The following is a review on www.mises.org of a new book by Jacob Huebert,
Libertarianism Today.
In contradistinction to a recent post by Eric, Huebert "shows that
libertarianism is spreading in academia, in the culture, in the media, and
in politics."
Take heart, friends!
Warm regards, Michael
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the post. I have placed the book in my list, in hopes that it will show me where all this libertarianism is. I see the Tea Party and Ron Paul movements making progress in *economic* libertarianism, for which I am grateful. Let's see.
Marcy
Michael;
I read the review of this work by Walter Block, it seems that it is a badly-needed clarification of libertarian positions in contrast to the neocons currently masquerading as libertarians.
Which brings me to the crux of the issue: the Corporate Media throws the term 'libertarian' around so loosely these days that people like Sean Hannity, Benito Guiliani, and Charles Murray openly apply the title to themselves. And there are quite a few minor Fascists using the same title.
This is why a book like Huebert is important; but how much attention will it actually receive? I searched 12 pages on Google and didn't find a single review from any 'mainstream' media outlet.
This is why I doubt the contention that libertarianism is spreading through all the strata of society that you mentioned. What passes for libertarianism today---once you actually start discussing it with people---seems to a modernised version of Social Darwinism; with Corporatism disguised as a 'free market' and Autocracy disguised as 'limited government'.
I was listening to NPR's Terry Gross the other day, and her guest clearly stated that Tea Party advocates were libertarian. Economic libertarian, yes. Social libertarian, my guess is no. I completely agree that Libertarians are probably not in the media's radar screen when they speak of any growing libertarian movement. We simply do not do a good job at promoting or explaining our principles.
So, expect the subject of helping to make the LPSF politically relevant on the agenda again next month!
Marcy
Marcy,
Well, I have some reservations about how economically libertarian the Tea party activists are either. But that aside, I think promotion has little to do with it; we are advocating a position that is not in the interest of the Corporate Media; and so they'll simply ignore us.
Ron Paul did a great job of promotion in 2008; and when he'd speak at debates, the news would simply cut to commercials. They'd drop his name out of viewer polls. Heck, at the GOP Convention, his supporters were beaten up by the pigs and had their literature and signs confiscated; nobody bothered reporting that in the media either.
I don't remember Bob Barr getting too much airtime, either. Root was on a lot of talk-radio shows (and still is) shooting his mouth off, but he's not promoting much that's essentially different from the GOP anyway.
Hi Eric,
I agree with your assessment. However, please allow me a parallel example. We women are told that to achieve the same success as men we need to work twice as hard. Libertarians are at present in the same ignored position as women. Do you truly feel that libertarians (you, me, and the libertarian activists we know) work twice as hard as Democrats? If so, I will take back my statement that what we need is greater effort in promoting the libertarian point of view. P.S. I would be left looking for another concrete and specific suggestion, though.
Marcy
Hi Marcy;
What you're speaking of is a competative disadvantage, I think it's much deeper than that. A better analogy would be the competative disadvantage women face in Pakistan. It's not so much a matter of being at a disadvantage in political competition; there is no competition.
I think as a suggestion, the post about the Huebner book gave me an idea. Maybe we should work on defining what libertarianism actually is; network more closely among ourselves and begin seeking options for the post-constitutionalist America. IOW, I think it's a change in our perspective that's needed.
Hi Eric,
I do not entirely agree with your view of Pakistani women, since Pakistan has had a women head of state and we in the United States have not!
However, I do concur that we libertarians could use a change in perspective; or at least an acknowledgment that we do, as you intimate, talk over most people's head. What, specifically, that change in perspective might entail, I fear we would differ; since I am not ready to accept a post constitutional America as an accomplished fact.
An example you gave to illustrate your point of view was the public's disdain for education. Education is a favorite subject of mine, and I observe with interest the little and big signs of how folks see the education of their kids. Sometimes I am dismayed, but sometimes not. My two best friends happen to be of Chinese heritage, and you can forget about disdain for education in their communities!! When I ran for office, and spoke in "disadvantaged" communities about how to help kids learn, you could have heard a pin drop, and the questions from the audience were numerous. I helped my daughter with her volunteer work with immigrant and poor kids when she was in college and law school, and we both can attest to the sacrifices parents are willing to make to help their kids learn.
So, I am still hoping we libertarians can increase the number of great folks out there, such as the ones I described above, in order the neutralize the detrimental effects of the greedy who depend on government to obtain what they cannot obtain for themselves.
But I am certainly grateful for your thoughts on the perils we might be facing, and for which we may not be at all prepared.
Marcy
Hi Marcy:
OK, Pakistan was probably a bad example; but on the other hand, given Affirmative Action, it's also questionable how hard women have to work in the US compared to men!
That aside though, what you are describing about education is a good point; however, you seemed to be describing largely immigrant communities. True, foreign-born people have better attitudes towards schooling than we do.
Another case in point: on this morning's 'Tom Hartmann Show' some fake libertarian from Reason Magazine was being interviewed about the state of privacy rights in America. This writer (forget the name) denounced the government attacks on privacy but---of course--- had no problems whatsoever with Corporate America spying on us!
This is an example of why I see little hope for the libertarian movement. Frederic Bastiat wrote that monopoly was the enemy of economic freedom and so opposed state socialism. But likewise private monopoly is just as dangerous. Neither consumers nor entrepreuneurs benefit from an economic sectors controlled either by government kommisars or Wall Street freebooters.
Likewise, it is with social freedoms. Exempting corporations from constitutional restraints is merely empowering organized gangs over the individual. We lose our freedom either way.
Eric, them's fighting woids! Talking to a libertarian business owner like me about Affirmative Action is like talking to a Martian about stay at home Dads!
That aside though : - ) yes, my comments might have entailed the immigrant communities, but these communities are legion!
Thank you for also bringing up the corporation situation. At our house, we make an effort to buy local or small business. We just ordered a clock from some cooperative in Alabama, instead of purchasing it from Target. Another subject libertarians could be discussing more than they do.
Lots of work for libertarians to undertake before we throw up our hands!!
Marcy
Why Marcy, as a female small business owner of Hispanic (Brazilian) origin, you're surely missing out if you're not taking advantage of various government programs designed to benefit women- and minority-owned businesses! While you're ordering clocks, the gravy train is pulling out of the station! 
All kidding aside, I don't think the vast majority of women or minorities have derived any significant benefit from affirmative action programs. Certainly I haven't seen any evidence that the women I've worked with in various jobs work any less hard than the men on average. Gender and racial preference programs, like other government handouts, go disproportionately to insiders and people skilled at working the system, rather than the average Jane or Jose. Meanwhile those average Janes and Joses have to live with the negative stigma of being perceived by many people as having gotten an unfair advantage due to their gender or race.
Kind of like how the average homeless person has to live with the negative stigma of the minority of people on the streets who are real criminals, and all the money government wastes supposedly "helping" the homeless, and the average incarcerated person has to live with the resentment-provoking myth that prisoners are being coddled with cable TV and all kinds of other luxuries behind bars. They don't have TV in jails to make life more comfortable for prisoners -- it's designed to help keep jail populations passive and sheep-like. You think they give them Internet access? No way!
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thank you, Starchild!
I am reading "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell (not the best book ever, but somewhat interesting), which speaks of unconscious determinants of behavior. Why would we believe prisoners are living the life of Riley? Why would I suggest we hose the homeless with hot water and send me the bill? Why would someone who sees me working at all hours still believe that women succeed only because of coddling by the government? Well, that's the way things are, I guess. So, I applaud you, Starchild, for pointing out "Blink" moments.
But, with me, there is always an "on the other hand." I would prefer that streets and parks be used for walking and enjoying, so I will be voting for the sit/lie proposal.
And I will try to continue, like you, to ask for clarification of general suggestions -- focus on specific ills that need addressing.
Appreciatively,
Marcy
Hi Marcy;
LOL---I understand what you mean. But as a male small business owner, I think I can pretty much vouch for the fact that all of us who aren't taking government priviledges are working twice as hard as those who do (if not more) regardless of our gender!
You brought up two points which I think could be strong for us, even though they both go against the neocon Trojan Horses speaking on behalf of libertarians today:
1. Immigration: we should reach out more to immigrant communities. I like turning the Far Right's arguments back on themselves on this issue: they complain about the decline of culture---it can be pointed out that the immigrants are the only thing holding our culture together. After all, foreign-born families are far less likely to divorce, abort their children, &c. than are American ones. Immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs and less likely to be on welfare than Americans. How many immigrants are agressive panhandlers, for example? Just look at any university graduate school and see how many were born here or born abroad. If the Right wants to talk about cultural decline, they can start by looking in the mirror.
2. Anti-Corporatism: libertarians should be on the forefront of the 'Buy American' movement and oppose all corporate welfare and subsidies. In fact, we could do something like the so-called 'Progressives' are always doing: they have networks of 'eco-friendly (or whatever cause they're backing) enterprises.
Anyway, those might be a start towards something...
Eric,
Much agreed on most of your points about immigration, although some indicators like lower divorce rates arguably don't speak well of migrants -- native-born Americans may be less likely to stick with a bad situation out of blind adherence to tradition.
But on anti-corporatism, I think your points kind of contradict each other. Patronizing businesses just because they are "American" is sort of like giving them a subsidy, or at least practicing a type of affirmative action. Instead of advising consumers to discriminate on the basis of superficial things like nationality or race, I think we as libertarians should recommend that people allocate their dollars according to merit -- reward businesses that make and sell the best products, provide the best service, or offer the lowest prices.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - As an addendum to the final sentence in my last message below, I think "service" can be interpreted quite broadly, to include for instance service to the community in the form of sponsoring local events, being good neighbors, etc., but I would not stretch it to include being of a certain race, nationality, gender, etc.
Hi Eric,
I am in total agreement with you that immigrant communities could prove fertile ground for libertarianism. Perhaps so would small business communities; at least those that are not the recipients of government largess.
I am also in total agreement that corporate welfare is a blight on the landscape. The buy local movement (not so much framed in "Buy American" terms) could also provide libertarian opportunities.
The challenge, however, is increasing will and people power to pursue opportunities. LPSF is a small group of folks with demanding day jobs. That is why some of us are focusing on Internet outreach -- something we can do at 1 am when we are done with our day work. So, that subject will be on the agenda again!
Eric, and all, we are open for further suggestions. Specific plans are best.
Marcy