John Fund likes Brian Doherty's new book on the history of libertarians in America:

Libertarian ideas have enjoyed a surge of respect lately, helped by the collapse of Soviet central planning, the success of lower tax rates and the appeals of various figures in popular culture (e.g., Drew Carey, John Stossel and Clint Eastwood) who want government out of both their bedroom and wallet. Even so, libertarianism is often not the people's choice. Part of the problem is the inertia of the status quo. "In a world where government has its hand in almost everything," Mr. Doherty writes, "it requires a certain leap of imagination to see how things might work if it didn't." Many people couldn't make that leap when, for example, economists proposed channeling some Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts.

Yes, that's the problem. People like the idea of the government leaving them alone, until they realize that in many cases, they're on the dole themselves. As Fund notes, the net may help spread the idea of personal freedom and personal responsibility, and perhaps these ideas, on which the country was founded, can be reinvigorated, and fight back against the inertia of the past seventy big-government years.

People like the idea of the government leaving them alone, until they realize that in many cases, they're on the dole themselves.

For example, space fans who style themselves as libertarians often make an exception for federal funding there.

Yes, Paul.

I hope that you're not including me there. My goal is to see that federal space spending is effective. That's not the same thing as endorsing federal space spending, per se.

My goal is to see that federal space spending is effective.

Might that include having more of a military and less of a populist space program?

Might that include having more of a military and less of a populist space program?

Well, yes, but that's a separate issue. I was referring to the civil space program.

I love the argument where if you receive any service (like national defense) from the government even if you have no choice in whether to accept it, then you're being hypocritical when you want to cut government spending.

Still waiting for Uncle Jim's Army, or Admiral Bob's National Defense.

(Although I'd probably skip both and just use Uncle Enzo's Nova Sicilia... plus, the pizza's great.)

movies, music, microcode, and on time pizza delivery.

Heinlein is mentioned in that article. Tanstaafl!

(Not intending to fail to differentiate between Heinlein and Neal Stephenson. Just free associating)

Libertarians, the capital L variety, seem to lack the political tactics required to successfully promulgate their ideas. Successful political movements work incrementally and fluidly. Unfortunately, the capital L's denounce each other because we haven't elected Ron Paul as president and closed 9/10 of the Federal departments. Genuine politics is morally messy and most libertarians I know don't like to compromise their ideals.

Interestingly, the last 2 libertarians I have met are in the Dems corner ... stems cells, net censorship, etc, etc. I agree with them on those issues, but I can't abide the rampant taxation, applied political correctness, and rapid surrender than goes with the Dems.

Have you ever noticed that whenever Dems or Repubs get elected they immediately pass laws of a libertarian variety? Dems push for and get increased freedom for Stem Cells research, while Repubs push tax cuts.

I love the argument where if you receive any service [...] then you're being hypocritical when you want to cut government spending.

In this case, I was holding up as an example 'libertarians' (not including Rand in this category, just to make that clear) who actively support government spending for their personal favorite area. Taxation is theft, except, apparently, when it goes to something you really really want.

> In this case, I was holding up as an example 'libertarians' (not including Rand in this category, just
> to make that clear) who actively support government spending for their personal favorite area. Taxation
> is theft, except, apparently, when it goes to something you really really want.

Of course, that's not the argument at all, but if you like red herring...

The real argument was stated very succinctly by Prof. Friedman who said that taxation was theft, but if his money was going to be stolen, he would rather it be stolen by Washington than Moscow.

Your quip implies that libertarians are hypocrits if they support government doing some things but don't support government doing everything. The idea of limited government, however, has been around for centuries. It was quite familar to Thomas Jefferson who said the sum of good government was to "restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."

Libertarians have long recognized military and police functions as unique, appropriates role of government. I don't see why military space programs would be any different.

If you mean civilian space programs, I wonder which libertarians you're talking about. As I'm sure you've noticed, Mr. Whittington is forever polemicizing about libertarians who want to privatize civil space programs.

In this case, I was holding up as an example 'libertarians' (not including Rand in this category, just to make that clear) who actively support government spending for their personal favorite area. Taxation is theft, except, apparently, when it goes to something you really really want.

Sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to imply that you were one of these people (though your post did serve to trigger my memory).

A couple weeks back I got into an on-line debate (more the loser, I) with someone who ended up defending (after several back and forths), US sugar subsidies. I think his point of view was that we shouldn't cut government programs at all because every one of them does some "good". The "you get something out of it so don't complain" talking point emerged early on. I was able to get him to admit that maybe some programs were overfunded. We both declared victory and went home.

I used to consider myself more libertarian than I do now. I thought that the libertarian position was more principled than the conservative one--government shouldn't interfere in our lives, and don't try to legislate morality. Then I decided that enforcing things like murder laws and theft were actually legislating morality, and the position wasn't really more principled after all--it was just an argument about what, exactly government would do and what morality we'd legislate. I still lean in the "government does way too much" camp, but I don't consider myself that libertarian anymore.

"enforcing things like murder laws and theft"

would probably be better as "enforcing things like laws against murder and theft..."

Interesting Freudian slip, that.

unfortunately most libertarians have spend 2 decades
stooging for the republicans.

Instead of sticking up for their ideas, the Libertarians
have knuckled under as the bushies have passed
laws against who can sleep with whom.

The libertarians decided to sell out and stop second
in place to the evangelicals

the Libertarians have knuckled under as the bushies have passed laws against who can sleep with whom.

In what parallel universe did that occur, Anonymous Moron? I must have missed it. What "laws" are you fantasizing here? I really wish that you'd stop drooling on my web site.