most of us are not libertarians, Gillespie and Welch have the presence of mind to keep the debate fresh and lively. It’d be hard to pick one, but my gut is leaning toward Gillespie, mostly because he rocks a great leather jacket.

The New York Times needs a dynamic voice on its page; its columnists, with the occasional exceptions of Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and David Brooks, are stale and overplayed. A Gillespie or a Welch is exactly what that paper needs—and what public debate needs.

This blog post originally appeared on Splice Today.

Comments

[egmathew]

Part II

Foreign policy:

Don't start any fight (Holocaust situations I'll grant, but then there's provocation.). If someone punches you (America) in the face, you punch back harder. Our policies shouldn't extend beyond our own borders.

Iraq: No Afghanistan: Yes, but now it's quite a bit ridiculous.

Economic policy:

I'll just say this. Society has no brain. Anyone who claims to know what course we need to go on, or anyone who claims to know the will of the people, is only using power in their own interests. Society has no single command center; it has 300 million (minus children) command centers. Decentralized. People who know what to do with their own money, what is in their best interests, far better than 500 people in Washington who get to call the shots. How couldn't they know what's best for their pocketbook and family...they're living their lives. To the government they're just an IRS file and Social Security numbers.

You don't know what's singularly best for the country. You can't enforce your own personal moral code on others. Why would you want to be such a control freak?

[egmathew]

Ok. Here we go. I am a libertarian. This is what I (maybe we) believe.

I want the government out of my life as much as possible. Why? Government is uniquely inefficient. Try to view it as a business; it takes in revenue (a whoooole lot of revenue) and then it has expenditures. Unlike a business, the government can't go OUT of business. This doesn't lead to good management, it leads to a bureaucratic mess. "Close enough for government work" as the saying goes. We joke about how ineffectual our government is.

Social policy:

If it doesn't hurt me, or occur on my property, I don't care what anyone does. What business is it of mine? Nothing between two consenting adults should ever be prohibited; it's also, incidentally, impossible to enforce consensual "crimes." Why do you care what others do? Why would you want to be such a control freak?

What about smoking, you ask. "I end up paying for their bad habits!!" It's a matter of fact (insomuch as it appears in reputable scientific journals at least) that smoking saves money for the taxpayer. They die earlier. Social Security money goes straight into the public coffers. Not as many 90 year olds on insane amounts of medication. So don't bring that example up.

[camper65]

Hell, I'd settle for someone who can see and speak the truth, and isn't insane!

[amyers]

There are two general schools of libertarianism: rational fundamentalists and anti-authoritarian right-wingers. The libertarian who believes so fully in the infallibility of human reason that he deems the rule of law unnecessary is one of the former; the libertarian who builds a makeshift fort in the woods where he can fend off anyone who tries to take away his money or his stockpile of sawed-off shotguns is one of the latter.

[paxd]

Nice strawman you have there.

No libertarian I know of thinks that the rule of law isn't necessary. We just don't believe it has to be necessarily provided by an all-powerful state.

Libertarians have a far dimmer view of human nature than liberals do. Liberals believe it is possible to have a powerful government that manages or regulates all facets of the economy and not have it corrupted by the wealthy and powerful.

[amyers]

Yeah, and about that dim view of human nature...quite frankly, it's too hard to spend one's entire life on guard against a world that can never be trusted. I'll keep my faith in humanity, thank you very much.

[miltonista]

what a refreshingly unexpected piece for huffypuff. Andrew, are you still alive and breathing? The progressives here are pretty vicious.

[MajorKong]

Unfortunately most Libertarian thought ends at "Don't tax me!".

[paxd]

Actually, libertarian thought begins *and* ends with the principle of non-initiation of force. Everything else, including "don't tax me", follows from that single simple principle.

[MajorKong]

You'll find non-initiation of force goes out the window the first time a large, powerful corporation wants your land, mineral rights, water rights etc.

[Senzasord]

Why is it that for Libertarians freedom always seems to translate into freedom to feed their insatiable greed. Free markets are a myth; someone always pays a heavy price, and today that happens to be the middle class. We all are supposed to be guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you are not allowed to pursue your happiness at the expense of mine. That is why governments are constituted among men. If this is unacceptable, then perhaps they could find their true measure of freedom in a place like Paraguay.

[miltonista]

the free market brought you the computer you're typing on to rail against the free market.

[paxd]

Taxing Peter to pay Paul is the very definition of pursuing happiness at the expense of another. Your liberal philosophy is based on theft and is therefore immoral.

[dadumdee]

In agreeing with Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul more than any other candidates in the election, I came to realize that modern American politics isn't the linear right to left arrangement we've been told that it is. Instead, it is a circle in which the quadrants representing liberals and libertarians are as close to each other politically as democrats and republicans. Both candidates reached similar conclusions by different means, but I agree with both on the economy and foreign policy. Libertarians lose me with their social policies insofar as they don't seem to think that societies need policies. It seems like a liberal is a libertarian who wants a collective (ie democratically elected government) approval for issues of shared relevance and a libertarian is a liberal who doesn't think we need a collective approval and that problems will resolve themselves in a free marketplace.

[paxd]

A liberal is simply a libertarian who doesn't understand a single thing about economics, and who doesn't desire to change that. Magical thinking is the rule there.

[MajorKong]

A Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to smoke pot.

[miltonista]

a liberal is a libertarian who's having cognitive dissonance about their best and brightest running the show.

[BlackJAC]

The Libertarians' problem is they're too utopian and trusting in human nature, and consequently all their policies only work when everybody's on the same side and plays by the rules. I've seen what they erroneously believe their ideal society would be like in THE PROBABILITY BROACH and what it would really be like in JENNIFER GOVERNMENT and MARKET FORCES.

[paxd]

You have gotten things utterly backwards. Libertarians don't trust human nature AT ALL. This is why we don't believe anyone w should have power over anyone else, because they cannot be trusted.

If you share this lack of trust in human nature, why would you support government control over your life? Government is composed of humans, and according to you, humans cannot be trusted.

[Russycle]

Of course government can't be trusted, that's why there needs to be transparency and accountability. But you can't run a country without anyone having power over anyone else, any more than you can run a business that way. The difference is you can toss out those in power in the government if they do a crappy job. In theory, anyway.

[rjmiller]

Libertarianism is by definition not only regressive, but exploitative because it is dismissive of poverty. We have public roads, schools and police forces for a reason.

[paxd]

Lberalism is by definition regressive and exploitative because it is dismissive of freedom.

Our public roads are insufficient for the number of cars produced by private enterprise, and full of potholes besides. Our public schools are an ongoing failure and the disgrace of a nation. Our public police abuse and kill with the excuse of protecting us from ourselves.

Is that the reason we have them?

[MajorKong]

We have them because most grown ups realize that government has to step in to provide necessary services that the private sector cannot or will not provide due to lack of short-term profit.

What's your alternative to public police forces - Blackwater?

[Ed438]

From my, admittedly, somewhat limited contact with the Libertarian philosophy, I find their opinions on most everything social and economic to lie in the realm of pure fantasy.

If their opinions on healthcare ("let the market set the prevailing rates and we'd all be able to afford to go to a doctor"), for example, were allowed to prevail, none of us would ever be able to get any healthcare. Or, "the government should stay out of regulating anything including the banks!" Well, in effect they have been doing this for many years and look where it's gotten us!

Perhaps all these "laissez-faire" views would work fine in an ideal capitalist society where everyone is utterly honest but when has such a society existed? Anything like it would be a right-wing utopia.

We've had Bill Kristol who has been wrong on virtually everything and he is now gone; do we need another loony commentator to take his place?

[paxd]

You admit you don't know anything about libertarianism, and then proceed to discourse on why it would never work?

Your homework is to read "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. It's freely available on the web:

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

[MajorKong]

Please provide a historic example of a functioning libertarian government of anything larger than a Greek city-state.

[Ed438]

You are putting words in my mouth! "Somewhat limited" doesn't translate into "knowing nothing" about Libertarianism. I have left open the possibility of learning more about it but in arguments I've have with Libertarians on the web, and there have been quite a few, I felt that none of those I've disputed have made much sense.

I hope to get to Mr. Rothbard as soon as possible but your reply to Major Kong seems to show that you are as utopian as those I already know about.

The world is as it is and smaller governments are not likely to occur in the near future just because you want it to be so.

[PlaceboStudman]

There is one major flaw with your thesis. While I wholeheartedly promote the idea of having as many voices come to the table as possible, we also need to look at who represents those voices. I used to be a devout Kool-Aid drinking Libertarian, until I looked further into what they actually stood for, and I discovered that, for me, taking NO stance on an issue is as important a reason to object to someone as taking a stance I disagree with. Eventually I abandoned the Libertarian party, because frankly they did not even address some of the issues I care most about, and that scared the bejesus out of me.

As they say, the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't know

[paxd]

What are you on about? Do you have a specific criticism of libertarianism beyond vague accusations of not addressing unnamed "issues"?

[Brian Holtz]

What issues do you claim the LP doesn't address? Have you read our brand-new 2008 Platform? If I left anything out of it, I'll be glad to consider including it in our 2010 Platform.

[Snowball]

As long as they stick to social issues and stay away from economics, I have no problem with Libertarians.

[larry278]

Yes, that pesky detail, were the laws which allowed the meltdown Libertarian measures?

[brentdax]

The loose regulations on banks were more libertarian than the laws the Democrats would prefer; on the other hand, the laws tying banks to the Federal Reserve are not libertarian. And the law at the root of the problem--the one that gives the Fed the power to set interest rates independent of market forces--is not libertarian at all.

The libertarian position is that legal regulations on banks are only needed because the banks have been isolated from the floating interest rates that would regulate them in a free market. In other words, in a world without a Fed, interest rates would have been high enough that the housing bubble would have never formed. The existence of the Fed removes many of the market's regulatory forces from banks; thus, banks behave irresponsibly and need to be regulated by law. But as we've seen in the past century, we can never get the level of regulation right--it's either too strict or too loose. The market's regulatory forces adjust their strictness to match the actual situation; our laws can't do that.