Almost Classical

Do we vote our consciouses? Do we vote pragmatically? Do we vote for our "cause" (party) even when the candidate falls short of our ideals? Why and how to vote are serious questions we should consider. Yet, I'm unconvinced there are "right" answers philosophically. Myself, I cannot vote for a person with whom I disagree or distrust significantly. That's a moral centering I cannot violate, even when it proves to be less than pragmatic. And in this presidential year, I disagree with and distrust all four major-minor candidates. That's depressing. David Frum offered "A Guide for Undecided Republicans⁠⁠: Choosing a president isn't easy in this election, but here are three ways a principled conservative might vote." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/deciding-how-to-vote/504977/ It isn't a satisfying read, if only because it reminds us how lost the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party are. It reminds us tha...

A supposed "tolerant progressive" wrote online that Libertarians are "invariably men with immature, selfish attitudes." When asked why she also invoked Ayn Rand on a regular basis when criticizing the "greedy libertarians" she posted that Rand "looked and acted like a man." At least the irony wasn't missed by those posting comments on Facebook. Reading this thread, which started on the site of a major online magazine, the generalities from all sides were disturbing. Can we be any more insulting to people with different views than the approved urban-elitist progressivism? (See, I can generalize, too!) Seriously, my wife is more "Libertarian" than I am, but I consider myself more "libertarian." The range from left-to-right within libertarianism is probably broader than the ranges within either major political party in the United States. What unifies libertarians is a distrust of the majority to protect the rights of the ...

Tonight, someone generalized so broadly about libertarianism that I was shaking in anger. The notion that libertarians do not care about other people is beyond insulting. It is precisely because we do care about human rights that we want government powers and government intrusions limited. People trusting the government any more than they trust corporations will either be disappointed or choose to willfully ignore the failures of government. And government fails spectacularly on a constant basis. It scares me that an increasing number of people are okay with "socialism" or "communism" and have nothing but contempt for classical liberalism. They blindly associate libertarian ideals with crony capitalism and a lack of compassion. Most of us in the "classical liberal" school of thought are not Libertarians with a capital-L as in the Libertarian Party. The party, for one thing, does not reflect the Austrian economists much less Adam Smith. The Libertar...

The Fountainhead (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) When a critique of libertarianism consists primarily of figuratively shouting "Ayn Rand!" and tossing in the Koch brothers, Nietzsche, and Gordon Gecko (a fictional character, nonetheless), you can be assured the author isn't going to address the Nobel economists or noted philosophers associated with libertarianism on the left, right, and center. Instead of discussing the major thinkers of classical liberalism, the author will attack the caricature of "Libertarians" that has little to do with scholarly reflection. Another Would-Be Critic of Libertarianism Takes on a Straw Man - Reason.com How refreshing it would be for someone to set forth the strongest case for libertarianism before attempting to eviscerate it. Sheldon Richman | March 15, 2015  We must face the fact that criticism of the libertarian philosophy in the mass media will most likely misrepresent its target, making the commentary essent...

We will always have articles accusing "libertarianism" of being everything from "fascist" (huh?) to "right-wring" to "juvenile." Those advocating for classical liberalism will be linked to racists, plutocrats, crony capitalists, and other perversions of limited government and negative rights. (I still hate the "negative" rights label, inherently a rhetorical device that insults various philosophical and political schools of thought.) When I read "Somalia is a libertarian paradise," I know the comment poster is either ignorant or intentionally lying. The basics of classical liberalism include: Rule of law, with an egalitarian legal system; Enforced contracts, protecting parties in transactions; Property rights beginning with the individual's ownership of self; Limited, effective, and reliable government. Now, for the sad reality that libertarians in the United States need to address: there are horrible people who...

English: Murray Rothbard in the 90's (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) One of the questions I've been asked is how I can reconcile drawing bits and pieces of my personal views on economics and politics from individuals with disagreements. The answer is simple: we each create a personal philosophy drawing from experiences and those thoughts to which we are exposed. We embrace some ideas and reject others, even the ideas of someone we admire. Some of the ideas and views expressed by thinkers I admire deserve to be rejected — that's true in economics, philosophy, and other disciplines. I lean towards Austrian economic theories, but not without skepticism. A name that comes up when I mention Austrian economics is Murray Rothbard . He's dismissed in the same way some dismiss Ayn Rand . (Rothbard quickly rejected Rand as a "cult" leader.) "Rothbard was a fascist, racist, conservative." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the charge against him. ...

English: Image of Deirdre McCloskey "for Public Use" as stated on her website http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/main/pr.php (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Deirdre McCloskey  might be the "rhetorician" I've most enjoyed reading. She's decidedly libertarian, often addressing the supposed "moral failings" of the philosophy. Though her degrees are in economics (Harvard grad, but we forgive her), she understands rhetoric better than many elite professors in that discipline. Her dry wit alone makes her books worth the time to read. If I could suggest some books, as I do for my students: McCloskey, Deirdre N.  If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. (ISBN: 0226556719) McCloskey, Deirdre N.  The Rhetoric of Economics (Rhetoric of the Human Sciences) . Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998. (ISBN: 0299158144) and… McCloskey, Deirdre N. Economical Writing. Long Grove, ...

Intelligent people, who should know better, are once again attacking "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" by misrepresenting, selectively quoting, and personalizing a theory. In Salon, co-founder of the New America Foundation Michael Lind, offers a nonsensical critique of libertarianism by asking "The" question classical liberals cannot answer: The question libertarians just can't answer http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/ If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it? BY MICHAEL LIND; TUESDAY, JUN 4, 2013 12:17 PM EDT The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne, Jr., joins in, repeating the same nonsense. Libertarianism's Achilles' heel http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-libertarianisms-achilles-heel/2013/06/09/4dfd3c9c-cf8c-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 9 For balance, I also recom...

Last week when Paul Krugman debated Joe Scarborough, the economist accused Scarborough of "ad hominem" attacks when confronted with his own past statements. What bothers me most about Krugman's charge is that he is often guilty of name-calling and hyperbole. Krugman's disdain for his opponents is cheered by like-minded progressives, but isn't this no better than the name calling on talk radio or on the Web? http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/10/a-collection-of-15-quotes-about-paul-ryan-and-the-ryan-plan-by-economist-paul-krugman.html The most cited line from Krugman about Ryan is actually borrowed: As usual, Ryan makes me think of Ezra Klein's old line about Dick Armey: he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. — http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/delusions-of-mobility/ I wish we could acknowledge that our "opponents" in politics, economics, philosophy, or any other discipline are not evil. We di...

One of the challenges I face as an advocate for Austrian / libertarian / classical liberal economic and politic ideals is that many of my students — and even some colleagues in the humanities — mistakenly assume that there are three basic economic models, represented by the icons Marx, Keynes, and Friedman. Sadly, most people don't know the Austrian School of economics, and when they do know a little the assumption is that Austrian adherents represent something of an outer ring around the Chicago School. Milton Friedman, thanks to his books and a PBS series, is the best known of the "supply-side" economists and the Chicago School. He came to represent the rejection of Keynesian economics to right-leaning politicians in the United States. Of course, the entire left/right and liberal/conservative dichotomy is false, since in many ways left-leaning politicians had become the defenders of the status quo — the welfare state. True innovation seemed to belong to the "rig...

I'll be among those to admit we need more revenues to reduce the ludicrous debt of the federal government. We also need to cut spending dramatically to have any hope of balance in the future. Personally, I'd rather see the cuts first, and then we can slowly raise taxes to reduce the annual deficit followed by paying down the debt to a reasonable maintenance level. Unrestrained government expansion comes at a price. At least John B. Judis admits as much in a recent essay on the "need" for higher taxes. Obama's Tax Hikes Won't Be Nearly Big Enough http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111486/obamas-tax-hikes-wont-be-nearly-big-enough The New Republic John B. Judis December 28, 2012 | 1:23 pm [There] are a set of unpleasant truths lurking behind this debate over the budget and taxes that policy-makers in Washington need to acknowledge. First, that in order to meet public demands for affordable health care, quality public education, and retirement insurance, gove...

Following a post on Krugman, probably because that is what he was reading, Nathan posted the following comment: In your description of yourself, you are a classical liberal defined as: "Classical liberalism embodies the original concept of liberalism: a faith in freedom to, not freedom from as a guiding principle." Yet the concept of 'freedom to,' which is positive liberty, is contained nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The founding fathers of our country were, as far as the definition of classical liberal that I know, mostly classical liberals - hence where we get the term. Yet, the U.S. Constitution is only written in terms of negative liberty, or 'freedom from.' How do you reconcile what appears to be a modern interpretation of classical liberalism from what is most assuredly a different actual and historical definition of the term classical liberal? Check the definition with references from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy before answering ...