[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

All the hip liberals are dogpiling on libertarianism this month, and skillfully missing the point. Apparently the lure of libertarians potentially voting Democrat in the face of Bush’s overspending is too much for some.

The question is not “would it be OK to let everyone in the world own nukes right now?” That’s a very easy one. “No, it would be pretty much completely not be a good idea.” The question is “Would this be a better world, and if so, what do we need to do to get there?”

In the debate which is the primary target of mockery, Richard Epstein is taking precisely that approach. Randy Barnett and David Friedman are not, mind you, which goes a long way towards explaining why I don’t self-identify as a libertarian.

But it is important to remember that a hundred years ago, concepts such as welfare seemed hopelessly utopian. Things change.

Comments

[bryant]

That's fair.

Nozick is really the best place to start as far as libertarianism goes. It's a little heavy on the theory, and not oriented towards practical issues as much as it is towards theories of justice, but it's still an important work.

On the anarchist side, I'm a sucker for Robert Paul Wolff's In Defense of Anarchy. He's a Marxist, which I am not, but his approach shapes a lot of my thoughts on the matter.

There's a Wolff excerpt which is directly applicable here. But really, you ought to read the book.

I will now contentedly await the evidence that the Democratic Party has addressed the dangers of big government; I don't particularly feel the need to demand that they reiterate the necessary safeguards and protections before every internal discussion of their goals, but maybe that's just me.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

How recent a reiteration would you consider sufficient? Also, who is authorized to speak for the Democratic Party in this debate? Are you limitting it to DNC functionaries, or will the ACLU, for example, suffice as a substitute?

For the record, I don't see anything in the text you link to that makes a 'small government' claim the way I've usually seen it used. That is, nothing in that text makes any reference to what seem to be the modern Libertarian ideals of unregulated market economics and 'buyer beware' attitudes.

[I'm also wary of the offhand mention of chaos in the immediate wake of the introduction of direct democracy. That's a fine thing to dismiss, unless you happen to be part of a minority the majority seems to have no objections to vilifying. I hope you don't think that my desire not to be burned for being a witch or stoned for my taste in sex toys means that I'm in favor of every suggestion for expanding government ever proposed.]