Almost Classical

Watching a clip of Chris Matthews and two guests lump the Tea Party, CPAC, and libertarians together was enough to make my skin crawl — and not as a great thrill up my leg, to paraphrase Matthews. No, it is utter disgust and contempt I feel for Matthews and company, people who see what they want to see. The core of classical liberalism, libertarianism with the small "L" independent of party nonsense, is that the ultimate "property right" is that of yourself over your mind and body. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The individual is sovereign." That is, in essence, classical liberalism. It is an ideal of negative rights, a terminology I have repeatedly criticized as unfortunate. It is the right to be protected against government abuses. When Matthews and company suggest states rights, a common "conservative" mantra, is in any way associated with libertarianism, they are mistake. The smaller state or county has no more right to my being than doe...

Today, I watched yet another MSNBC commentator asking libertarian scholars and a Republican party hack where their plans for national health care were. Here's a clue, MSNBC: conservatives and libertarians both are suspect of federal power and effectiveness. By definition a libertarian isn't going to have a "national" plan with any central authority. To keep asking the question, badgering guests, demonstrates a special kind of ignorance. This line of questioning assumes a center-left alignment in the two major parties that does not exist. Admittedly, the GOP under Bush expanded the federal government and control. You can find plenty of libertarians disgusted by the GOP expansion of federal authority: No Child Left Behind, Dept. of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, and on and on. The GOP gave in to typical Washington intoxication. But, a principled libertarian would not have a national health care plan. Libertarians might offer a plan to allow states to experime...