Liberty, Libertarians, and the Lesser of Two Evils
Election season is here in less than two weeks and libertarians are faced with a very mediocre/depressing set of choices between the two major parties and their respective nominees. This inevitably fuels the fire of apathy and/or cynicism leading one to not vote, or it forces the eventual voter to decide which candidate would be a better friend of individual freedoms and liberty. I have chosen to stay engaged and vote regardless of the choices, writing myself in when necessary. Therefore, I must somehow decide which candidate is the lesser of two evils.
The most realistic scenario libertarians can hope for is one of the two following: A Republican who strongly advocates free markets and economic freedom and is "generally" favorable to protecting civil liberties but will likely cave in to party demands on occasion versus a Democrat who is a crusader for civil liberties and respects the free market in general but is not philosophically committed to it.
My general theory is that economic freedom serves as necessary precursor and defender of civil liberties because it allows power to be distributed, via wealth accumulation, to entities other than the state. This type of power distribution is also relevant in relation to the right to bear arms, which happens to be the one civil liberty that civil libertarian Democrats usually do not recognize (I am using the ACLU as a reference to civil libertarian Democrats). Under my general theory of power distribution a candidate who is a civil libertarian Democrat offers no way for individual actors to be a counter balance to excessive state power except by continuing to vote for him or her. While a free market Republican (I use Milton Friedman as a reference to free market Republicans) will also usually support the right to bear arms giving individual actors two ways to counter excessive intrusion into personal matters.
Obviously, there can be exceptions to my "most realistic" scenarios where a civil libertarian democrat strongly supports gun rights (supposedly this is the case with Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana but Webb does not even mention gun rights on his campaign site in contrast to Tester) or a free market Republican that strongly supports civil liberties, such as Congressman Ron Paul. However, in this case you still have pro-gun civil libertarian Democrats that lean populist on economics versus a libertarian who runs for congress as a Republican. In the end I have concluded that there is no hope of a libertarian finding a voice in today's Democratic party (see the running debate at Cato Unbound) while a libertarian can at least exist, if only marginally, in the Republican party. When given a "most realistic" scenario the lesser of two evils for me ends up being the Republican; however, when given a choice between populists and social conservatives (where neither support economic freedom), I am not able to logically distinguish a lesser of the two evils and Tip Tucker suddenly announces his candidacy.
The most realistic scenario libertarians can hope for is one of the two following: A Republican who strongly advocates free markets and economic freedom and is "generally" favorable to protecting civil liberties but will likely cave in to party demands on occasion versus a Democrat who is a crusader for civil liberties and respects the free market in general but is not philosophically committed to it.
My general theory is that economic freedom serves as necessary precursor and defender of civil liberties because it allows power to be distributed, via wealth accumulation, to entities other than the state. This type of power distribution is also relevant in relation to the right to bear arms, which happens to be the one civil liberty that civil libertarian Democrats usually do not recognize (I am using the ACLU as a reference to civil libertarian Democrats). Under my general theory of power distribution a candidate who is a civil libertarian Democrat offers no way for individual actors to be a counter balance to excessive state power except by continuing to vote for him or her. While a free market Republican (I use Milton Friedman as a reference to free market Republicans) will also usually support the right to bear arms giving individual actors two ways to counter excessive intrusion into personal matters.
Obviously, there can be exceptions to my "most realistic" scenarios where a civil libertarian democrat strongly supports gun rights (supposedly this is the case with Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana but Webb does not even mention gun rights on his campaign site in contrast to Tester) or a free market Republican that strongly supports civil liberties, such as Congressman Ron Paul. However, in this case you still have pro-gun civil libertarian Democrats that lean populist on economics versus a libertarian who runs for congress as a Republican. In the end I have concluded that there is no hope of a libertarian finding a voice in today's Democratic party (see the running debate at Cato Unbound) while a libertarian can at least exist, if only marginally, in the Republican party. When given a "most realistic" scenario the lesser of two evils for me ends up being the Republican; however, when given a choice between populists and social conservatives (where neither support economic freedom), I am not able to logically distinguish a lesser of the two evils and Tip Tucker suddenly announces his candidacy.
posted by Tip Tucker | 8:58 PM
1 Comments:
There is a new book describing the Democratic Party’s libertarian roots and how they switched from Jefferson and Jackson to Rousseau and Marx in the 20th century. You’ll find it on Amazon Books under Clay Barham or on the website www.claysamerica.com.
Post a Comment
<< Home