Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, editors at Reason, have written a book called The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America. I am biased, no doubt, but in 2011, this book is a must-read. I would argue that it is especially worth reading if you are skeptical of libertarianism or even a straightforward anti-libertarian. For instance, if you think libertarians are irresponsible, dope-smoking, unserious, head-in-the-clouds pacifists, this book is for you. (It will prove you wrong, I hope.) Of course, if you think that libertarians are great, you should still read the book, because you will come out of it energized and full of hope.
Here is a mini-review by Tyler Cowen:
This book is a excellent 2011 statement of what libertarianism should be, though I would say the title is more descriptive of the content than is the subtitle. It’s well written throughout, smart to focus on the areas where libertarianism is strongest, and remarkably for an “ideological” book it never ventures into the absurd or makes indefensible claims.
Another great reason to read the book: It could be our future. Over at the New York Times, Nate Silver reports on the most recent polls of the country’s political views. And guess what?
Libertarianism has been touted as the wave of America’s political future for many years, generally with more enthusiasm than evidence. But there are some tangible signs that Americans’ attitudes are in fact moving in that direction.
[. . .]
In CNN’s latest version of the poll, conducted earlier this month, the libertarian response to both questions reached all-time highs. Some 63 percent of respondents said government was doing too much — up from 61 percent in 2010 and 52 percent in 2008 — while 50 percent said government should not favor any particular set of values, up from 44 percent in 2010 and 41 percent in 2008. (It was the first time that answer won a plurality in CNN’s poll.)
Silver has a chart:
Update: Looking at the comments below, I thought I should add that there is no single libertarian position on abortion. For a good discussion on the issue, check out this post by Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey.
I like a lot of what the libertarians stand for, but I will stay away until they drop their support for abortion rights. I have feeling that there are many others that feel the same as I.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibertarians are NOT uniformly pro-choice.
MANY MANY libertarians are pro-life.
In fact Ron Paul is the MOST pro-life of any republican candidate with a very very long voting record to prove it.
To many libertarians, it follows with the non-aggression principle that it is wrong for one person to kill another just because they are in a position of power over that person.
Of course if you really believe this, then how can you be anti-abortion and yet pro-death-penalty? That is where republicans are not morally consistent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey may not be uniformly pro-choice, but the party platform is most definitely pro-choice.
And, since you mentioned it, I am not in favor of capital punishment either, but to equate it with abortion is pure poppycock.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf libertarians are the future then I think we are all in trouble deep.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny, I was going to say the same thing about their isolationism. (I think the pacifism allegation is a straw man.)
But who came up with the idea that libertarianism calls for government that "does not favor any particular set of values"? Libertarianism IS a set of values. I guess it's hard to squeeze the idea into a sound-bite question, but shouldn't they instead be asking whether they think government ought to make space for private moral decisions whenever feasible?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like a lot of what libertarians stand for, but I can't stand the accommodations they make to pro-lifers and anti-gay bigots when they get involved in Republican politics.
That said, I think there's much less actual movement in the voting populace here than meets the eye; numerous polls have shown that so-called 'independents' are in fact nearly always heavily slanted towards one party or the other, and perhaps only ten percent of self-identified independents could truly be swayed to support either party (and that's often because they hold beliefs that are internally contradictory or incoherent, not because they're just more Solomonic than the rest of us.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe claim that the growing number of "independents" can largely be attributed to libertarianism is far-fetched. We're no longer "joiners" but we are increasingly and reliably partisan. Absent explosive growth or unemployment over 12%, neither party will crack 55% in 2012--and no presidential candidate has since 1984, where as from 1955 to 1985, it happened four times, just as between 1925 and 1955, it happened four times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are almost right about what some of us think about libertarians: Libertarians are irresponsible, dope-smoking, mostly serious, head-in-the-sand idealists. Conservatives are libertarians who understand human nature and history.
Most libertarians are hypocritical. There is no reason why one person's rights should end at the tip of another's nose. Who are we to tell them so?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy problem with libertarians isn't that they are unserious dope-smokers. Rather, it's as Whittaker Chambers said of Ayn Rand--in the end they are state totalitarians because their highest authority is themselves. As David Bentley Hart once said, "The divine right of kings has been replaced by the divine right of the individual with no intervening authority between man and the state."
Oh and by the way, the other reason to avoid politicians who eschew social conservatism? They are the guys most likely to spend your money. Go to this post by Andrew Stiles and read my comment regarding a voting breakdown I did using voting data from the Heritage Foundation and Christian Coalition.
Want to cut the growth of government? If your candidate is pro-life and doesn't want to redefine marriage, he's the most likely candidate to cut spending. Libertarians? Not so much.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusere: Update: Looking at the comments below, I thought I should add that there is no single libertarian position on abortion.
Which is why, according to the voting records of those who don't score 100% on the Christian Coalition scorecard, Libertarians are less likely to cut government spending. (See my comment below)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis was taken from the official Libertarian Party platform:
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
To me, this is de facto support for abortion rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse?"Some 63 percent of respondents said government was doing too much"
Sounds like the conservative position to me.
>"50 percent said government should not favor any particular set of values"
I strongly suspect that de Rugy, Cowen, Welch and friends all believe that the government should favor libertarian values. That's the point of the book, isn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibertarianism is the politics of America's future and always will be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice conflation of "independents" with "libertarians". It isn't really true, but it's a nice piece of work making the connection. The limited government movement seen in polls only equates to part of libertarianism *as a political philosophy*. Of course, it also equates to part of the conservative political phiosophy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibertarians are simply liberals that hate paying taxes. They have brilliant ideas, but just as many repulsive ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLibertarians are just too idealistic, to put it nicely. They think human beings are robots that respond mainly to market pressures, rather than to beliefs, habits, emotions. They agree with Marx in this sense. Thus they support legalizing illegal immigrants, seeing them as economic robots no different to the robots already in the USA. In their view, America's economic success is due to the incentives created by its laws rather than to any characteristic beliefs or habits of the people. Its as if it hasn't occurred to them that the illegal immigrants won't vote for libertarian ideas, but rather for socialism (as they do in their home countries).
Thats just 1 example. Libertarians' may end up in the same place as conservatives on many issues, but their reasoning is unrealistic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Mike Willingham
Thanks for posting that.
With regard to having the state redefine marriage, the Libertarians are even more statist. Marriage was not invented by the state, but now libertarians support having the state redefine marriage. And while they support unconstitutional, liberal court decisions that vastly expand government powers to redefine natural rights, they claim that really all they want is no state involvement in marriage. Yeah right. Libertarians want to redefine marriage and they want that redefinition to have the total power of the state through the force of law. And all the while they say they just want the state out of the picture.
I probably agree with 80% of what libertarians say, but on social issues these guys are as statist as the far left and they are on the same page with them philosophically.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI must say I'm pleased with most of the comments I'm reading. Over the past couple years NRO has taken a hard turn toward the libertarians and I'm not sure there's much light left between NRO and Reason. Because of that I now go to firstthings.com far more often than I do NRO, but I'm glad to see that not all the readers have adopted the thinking of Ayn Rand. Whittaker Chambers must be rolling in his grave.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a bit confused by some of those who seem to have strong disdain toward the libertarian philosophy. The very core of being a libertarian is, of course, liberty. Not just social liberty, not just economic liberty, but liberty as a whole.
For those who may pick one specific issue that you may have, I would just ask you to look a little deeper into the issue and see where the conflict exist. The conflict almost always resides in what the role of government should be.
For example terrorism is bad, and those with a strong libertarian background were at odds with much of the GOP establishment when laws like the Patriot Act where passed. But if you boil it down, you'll see the choices you get resides in what the government's role should be:
1.) to protect us and make us safe, regardless of the cost
2.) or, to protect our liberties and allow us to make free choices
As for the abortion issue, that will come down to whether or not you believe a fetus is a human, and falls into the category of "you are allowed to make bad personal choices, so long as no one else is harmed"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the one area where libertarians fail miserably and almost self-destruct.
I too have a problem with this statement,
“Libertarianism does not favor any particular set of values.”
On social issues, libertarians advocate using the law to advance another set of values. Libertarians may think they are "maximizing the choice set for people to live freely", but they instead promote the creation of new rights, and stamp a Libertarian Imprimateur on old behaviors creating social and cultural "goods." The Creator is replaced with Man. That's more profound and self-defeating than they perceive.
“Getting the state out of marriage," means legislating gay marriage. It is a positive state-endorsement of gay marriage. This “man-created right” is then regulated and advanced in public policy and culture (e.g. school curricula, clubs, and churches which must go on the defense to protect the consciences of their adherents.)
When the next step is to lower the age of consent, what will be the ever-evolving libertarian response?
I would have more respect for libertarians if they would admit they are hard-core social liberals. The 'agnostic sidestep' is disingenuous. "I don't know what I think, but I think the state should re-order human sexuality."
This is not new. It is Rousseau “no moral codes” relativism posturing itself as some kind of newly-minted hipster enlightenment. Perhaps the most touching thing about social libertarianism is the sincere and childlike idea that Everything is new under the sun.
Libertarianism wants to provide a moral system but misses the reason for one: the human soul. On social issues, it is a doomed romantic march towards a rationalist utopia. The libertarian social project converges with the communist social project. It all ends very badly with wounds and weakened consciences, more disorientation and chaos, and an even more totalitarian society. Their social agenda will actively strangle the institutions that form conscience and society: the family, churches, charities. An unfettered 'I alone am supreme!" individualism leaves people adrift and creates fodder for Leviathan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse