Friday, February 21, 2014

Joe Trippi — There Will be a Libertarian President. And Sooner Than You Think



51 comments:

Dan Kervick said...

Well, I'm giving up on presidential politics then.

Tom Hickey said...

Interesting view of an insider. The quick summary is that he thinks that the two parties are obsolete and have no idea. The ideas are all with the Libertarians and so are the demographics since younger generations are heavily libertarian and thoroughly disaffected by government. However, Trippi doubts that a libertarian candidate can win the nomination of either party in '16 or '20. and he suspects that this will result in the formation of a successful third party that will eventually attract more voters than either of the two traditional moribund parties controlled by the same Establishment.

He also see digital technology as the disruptive forces that is bringing this about and the rate of innovation in the digital age is greatly speeding up the process of change.

He doesn't understand economics though, but that is not his thing.

The Rombach Report said...

Dan - Why the long face? Do you think it is any accident that Ron Paul attracted so many young independents and disaffected Democrats to the Republican Party when he ran for president? Problem is that the GOP establishment ignored them, which proved to be their undoing in the 2012 election.

Here's my take on this issue in a pre-election article I wrote for The Drum in October, 2012.

http://www.thedrum.com/content/hidden-insult-could-put-paid-romneys-chances

You guys may see me as a pariah on this web site and maybe you wish that I would go away, but I see the political landscape as fertile ground for an emerging coalition of the liberal progressive left and the libertarian right in a way that will take the establishment political parties by surprise in the 2016 election.

Dan Kervick said...

I can't speak for anyone else, Ed. Just me. I have no interest at all in partnering with the Ron Paul folks on any aspect of economic policy. I can't think of a single economic policy issue on which I think those guys are moving in the right direction.

I understand that there are other self-described progressive left types who think differently, because they are left libertarians. But I'm not, so I don't care.

Tom Hickey said...

Libertarianism is gaining ground on both the right and left and unfortunately, left libertarians mostly agree with right Libertarians that one of the problems leading to economic dysfunction is the abandonment of "sound money" and "fiscal responsibility," which need to be restored. With this comes the push for limited government and a greater role for the private sector. So a left-right libertarian coalition is conceivable, as Triipi says. He is clearly suffering from the same delusion about economics and finance.

I think that Trippi has the demographics diagnosed correctly, and the trend is now toward a libertarian future in the US. I am happy to see this as a libertarian of the left but appalled to see the course it is tacking, which appears to be to be misguided both on the right and on the left. So the US may have to learn the hard way.

The classic statement of liberalism is the motto of the French revolution, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, which I would render into modern terms as independence, egality, and interdependence. This follows from the recognition that "all are created equal." There is no ex ante, a priori privilege and privilege cannot be allowed to develop an ex post, a posteriori either if liberalism is to endure.

Winning and preserving this ideal is the social, political and economics challenge yet to be achieved, and there is no good reason to think that humanity is even close to achieving it yet.

Tyler Healey said...

Libertarians like low federal taxes, which I dig. They're also peaceniks, which I dig even more.

Dan Kervick said...

I don't think the big issue dividing left libertarians from other parts of the left has to do with monetary issues. It's about the relative importance people attach to personal liberty versus social commitment and solidarity.

I don't think Trippi is right. He's a political pollster and only understands prevailing trends and revealed in polls, etc. But the US cult of unbridled liberty is so destructive and unsustainable that it is destined to crash, and when that happens more pro-social outlooks will emerge.

Tom Hickey said...

I don't think the big issue dividing left libertarians from other parts of the left has to do with monetary issues.

It doesn't. Both are mostly on the same page. Neither group understands monetary economics and is under the delusion of the government as big household analogy, so it's no improvement over the two parties today. In fact, it might be a step backward economically.

The Rombach Report said...

"Libertarians like low federal taxes, which I dig. They're also peaceniks, which I dig even more."

Wow! I'm not the only one here who thinks this way!

Daniel said...

Did you see Ron Paul's proposed budget from the 2012 primaries? It would instantly make him DOA in a general election and any libertarian who proposed something similar would suffer the same fate. There are some positive ideas coming out of the libertarian camp, but they are negated by their wrongheaded and downright dangerous economic beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#The_Plan_To_Restore_America_.28Budget_for_2013.29

Matt Franko said...

Ok I'm slitting my wrists as I type this... ;)

Jure Jordan said...

The core of libertarian position is fallacy of composition taken as truth.
That goes for personal liberty and for economic thinking.
From some utopian notion of absolute individual liberty, as if it can be achieved, comes conclusion that society can exist as asolutly liberated society -> fallacy of composition.

The same logic applys to economics with liberaterians.
It is idealistic as communism and also utopistic.

And they might try to implement liberaterian principles with dictatorial means just as communists did, believing in their absolute righteousness.

Michael Norman said...

To anyone who thinks the "low tax" meme of the libertarians (if there even is a low tax meme) is a panacea, watch out...because what they really believe in is total deregulation, lack of government "interference" and all the free market bullshit that goes along with that (like pillaging the environment), which means that if this comes true, you will see a wildly oppressive oligarchical state that will make Russia look like Vermont. On another note, I didn't know I had so many billionaires on this site who favor such a system. How 'bout signing up for my course, then? Huh??

Bob Roddis said...

Pillaging the environment violates the non-aggression principle and would be forbidden in a libertarian society. Where such behavior is allowed to exist, such a society would not be a libertarian society by definition.
A "wildly oppressive oligarchical state" also violates the definition of a libertarian society. Distorting our basic concepts and ideas (and deleting inconvenient comments) demonstrates fear and cowardice. Go for it.

http://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2014/02/mike-norman-again-does-not-understand.html

septeus7 said...

Quote from Bob:"Pillaging the environment violates the non-aggression principle and would be forbidden in a libertarian society. Where such behavior is allowed to exist, such a society would not be a libertarian society by definition."

There is no such thing as a non-aggression principle as admitted by many libertarians see here..

You can't agress against an object. If the environment is viewed as on object then it has no rights according the Libertarian NAP. But if you have the view that the environment isn't an object but an interaction in which all people must participate and therefore own then you can agress against it accord to the same NAP.

Hence is the NAP is proven to be wrong and useless since it can't by apriori define the rules of it's own application. It's not a principle. It's a silopism of the libertarian's own view as the reality.


Quote from idiot Bob Roddis: "A "wildly oppressive oligarchical state" also violates the definition of a libertarian society. Distorting our basic concepts and ideas (and deleting inconvenient comments) demonstrates fear and cowardice. Go for it."

Projection as usual. Their is no such thing as "society" in individualistic libertarianism. Do you not read your own material?

Libertarianism is the oligarchical state by definition.

The fundamental idea of libertarianism is that private i.e. exclusive ownership is the basis of all rights ergo since the oligarchy by definition have appropriated all political power to their private ownership i.e. the idea of rights outside of "state" of the "markets" which they own is illegitimate.

Hence Libertarianism by definition is the state consisted of, by, and for the private ownership class which is the definition of oligarchy.

Libertarianism is by definition oligarchism and anti-humanist.

The humanist view point is that all human have equality in the sense that all a civilizations must have a developing minimal standard of social respect and obligation of all of it's members toward each other as humans and hence everyone has "rights" and as the society grows in the number of these rights increases according what is needed in order to keep everyone participating the polis for mutal benefit.

The fundamental idea is the scientific claim that large societies need beneficial social roles for every member or society collapse destroys via declining mating and family formation.

John B. Calhoun's utopia mouse experiments have proven how unchecked inequality and anarchism leads to population collapse.

Neoliberal/Libertarianism will drive humanity into extinction in this century unless stopped and hence Libertarianism is not to be debated it is to be smashed.

Bob Roddis said...

I'm perfectly happy to have the opposition to libertarianism consist of mindless and incoherent attacks upon the non-aggression principle, private property and voluntary peaceful relationships.

Tom Hickey said...

We are perfectly happy to attack the sufficiency of the NAP without attacking its necessity. Nonaggression is a necessary condition for civil society but not a sufficient condition.

All mature ethics and political thought recognize that there is no science of ethics or politics because human action in a civilized world requires balancing and harmonizing virtues in character building and balancing and harmonizing rights and responsibilities in institutions and laws.

This necessitates art or skill as well as knowledge and understanding. The ancients called this prudence or practical wisdom to differentiate it from knowledge or understanding. One can know and understand principles but not be skilled at putting them into practice in context, especially where conflicting principles, virtues and rights are involved.

The view that there is one necessary and sufficient condition, such a NAP, that covers every conceivable case is simplistic and insufficient, which is the fundamental point that Bleeding Heart Liberatarian Matt Zwolinski's Six Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle, which septeus7 cited above.

Moreover, nonaggression wrt to person is different from violation of property rights and conflating them is a gratuitous assumption. There is no natural connection, nor is there any necessary connection. They are in fact distinguished in law and by custom. Trespass is not assault, destruction of property is not battery.

The Rombach Report said...

"There is no such thing as a non-aggression principle as admitted by many libertarians see here.."

Matt Zwolinski must have too much time on his hands to write an article like that which was a waste of time for me. Libertarians I know don't spend their time picking lint out of their navels like that because life is just too short. In a nutshell libertarians just want to be left alone and be free to create the life they want without violating other peoples rights. In other words your freedom only goes as far as the end of my nose and vice versa.

Libertarians that I know basically believe in small government, low taxes, sound money and non-interventionist foreign policy. Can someone explain to me what that has to do with a "wildly oppressive oligarchical state"? I would submit to you that the American Revolution was libertarian in nature and the framers of the US constitution debated these issues as they apply to individual freedom and liberty in a civil society. The libertarians I know here in the US would just like to see our elected officials follow and obey the constitution. Does anyone have a problem with that?

"Neoliberal/Libertarianism will drive humanity into extinction in this century unless stopped and hence Libertarianism is not to be debated it is to be smashed."

So much for free speech and non-violence.

septeus7 - Just out of curiosity, how do you propose to smash libertarianism? Maybe you should hook up with the establishment GOP because they have been doing more than anyone else I know of to smash the libertarian movement in the ranks of the Republican Party.

Matt Franko said...

Ed,

"believe in small government, low taxes, sound money and non-interventionist foreign policy."

'small govt' then becomes 'NO govt' with these people, and when you tell them "the govt can just credit a bank account" they reflexively say "no they can't..." which is the main problem right now ie 'too many libertarians' holding us back...

'low taxes' I agree with but NOT in the current policy settings, iow the way the system is operating today, people in majesterial positions are believing that "govt gets the money from the non-govt" (which is libertarian in the first place) so of course taxes are way too high as also seen by libertarians... if everyone was 'in paradigm' tax laws would be changed to eliminate the income and employment taxes, etc... we'd go back to a small poll tax on individuals and prices would adjust... tax-free barter/gifting would come back in, etc...

'sound money': what the heck is this??? this is monetarist/gold standard metal-loving irrationality.... we have an un-convertible state currency, under which it is about PRICE and NOT quantity.... the govt is the monopolist and price setter... 'sound money'???? c'mon...

'non-interventionist foreign policy'.... lets keep this discussion on domestic policy first, get that straightened out first and see how this then changes foreign policy.... I sometimes think libertarians have great immature fear of accepting a system of state currency as it would put the nation in a better position to wage warfare... too bad! get over it...

rsp,


The Rombach Report said...

"'small govt' then becomes 'NO govt' with these people,"

Matt you're projecting. Put the crack pipe down and get a grip on yourself.

"'low taxes' I agree with but NOT in the current policy settings,"

Extra credit for who made the following 2 statements....

"Taxes should always be low enough to sustain full employment."

"For the size government we have, we are grossly over taxed."

"'sound money': what the heck is this??? this is monetarist/gold standard metal-loving irrationality.... we have an un-convertible state currency, under which it is about PRICE and NOT quantity.... the govt is the monopolist and price setter... 'sound money'???? c'mon..."

How useful would a ruler be as an instrument of measure if it changed from 12 inches one to 9 inches the next and 15 inches the day after? If gold does not have some monetary function why do the central banks of the world hold it as a reserve asset? Personally, I don't think that it is incompatible for gold to play a role in monetary policy and for the federal government to simultaneously run modest budget deficits of say 2-3% of GDP.

"'non-interventionist foreign policy'.... lets keep this discussion on domestic policy first..."

Nice try, but sorry you get no free pass on this issue.

"I sometimes think libertarians have great immature fear of accepting a system of state currency as it would put the nation in a better position to wage warfare..."

Matt - Your statement is dead on! Fiat currency as we have experienced it in recent decades has provided far to much policy space when it comes to waging unnecessary wars of aggression. The US could use a little more constraint in this area.



Matt Franko said...

Ed,

You're basically a monetarist Ed... how can you read all of this MMT stuff and still be a monetarist Ed? How?

'budget deficits of 2-3% of gdp'???? Are you kidding me, this is folly Ed.... Ed how can you read all of this MMT stuff and and still think this way???? WHO CARES about the deficit???

Ed,

Are we adults or not Ed? do we want to continue to arrange our society so that we eliminate our chance for true excellence for fear of potential abuse? Not me... this is human cowardice of the highest order imo ... complete and utter human cowardice.

Ed we have been fighting wars ABOUT THE METALS for 1,000s of years, thru WW2, Korea, Vietnam ALL WARS FOUGHT UNDER THE METALS.....

And if you think about it, the one war that DIDN"T happen was "WW3" which was fought as the first global "cold war" and was ended that way.... this war was ended non-violently under the re-establishment of our state currency system...

I guarantee if we go back to being under the metals again we will soon be waging global bloody warfare over possession of them again... GUARANTEED...

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

Ed: Personally, I don't think that it is incompatible for gold to play a role in monetary policy and for the federal government to simultaneously run modest budget deficits of say 2-3% of GDP.

How does that fit into MMT unless you are advocating reducing policy space, which is what sound finance v. functional functional finance does and that's all it does.

Sound finance advocates hold that the primary function of the money authority is to stabilize purchasing power of the currency.

Functional finance advocates hold that the primary function of the monetary authority is to optimize use of available resources, especially human resources.

MMT advocates achieving both simultaneously by using functional finance plus the MMT JG to provide a buffer stock of employed and a price anchor.

Tom Hickey said...

American imperialism began in 1823 with the Munroe Doctrine, ostensibly to keep America safe by limiting European involvement there to already established colonies that were by the time in the process of breaking away from their colonial masters anyway. That developed into the economic colonization of Latin America.

America launched into a seriously imperialistic phase the late 19th century with the acquisition of the Philippines, but it never caught on after McKinley, probably because the US still had plenty of development opportunity domestically and the Democratic Party was opposed to it.

But WWI launched the US as a Great Power and a contender on the world stage. While the US never pursued colonialism outright in the the age of imperialism was already ending, it did engage in economic imperialism in that the neocolonial and neo-imperialistic age was in full swing with the West dominant.

After WWI, the US became dominant not only in the West but also the "free world." AFter the fall of the USSR, the US was left as the world's only superpower.

There are different ways of interpreting this 20th century course of events, but the upshot is that "keeping America safe" and assuming leadership of the free world had social, political and economic consequences that resulted in a de facto American Empire.

In Super Imperialism, Michael Hudson argues this was an intentional strategy rather than a role reluctantly assumed by an inherently isolationist US. Historian Carroll Quigley also presented evidence that the financial and economic interests of the US elite were oriented toward a transnational market controlled by this elite, not for nefarious purposes but because they believed that this was the best way to guarantee peace and prosperity globally. The US leadership under the influence of the elite is still strongly committed to this view.

The international situation is highly complex socially, politically, and economically, and things are moving very fast as the world enters the global age. Obviously wealth and power are dominating this process.

It is not a process that is user-friendly. The goal is a market state in which morality is determined by success in competition, where the guiding principle is "doing what it takes." I believe that this is the world view that needs to be addressed.

Six said...

Ed's magic 2-3% budget deficit works fine as long as there is a sufficiently large private sector credit expansion, and then it doesn't (see Europe 2008-current). How does he not know this?

Six said...

25-30% unemployment in some EU countries and Ed counters with:

"How useful would a ruler be as an instrument of measure if it changed from 12 inches one to 9 inches the next and 15 inches the day after?"

Someone must have read "Idiotic metaphors for Dummies!".

y said...

Ed,

"Does anyone have a problem with that? "

The type of extreme right-wing libertarianism espoused by Rothbard and bobby robbis types is a load of really idiotic and dishonest BS based on a pack of lies.

Less demented forms of libertarianism are fine though.

y said...

Ed,

"How useful would a ruler be as an instrument of measure if it changed from 12 inches one to 9 inches the next and 15 inches the day after?"

By definition 1 dollar is always 1 dollar. If the currency issuer targets and on average achieves a particular rate of inflation (say 0% or 2% or 5%, etc), then you have 'price stability' and predictability. Gold standard systems generally experienced a lot more price volatility in the short and medium term (much larger swings up and down in the price level.



y said...

Ed,

"I don't think that it is incompatible for gold to play a role in monetary policy and for the federal government to simultaneously run modest budget deficits of say 2-3% of GDP."

But why?

A fiat currency regime can in theory maintain 0% inflation, if that is the aim, or even deflation. Gold is only seen as special in this regard by people who don't like the idea of government controlling its own money.

y said...

"Fiat currency as we have experienced it in recent decades has provided far to much policy space when it comes to waging unnecessary wars of aggression."

This is kind of typical backwards thinking. Gold standards didn't stop warfare because warfare is something which goes beyond things like gold standards. Wars happen for a reason, and that reason isn't 'absence of a gold standard'.

Dan Kervick said...

Gold is just a kind of money. The price of goods and services measured in gold is just as much subject to fluctuation as the price of goods and services anchored to dollars.

Ben Johannson said...

Ron Paul is not a libertarian; he's the proponent of what Rothbard called the "old order", of feudalism, authoritarianism and centralized economic control. Libertarianism is always and everywhere a product of the radical, anti-state left, so any "libertarian" who identifies with the right is either ignorant or a propagandist. Left libertarians are the same thing, just with the capacity to feel guilty.

Real libertarians are libertarian socialists or libertarian communists and oppose any concentration of power while recognizing that such occurrences are sometimes necessary; they are therefore non-utopian, another point of difference from mainstream libertarians.

Ryan Harris said...

It's odd that Dems and Repubs blame libertarians for so many problems when libs have virtually no power and DemoRepubs have it all. Libertarians rigorously defend individuals from vested interests, corruption and corporate and government over reach, broken markets. They view government as a tool that is used to protect the individual. Most of the problems that face us today are a result of government violating individual rights and corporations exploiting them. Libs are like the missing link that keep the other two parties honest -- which is exactly why the other two parties absolutely despise the libs.

The Rombach Report said...

Hi gang. Not trying to ignore you, but I was away at a reunion over the weekend.

"You're basically a monetarist Ed... how can you read all of this MMT stuff and still be a monetarist Ed? How?"

Matt - It's news to me that I am a monetarist, because I'm a tad embarrassed to admit that I am not really sure I know what a monetarist is. Can you enlighten me?

"Are we adults or not Ed?"

Seems like a childish question to me.

"Ed we have been fighting wars ABOUT THE METALS for 1,000s of years, thru WW2, Korea, Vietnam ALL WARS FOUGHT UNDER THE METALS....."

WW2 was delayed extension of unresolved issues from WW1 which never should have been fought in the first place and which the US should have avoided. Korea and Vietnam were undeclared wars. I just want to see our elected officials follow & obey the US Constitution.

"Ed we have been fighting wars ABOUT THE METALS for 1,000s of years"

Not sure what you mean by "fighting wars ABOUT THE METALS for 1,000s of years"

Roman empire was predicated on military conquest slavery, trade & commerce made possible by infrastructure building of roads, bridges and aqueducts. Roman currency was made up of gold, silver, brass, and copper coins introduced in the 3rd century BC but they got into trouble when they started clipping coins which debased the currency and caused inflationary problems.

The Rombach Report said...

"Ed's magic 2-3% budget deficit works fine as long as there is a sufficiently large private sector credit expansion, and then it doesn't (see Europe 2008-current). How does he not know this?"

The US economy was strong in the 1990s, with inflation relatively low and price of gold fairly stable at ~ $400/oz amid budget deficits of 2-3%. Problem was that deficits turned into surpluses 1997-2001 . Too bad taxes weren't cut back then.

The Rombach Report said...

Someone must have read "Idiotic metaphors for Dummies!"

Hmmnnn.... Fascinating how some people can degrade a conversation by resorting to insults and name calling.

The Rombach Report said...

"Does anyone have a problem with that? "

y - Don't know your nationality, but I asked if anyone had a problem with my desire to see US elected officials follow & obey the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, you go off on some rant about Rothbard and Bob Roddis. So... what's the connection?

The Rombach Report said...

"Ron Paul is not a libertarian; he's the proponent of what Rothbard called the "old order", of feudalism, authoritarianism and centralized economic control."

Thats' rich!

"Libertarianism is always and everywhere a product of the radical, anti-state left, so any "libertarian" who identifies with the right is either ignorant or a propagandist. Left libertarians are the same thing, just with the capacity to feel guilty."

Wow Ben! You're kind of all over the political spectrum there.

"Real libertarians are libertarian socialists or libertarian communists and oppose any concentration of power while recognizing that such occurrences are sometimes necessary; they are therefore non-utopian, another point of difference from mainstream libertarians."

You may be on to something there, because I reckon Ron Paul and Karl Marx would agree on the whithering away of the state.

y said...

Ed,

"Don't know your nationality, but I asked if anyone had a problem with my desire to see US elected officials follow & obey the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, you go off on some rant about Rothbard and Bob Roddis. So... what's the connection?"

You said:

"The libertarians I know here in the US would just like to see our elected officials follow and obey the constitution. Does anyone have a problem with that?"

dobbby robbis and his idol Murray Rothbard self-identify as "libertarians" but they are in fact just very extreme right-wing ideologues who like to spread a lot of dishonest and idiotic BS.


What do you think "follow and obey the constitution" actually means btw?

The Rombach Report said...

y - Don't mean to seem dense, but I don't see the connection between me wanting to see US elected officials following and obeying the Constitution and your comments about Rothbard and Roddis?

"What do you think "follow and obey the constitution" actually means btw?"

Come on y, the answer to your question is self evident, but if you want an example Congress and the White House has taken the country to war on several occasions since the end of WW2 without declaring war. Truman overstepped his Constitutional authority by taking the US to war in Korea under the authority of the United Nations without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress. Same goes for Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan.

y said...

"I don't see the connection between me wanting to see US elected officials following and obeying the Constitution and your comments about Rothbard and Roddis?"

Your comments depict libertarians as sort of reasonable people with nice and reasonable demands. But Dobby, Rothbard etc are so-called "libertarians", and are in actual fact very unreasonable and quite nasty extreme right-wing ideologues.

y said...

"but if you want an example"

Ok, so I agree that the country shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war. Anything else?

y said...

Ed,

"Libertarians that I know basically believe in small government, low taxes, sound money and non-interventionist foreign policy."

These are nice-sounding, reasonable-sounding soundbites, but let's look at each individually to see what is really meant.

"Small government". Ok, sounds reasonable. But by this do you mean things like getting rid of medicare and medicaid, public education, all forms of welfare, all environmental regulations, all public services beyond basic police and military, etc etc? If so, then no that isn't reasonable and it isn't a good idea at all.

"Low taxes". Again, sounds nice, sounds reasonable. But again, do you mean getting rid of all but the most basic public services (police, defence) and privatising everything else, so that access to those other services becomes entirely determined by a person's income and their ability to pay (or else charity)? If so, then no that right-wing "libertarian" dream is not particularly nice or reasonable.

You need to be specific instead of using nice-sounding soundbites.

The Rombach Report said...

"Ok, so I agree that the country shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war. Anything else?"

How about putting a stop to the NSA meta-data surveillance of all Americans, which is a gross violation of 1st & 4th Amendments?

y said...

I'm also against what the NSA has been up to, but I'm not a "libertarian". Nothing you've specifically mentioned so far is particularly "libertarian", it's just common sense.

Bob Roddis said...

Wars are facilitated by funny money. Even Daniel Kuehn agrees that "the wartime inflation caused by the low interest rates maintained by the [central] bank were ‘inevitable, unescapable, and necessary’ for prosecuting" WWI.

http://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2012/08/daniel-kuehn-provides-factual-basis-for.html

As MMTers constantly (and correctly) explain, funny money removes all financial restraints upon the schemes of the murderers, thieves and scumbags that generally make up governments.

BTW, as I constantly explain, claiming that wars are about precious metals destroys the "state theory of money" and proves the Austrian subjective theory of value.

The Rombach Report said...

"I'm also against what the NSA has been up to, but I'm not a "libertarian". Nothing you've specifically mentioned so far is particularly "libertarian", it's just common sense."

Yes, surprising as it may seem, libertarians exhibit a lot of common sense on a variety of issues. Not asking you to become a libertarian. Far from it. Just asking you to consider areas where common interest overlap. This is how Ron paul was routinely able to join forces with Congressman like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders on issues where they agreed. Look for coalitions to emerge between liberal progressive left and libertarian right/(left?) around common interests, as a trend in the 2014 & 2016 elections.

y said...

"Yes, surprising as it may seem, libertarians exhibit a lot of common sense on a variety of issues."

What defines "libertarians" as "libertarians" (I'm talking about the right-wing variety) is not common sense, it's extreme political ideology.

"Libertarians" also believe some reasonable things, but these things are also believed by non-"libertarians" and there is nothing specifically "libertarian" about those beliefs.

Ron Paul is a nutcase. He lives in delusional fantasy land like Dobby above. But there are certain things Paul believes which are not crazy. But those beliefs are not specifically "libertarian".

The Rombach Report said...

"But there are certain things Paul believes which are not crazy. But those beliefs are not specifically "libertarian"."

Such as?

Tom Hickey said...

Wars are facilitated by funny money.

There's no historical causality between war and non-convertible floating rate currency. Rather the opposite. It's the mercantilist pursuit of metals that leads to war and deflationary depression, and then governments resort to non-convertible currency in order to fund the emergency. In the Great Depression, governments that retained the gold standard longest did worse.

Previously in wartime, governments did not bother with the nicety of markets but simply confiscated property deemed necessary. Now, governments are more genteel and use markets instead, although wars can result in high inflation which is in some degree confiscatory for the suppliers.

The assumption that wars and depressions can be reduced or eliminated by hard money has the causality backwards.

y said...

typical backwards "libertarian" thinking

Tom Hickey said...

American have an anti-war bias excepting at the beginning. The Libertarians are tapping into this, while the Establishment politicians are going against it.

When Will They Ever Learn? The American People and Support for War

Americans are now against overreach in civil liberties and it's most Libertarian politicians that are on the right side of this.

Update: Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying