Sitemeter and libertarianism and Let the looting begin (my comments to both); also Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy
« Brain immaturity | Main | Gayness is an hereditary trait »
February 01, 2005
Sitemeter and libertarianism
What does Sitemeter (the stat counter used by a lot of bloggers) have to do with libertarianism? Until a day or two ago I would have said, “absolutely nothing!” But today I see the connection.
I call myself “libertarian” because I believe in smaller government, a position which neither the Republican nor Democratic parties stand for. The Republican party is libertarian to a slightly greater extent, but their positions are pretty close. Since Bush has been elected to office he has done absolutely nothing to reduce the size of government, and in fact has been pushing new big-government initiatives like Medicare drug benefits and expansion of federal involvment with education. Even his “fix” for Social Security involves a new government program.
So I thought my moniker fit in with my political views. But since starting my blog, I have received a lot of animosity from hardcore libertarian nutcases who inspect everything I write with a magnifying glass and condemn me for every sentence that somehow doesn’t mesh with their own view of libertarianism. (And I recently had an argument with those types in the comments of a post at Mises Economics Blog.)
Libertarians, if they ever hope to effect actual change, have to be inclusive and not exclusive. But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can’t create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!
I’ve blogged before about problems with libertarians, but unfortunately the first post didn’t sink in.
And then two days ago,I blogged about Sitemeter, complaining about blogs that haven’t gotten with the program and put an open one on their blog.
That post too has, surprisingly, received a lot of negative comments. Looking at the referrals on my Sitemeter report (which can help you find inbound links that Technorati sometimes doesn’t find), I discovered another anti-me rant by a self-proclaimed libertarian who doesn’t think I deserve to be part of his non-movement. And he brags about not having a Sitemeter on his blog as if it were a badge of honor. The implication is that a pure blogger doesn’t care if anyone is reading his or her blog.
I am not ashamed to say that I do care if people are reading my blog. If you don’t care about having any sort of influence, why bother to have a blog at all? You could just write stuff and save it on your computer. It would be easier and you could save yourelf the expense of paying $90/year for Typepad. Bloggers without Sitemeters are like the libertarians who don’t care if they ever win an election or influence a single real vote.
Sitemeter provides a clue with regards to how much influence your blog has. Obviously not all hits have the same value. The Calico Cat has a post about blog traffic explaining how to identify quality vs. quantity. In addition to Sitemeter, I have also been using Technorati and the Ecosystem to check on my influence.
If you’re interested in increasing your blog’s influence, then examining from where your blog and other blogs get their traffic will help you to better understand the process. Which is why it’s annoying when other blogs don’t have Sitemeters.
Do I blog differently because of this? Yes, I put a lot of effort into making my blog interesting so people will visit, and I appreciate everyone who has visited and left comments. I even appreciate the people who write about how stupid I am, like dadahead. I know that I’ve at least helped to provide them with some sort of entertainment.
February 01, 2005 at 02:09 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1760760
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sitemeter and libertarianism:
» Britney Spears Naked from dadahead
Lib Girl does not like when other bloggers choose the latter option. She finds the information useful, and I think she has a point. [Read More]
Tracked on February 1, 2005 03:18 PM
» Sitemeter: For good, or for ill? from The Defeatist
Without such a tracking device, I could delude myself into thinking that throngs of readers visit the site to peruse my prose and vain commentary on my existence. But, with a Sitemeter, my worst fear is confirmed: no one is reading my observations on… [Read More]
Tracked on February 1, 2005 10:16 PM
Comments
I’ve actually been surprised at how rigid some of the libertarians commenting here are…that they apparently believe there is only one approved set of views that constitutes libertarianism. It’s the kind of thing one would expect more among hard-core Marxists or extreme religious fanatics.
Maybe it’s because libertarians generally believe that their beliefs are derivable from pure deductive reasoning, and that hence and deviation is a sign of mental or moral failing…..
photoncourier.blogspot.com
Posted by: David Foster | February 1, 2005 02:22 PM
To be fair I don’t think you would have caught so much hell except for the fact that by calling yourself Libertarian Girl one would expect a cut and dried libertarian. If your blog had some other name (like “Pretty Chick Who Will Stab You”) and you simply described yourself as leaning towards libertarian views, it might have been an entirely different response.
To put it another way if I called my blog MexiMuslim I would be sure to catch hell every time I posted about drinking beer and picking up hoochies as those don’t come to mind as being very Islamic activities.
Posted by: Mexigogue | February 1, 2005 02:45 PM
I guess if you are trying to “influence” people with your blog then obsessing over your Sitemeter statistics is understandable.
I am not trying to influence anyone. I just write what pleases me and if they come, they come.
For the record, I have about 20 repeat readers, with the rest linking to me from posts I put on other blogs or from links I have had included in stories on three or four blogs like The Moderate Voice. I also get those “next blog” visits which are not “quality” but still have the potential of turning into regular readers.
Oh, and Mexigogue is right on! If you name yourself after an ideology, then you better stick very close to that ideology.
Posted by: David | February 1, 2005 02:50 PM
It’s for your own good, Libertarian Girl.
Truth be told: I was once a libertarian myself.
Eventually, however, I was swayed from the Dark Side, and it is now my duty to help sway others.
And I don’t think the Republicans actually are closer to libertarianism, BTW. Massive corporate welfare, plus the extraordinary disregard for personal liberty and privacy that is found in the Patriot Act, would seem to me to actually move the R’s further away from libertarianism than the D’s.
You have, however, convinced me to open up my site meter stats.
Posted by: dadahead | February 1, 2005 02:53 PM
Truth be told, most people I have encountered are quite convinced that this entire blog is all part of some elaborate joke. As many of your statements are so at odds with libertarian principles.
Posted by: New Anarchist Man | February 1, 2005 03:12 PM
Hey, I just discovered something cool about sitemeter. You can set it up so that it ignores your own visits to your own site.
Maybe everyone knew that already, but for my fellow retarded people, this info might be useful.
Posted by: dadahead | February 1, 2005 03:20 PM
There is a good essay by Anthony Gregory ,as to why Libertarians should not compromise their principles, even in the effort to “… [have] an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections.”
Trading principles for victory gets you neither
Posted by: Trubeliever | February 1, 2005 03:21 PM
LG, I understand why you use a meter and look at the statistics. Understanding the audience, and to some extent tailoring some entries to that audience makes sense. If this was a business, you would want repeaters – otherwise why blog at all? And you can also steer away from subjects that get a lot of hits from random searchers, but offer little except bots crawling to collect email addresses to spam or attack. You could pander to the meter readings by titling a few posts with popular search words and see the visits skyrocket. But don’t do it! There is some stuff out there that says the regular readers become very protective and insular against newcomers butting in on one of their “home” blogs, even to attacking the person running it. Hope those types won’t get you down. I come here to read and have enjoyed pretty much all your entries. If I don’t know about it, or don’t like it, *Gosh* I can just skip that one! Another interesting one will be up shortly.
As an audience of one, sitting in my own corner, I come back for the entertainment value, interesting posts, and some views just slightly different than my own but well enough thought out we could have great conversation in person or over dinner. At the same time, driving each other nuts wondering how anyone could believe THAT. A very good time!
Truth be told, if you spewed the standard libertarian line this would get old fast. As for the micro-examiners, well, good that they have the time to do a detailed exam. But you have a point, they will never link every libertarian leaning person into a single group by squelching all non-toe-the-line views. Not to mention no converts and driving off potential converts who cannot accept their religious fervor for a particular brand of libertarianism. Whew, talk about the worst of group-think. How dull at a party.
If I have to have a complaint, just to join the “cool kids” who comment here, okay, here it is: I wish LG would post more often! Her infrequent posting throughout the day makes me have to surf other sites for content to fill up my day! I think LG should post hourly to satisfy my audience needs. Anyone else?
Posted by: Outlaw3 | February 1, 2005 03:21 PM
Quite an Algonquin Table you got going here. Yeesh, lighten up people…
LG – All good points, I’m in full agreement (U’Oh, I guess that means I’m not a real libertarian either).
Outlaw3 – I agree.
Posted by: DC Carter | February 1, 2005 03:38 PM
I’ve posted in your comments, and on my blog, before about the stupid whinery of the Libertarians. On the blogs without sitemeter: If you don’t care if someone is reading your blog, you’re full of crap. Either you’re justifying your low traffic — becausey ou don’t care — or you’re high enough in traffic that you don’t need to count.
I think Acidman said something like, “If no one reads your blog, it’s called a diary.” He had a post not long ago about sitemeter, too, I believe.
Posted by: Adam Lawson | February 1, 2005 04:02 PM
And here I thought that libertarian ideals centered on personal freedom. I for one enjoy every post on this blog, whether or not I agree with it.
Posted by: Ben | February 1, 2005 04:13 PM
For one thing, arguing with the Mises crowd is bound to get you into trouble. I probably agree with 99% of their principles, but still I wouldn’t dare pick a fight. You’re a minarchist, and there are many anarchists over there. That can be a bitter divide. There’s a story about a Hoppe and Milton Friedman debate, where Hoppe ended up calling Friedman a socialist.
For another thing, you’re probably attracting a non-random sampling of the libertarian crowd. The more passionate the libertarians are, the more likely it is that they’ll be hooked into our little orbit of the blogosphere, the more likely it is they’ll find you, and–being passionate–the more likely it is that they’ll speak their minds.
One wonders if other people with “Libertarian” in their blog titles inspire this much animosity.
Regardless, all the libertarians I know love to argue. For whatever reason, it’s something one should be ready for if they propose to be a libertarian blogger. If the comments bother you too much, you can always turn off the commenting option.
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 04:20 PM
Scott: “For one thing, arguing with the Mises crowd is bound to get you into trouble. I probably agree with 99% of their principles, but still I wouldn’t dare pick a fight. You’re a minarchist, and there are many anarchists over there. That can be a bitter divide. There’s a story about a Hoppe and Milton Friedman debate, where Hoppe ended up calling Friedman a socialist.”
Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Mises doing that at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting, storming out, saying, “You’re all a bunch of socialists!” (see the quotes here)
Of course, he was right. Socialism is the institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property rights. The state institutionalizes some degree of aggression by its nature, so any state is to an extent socialistic. This is just a simple matter.
That means, by anarchist lights, minarchists are a bit socialistic, not as bad as liberals, or outright commies etc., but still, advocating immoral laws. That does not mean that on balance they are not all libertarians, or our allies, for we all want to radically reduce the size of the state. But such practical considerations do not imply there is a duty to lie or refuse to name things as one sees them.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 04:37 PM
LG,
A couple of things… First you didn’t post about problems with libertarians, you posted in response to a post about problems with libertarians (mine). Gotta give credit where credit is due, right? 😉
I think you catch a lot of flack with your posts about things like taxing breast implants. My reading of that post was that you were trying to use libertarian values to support something you wanted to do. The more logical is to start with the values themselves, and then see what conclusions are supported. While you entered an argument about externalities and how a breast implant tax might have libertarian backing, most of us read it as a way to tax behavior you didn’t agree with. And despite a slight libertarian justification, it didn’t seem to really sit right with with spirit of libertarianism. I can’t think you could make that argument without expecting people to jump down your throat. I think you did it half in jest, but I can’t be too sure.
Regarding the sitemeter, I understood your point until you concluded with “I have a negative view of any blog that doesn’t have an open stat counter, preferably Sitemeter.” I personally agree that I don’t understand why someone who cares about their blog traffic, which is pretty much all bloggers, wouldn’t have a site meter of some sort. However, I like to keep an eye on who’s visiting, keep an eye on where they’re coming from, but don’t really care whether or not my readers can access all that information. I mean really, does it matter to you how many hits *I* get daily? As I’ve said before, I’m OCD and refreshing the hit page every half hour to see if anyone’s shown up, but I never even thought someone else would care… And at the same time, the “preferably Sitemeter” makes no sense. Why should it be Sitemeter? Who knows, it may be better than some of the other options, but I’m not exactly unhappy with StatCounter.
Anyway, those are just my opinions. I do think you catch a lot more flack than is warranted, especially by some of the hard-core libertarians… They expect since your site is named “Libertarian Girl” that you have to spout the party line at all times. And that’s not really all that realistic, IMHO… In other news, though, can I get a link on the blogroll? If I got half the *negative* comments you get here, that’d double how many I get now!
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | February 1, 2005 04:46 PM
You may very well be right, Stephan, I’m no expert on Austrians.
As to naming–yes, to a degree minarchists are socialists, but they are not what is intended by the traditional use of the word. In a sense, though an anarcho-capitalist, you could very rightly call me a communist, since I support a type of communism–the typical family–even though I support unbridled capitalism in the larger spheres.
My objection is not that there is some duty to not call things what they are, but rather simply, that it may be impolite nevertheless, and that is a reason to refrain.
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 04:49 PM
LG: “I call myself “libertarian” because I believe in smaller government, a position which neither the Republican nor Democratic parties stand for. The Republican party is libertarian to a slightly greater extent, but their positions are pretty close.”
I agree with this. You do seem to be a libertarian, but not a very consistent or principled or knowledgeable one. That’s okay, but that’s the way it seems to me–otherwise you would not endorse a utilitarian-based tax on breast implants (I think you were just trying to show off that you know a slight amount about some fancy, but elementary, economic reasoning) or state that Lochner or Roe are libertarian decisions. This is just my view…
“So I thought my moniker fit in with my political views. But since starting my blog, I have received a lot of animosity from hardcore libertarian nutcases who inspect everything I write with a magnifying glass and condemn me for every sentence that somehow doesn’t mesh with their own view of libertarianism. (And I recently had an argument with those types in the comments of a post at Mises Economics Blog.)”
LG, you are in error to refer to serious and knowledgeable libertarians such as myself as “nutcases”. Being hardcore does not make one a nutcase. I hate to make things about me but I am clearly a professional, serious libertarian; it’s possible to be principled, radical, and not a nutcase. LEt me be clear: althogh I like to be blunt and not waste bullshit time when communicating, to cut to the chase, all in all, you are clearly “libertarian” and an ally, despite some disagreements.
When I and others write to critize what you and others like you write, it is not to decree from on high some holy writ. It is because libertairans like to debate and argue. And also, in your case, b/c you state some things that seem breathtakingly oblivious to the fact that there are serious strands of thought out there (e.g., about workable anarchy) that you seem, not to dismiss for any serious reasons as if you have considered, but rejected it, but as if you are unaware of it; as if any REASONABLE libertarian “of course” realizes we have to have a state, or need “some” taxes. Or the continual implication that libertarianism judges all arguments by whether they are strategically useful or not, not whether they are true or not.
“Libertarians, if they ever hope to effect actual change, have to be inclusive and not exclusive. But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can’t create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!”
I have no idea if this latter is true; I do not claim to be an expert in tactics and strategy; and I am not sure LG is either. But what is wrong with her comment here is that it assumes that all libertarians are activist types, who are in this only or primarily to “effect actual change”. Some of us have little hope of that; or specialize in other things. You are free to try to be an activist, but do NOT assume that we all are; and please do NOT make the mistake of always judging a fellow libertarian’s assertions or views by whether they are “likely to persuade” others. That is a concern only for strategy.
For example, most decent people, even non-libertarians, think outright murder is immoral, aggression, and should be outlawed. They oppose murder and think it immoral. Yet, they do not think that merely believing this, or even stating it or outlawing it, is going to actually ever eliminate all murder. Crime is wrong despite the fact that it will always be with us. Yet it is not “impractical” to condemn crime, to state and realize that crime is wrong. Likewise, I believe we will alwyas have a large state, for psychological and other reasons (most people are too stupid or ignorant or petty or partly-criminal to permit real liberty to ever be achieved, apparently), but that does not mean it is “impractical” to believe that the state is nevertheless immoral and wrong.
So while I do not condemn you and others for focusing apparently only on strategy and tactics and activism, why don’t you at least recognize the difference between an argument’s soundness, truth, or validity, and its usefuless in tactics and strategy and activism? And if you do recognize the difference, why don’t you stop objecting to an argument’s soundness on the grounds that it is not likely to persuade our opponents? Isn’t it just dishonest and disingenuous, or at least confused, to use the wrong standards like this?
“I discovered another anti-me rant by a self-proclaimed libertarian who doesn’t think I deserve to be part of his non-movement. And he brags about not having a Sitemeter on his blog as if it were a badge of honor. The implication is that a pure blogger doesn’t care if anyone is reading his or her blog.”
I have no idea what the last sentence means, but if LG is referring to me, let me be clear: I would acknowledge you are a fellow libertarian (as far as I know), but just wish all you movement/activist types would not always jugge everything by activist standards.
“I am not ashamed to say that I do care if people are reading my blog. If you don’t care about having any sort of influence, why bother to have a blog at all? You could just write stuff and save it on your computer.”
This is not an uninteresting question, but notice it is a subtle change of subject. It is sidetracking. It becomes a meta-discussion. Instead of discussing the issues, it asks why people do discuss issues. What is the point of this kind of question? Are you trying to say that just b/c someone takes the time to publish, they are trapped into the logic of admitting that everything is about strategy?? That truth does not matter? Maybe I, for example, hope to influence to a degree, sure; but given that I have integrity in my views and value truth above any very low chance we really have at “influencing” things, I choose to pursue truth. NOthing wrong w/ the other choice. But nothing wrong with us more “theory libertarians” and “activist libertarians” recognizing our different roles without disingenuously lumping them together.
I’ve posted some related and similar comments in reply to LG here.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 04:55 PM
I don’t consider myself a hard-core libertarian. I label myself a pragmatic and moderate libertarian, much like Megan McArdle, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, and Tyler Cowen, and in contrast to the Libertarian Party. After all, while I support free trade, ending the drug war, and phasing out Social Security, I don’t believe in getting rid of the income tax, and I do think government should step in to address market failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Also, I can’t stand Ayn Rand, and while I like Friedman, I’ve never read anything by von Mises.
But as far as I can tell, I’m still far more libertarian than LG (heck, Matt Yglesias might be more libertarian than LG). I don’t think this blog is an elaborate joke, though. I think that LG just hasn’t yet put in a lot of thought into many of the issues yet. But she’s young, and I suppose blogging is an excellent way to explore such things anyway.
Posted by: fling93 | February 1, 2005 04:58 PM
Fling: “I don’t consider myself a hard-core libertarian. I label myself a pragmatic and moderate libertarian, much like Megan McArdle, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, and Tyler Cowen, and in contrast to the Libertarian Party. After all, while I support free trade, ending the drug war, and phasing out Social Security, I don’t believe in getting rid of the income tax, and I do think government should step in to address market failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Also, I can’t stand Ayn Rand, and while I like Friedman, I’ve never read anything by von Mises.”
I’d say these are all reasonable, except never reading Mises , and your income tax comment. Note, that before 1913 or so, many *mainstream* people had trouble with an income tax…. there was even a proposal, I believe, to include a 10% cap in the 16th amendment, but Senators were afraid to do so b/c of fear the feds would instantly go all the way to the limit. So they left it silent, thinking it would never approach 10%. This implies that even mainstreamers of just 90 or so years ago were more libertarian than YOU on the income tax issue. Doesn’t that at least give you pause?
“But as far as I can tell, I’m still far more libertarian than LG (heck, Matt Yglesias might be more libertarian than LG). I don’t think this blog is an elaborate joke, though. I think that LG just hasn’t yet put in a lot of thought into many of the issues yet. But she’s young, and I suppose blogging is an excellent way to explore such things anyway.”
Yes, I think this is correct… but then, given your income tax comments and never having read Mises, you might not be much above in having put thoguht into these issues (and I do not mean this in a snide way… I see nothing wrong w/ this, and admit that I may be wrong about you).
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 05:29 PM
Though I’m one of those Mises/No Treason/Two–Four readers who calls himself an anarchist, I have to say I’ve been enjoying the week or two I’ve been paying attention to your blog. Your posts and the reactions to them in your comments threads and on other sites have prompted a lot of get-back-to-basics, “what does it mean to call yourself ‘libertarian'” discussion that I think it’s good to see from time to time (too much navel-gazing gets counterproductive, though).
Like many of your readers, I have moved over time from Cato Institute-Beltway type “movement” libertarian to LP activist (for a short while) to non- or anti-political market anarchist. That’s why this comment of yours particularly attracts my attention:
LG: “But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can’t create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!”
The difference between you and “those types” at the Mises blog is that we’re not interested in creating a movement, still less “winning some elections.” Trying to shame them (us) by saying we’re destined never to win an election makes us chuckle, at best. If you can stand to spend any more time over at No Treason, I encourage you to check out JTK’s “Rational Evangelism Won’t Work.” http://www.no-treason.com/Kennedy/2.php
There are more thoughts I could add, but this is long enough already.
Posted by: Andrew | February 1, 2005 05:32 PM
Stephan Kinsella: I do not mean this in a snide way
Oh, no worries. My whole point was that I myself am hardly much of a standard to judge libertarians (and I don’t have “libertarian” in my blog name). I should also mention my two core issues are campaign finance and electoral reform, neither of which are libertarian issues (although I think both must be addressed before libertarian ideals can be represented fairly in our government).
Posted by: fling93 | February 1, 2005 05:38 PM
The libertarian movement tends to be filled with the most passionate people, who thus tend to be the most outspoken. Within the broad label “libertarian”, we can include three categories. Within each category, I list the most impressive and significant member, in my opinion. I venture to say that most people would tend to agree with me on these judgement-calls:
1. Anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray N. Rothbard.
2. Minarchists, such as Ludwig von Mises.
3. Constitutinalists, such as Ron Paul.
(4. Pacifists. Tolstoy is one of the most well-known pacifists; however, I am not sure we could call him a libertarian. Prof. Robert Murphy is one of the only libertarians that I know of who is also a pacifist, and thus necessarily a pacifist.)
Stating something that catches these categories is difficult; however, broadly put, we could say that libertarians support economic and social freedom, property-rights. That is something that is broad enough to include all of these groups, to differing degrees. Those at or affiliated with Mises.org have a great deal of respect for individuals in categories other than anarcho-capitalist. Ludwig von Mises, after whom the institute was named, was a minarchist. Ron Paul is regularly cited, and writes articles for the website (and for LewRockwell.com), as well as gives speeches. However, great respect does not mean deification, or the absence of any criticism (Rothbard too is criticized).
While I agree with Stephan Kinsella on most of what he’s said, I don’t agree that we will always have a large State. I’m optimistic: there have been stateless societies in the past, and there can be the same thing again in the future.
Since you seemed to be caught by surprise that there were libertarians advocating a stateless society (anarcho-capitalism), I would suggest For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. It is a good introduction to anarcho-capitalism, and the views of anarcho-capitalist libertarians. Everyone — except for the brute — agrees that we need government. Minarchist libertarians believe that we need a State to provide government, anarchist libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) don’t.
If you’re interested in talking about this, my Yahoo! and AOL IM’s are both dh003i.
Sincerely,
David Heinrich
PS: Mises.org is a very heavily trafficked website. In fact, it consistently receives more traffic than the Libertarian Party’s homepage and CATO.org, a website focused more on what you consider practical policy issue (but what I consider less than wise suggestions).
Posted by: David Heinrich | February 1, 2005 05:41 PM
Dave, good post. I hope you are correct that I am wrong in my lack of optimism! In any event, surely there is no obligation qua libertarianism to be an activist type as opposed to a theory or academic or whatever type.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 05:45 PM
Some time in the future, I will pay for features that would improve my blog, such as sitemeter, but as of now, I have no inclination to do so. I do not even know which free stat-counting service is most reliable.
To not care who reads my blog, means I can say whatever I want. I’m not trying to please anybody, but here is a free soapbox, and I will stand on it.
Albert Jay Nock, one of the five or six key intellectual “Old Right” writers who shaped modern libertarianism, desired only the freedom to say exactly what he wanted, how he wanted. He knew that persuasion of the masses was a futile project. He even wrote an essay, “Isaiah’s Job” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html)on the subject. The prophet Isaiah was quite unpopular in his time. He is also one of the architects of modern civilization. I’m not equating myself, or any libertarian blogger who lacks sitemeter, with Isaiah. But the principle is essentially the same. Speaking the truth, as one understands it, is more powerful than concentrating on one’s temporary influence and reach.
Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | February 1, 2005 05:46 PM
For an alternate view, I personally think of David Friedman as the greatest of the anarcho-capitalists.
Not having read Mises, Milton Friedman would be my name for minarchists.
As to Ron Paul, I agree. I actually met him a few months ago–fantastic guy.
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 05:46 PM
You asked why blog if you dont care about traffic. Here is why, my blog started because I was pissed about something and i wanted to make a point. That lasted about 15 minutes for two reasons 1. I’m not very smart so I cant really express myself in a way that holds interest 2. I got bored. Now it is just a dumping ground for stuff I find humorous or interesting. It is aimed at about 3 readers. Sometimes I get feedback sometimes I don’t no big deal either way.
I wouldn’t worry to much about what other people think of your site. Especially people who say things like I don’t find you very principled. My experience in life is that people who have the luxury of describing themselves in terms of their principles, generally have that luxury because they have no principles.
Now to the breast implant tax. (just kidding).
Finally to Fling93, thanks for showing I am not the only one who doesnt like Ayn Rand.
Posted by: chad | February 1, 2005 06:00 PM
Coincidentally, tomorrow is International Make Fun of Objectivists day–also Ayn’s birthday.
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 06:13 PM
If I have to have a complaint, just to join the “cool kids” who comment here, okay, here it is: I wish LG would post more often! Her infrequent posting throughout the day makes me have to surf other sites for content to fill up my day! I think LG should post hourly to satisfy my audience needs. Anyone else?
Posted by: Outlaw3 | February 1, 2005 03:21 PM
Lib Girl, I’d watch out for this one.
Posted by: dadahead | February 1, 2005 08:54 PM
Ha hahahahahahaha! Please more warning next time, dadahead! Diet coke really burns spewing out my nose! Dangerous.. HAHAHAHA! You know the old saying about never cornering an armed animal.
Posted by: Outlaw3 | February 1, 2005 10:09 PM
I think that LG is head over heals into something she doesn’t really understand. Either that or someone out there is having a lot of fun playing pretend.
Posted by: Steven Kane | February 1, 2005 10:10 PM
No-one starts out in any endeavor with a vast array of knowledge. I still don’t have much knowledge after 2-3 years of reading about Austrian economics and libertarianism.
Several years ago, when I was a quasi-libertarian, I was debating with someone on Slashdot. I kept on insisting that we needed public schooling: otherwise, how else could people possibly educate their children? I had little or not knowledge beyond that of the layman in economics, and hadn’t even considered what would happen to the cost of education if it were desocialized. I also hadn’t considered homeschooling. The person with whom I was debating stubbornly held his ground, repeatedly rebuffing me, for which I am now very thankful. He referred me to Mises.org, and the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
With anyone who is presumeably new to something, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn’t assume that those unfamiliar with, or critical of, plum-line libertarian views are playing libertarian. Assume honesty, good-nature, and a love of liberty; assume intelligence, thoughtfulness, a thirst for knowledge, and a desire to do well. We should also assume that, having a fresh perspective, they have something original to contribute.
This follows from the golden rule.
Posted by: David Heinrich | February 1, 2005 11:26 PM
“With anyone who is presumeably new to something, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn’t assume that those unfamiliar with, or critical of, plum-line libertarian views are playing libertarian. Assume honesty, good-nature, and a love of liberty; assume intelligence, thoughtfulness, a thirst for knowledge, and a desire to do well. We should also assume that, having a fresh perspective, they have something original to contribute.”
Agreed, Dave. Of course, those new to something usually don’t spout off posts lecturing others about it, instead they seek to learn it and discourse about it… and don’t have the chutzpah to dismiss with a waved hand the serious work of serious thinkers that they have not had time to study.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 2, 2005 01:19 AM
I agree 100%. In fact, for me the process started not more than 3 years ago when I was 18. Back then I was registered as a Republican and actually voted in an election. Then, after coming across mises.org after reading Rothbard’s “The Case Against the Fed,” I began my rapid ascent to anarchist-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. Hoppe’s ingeneous work “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism” was one of the main works that aided in this process, even if you ignore his controversial “argumentation ethics.” I continue to read libertarian and Austrian theory almost every day (right now I am reading de Jasay’s book “Against Politics”).
However, to get to the point, prior to my libertarian transformation I did not start up a blog proclaiming to be a libertarian, and then proceed to argue with other libertarians on other blogs. This is my real point of contention with LG. She started this blog self proclaiming to be a libertarian, then she went over to the mises.org blog and tried to argue with libertarians there, whereupon it is evident to me that she did not understand their positions. After that she comes back to her blog (where I guess she feels she is in more control) and calls everyone at the mises.org blog “hardcore libertarian nutcases.” I’m not condemning her for her ignorance or her belief in minarchy, but she needs to study it more before she starts a “libertarian” blog and tries to argue with other libertarians.
My advice to her is to close down her blog and start reading up more on libertarianism. In fact, I would recommend she read some of Richard Epstein’s books.
Posted by: Steven Kane | February 2, 2005 01:54 AM
Does anyone else see the irony in a post that complains about being pushed towards some sort of libertarian orthodoxy and then maintains that not freely choosing a particular statistics program somehow violates libertarian orthodoxy?
I’d tend to agree with the first point (Torqemada had nothing on libertarians other than the support of church and state), but at the risk of being orthodox myself it seems that the libertarian position is that each blogger ought to be free to choose his stats package or lack thereof.
(BTW, I rely on my webhosting stats package and raw server logs. I added Sitemeter because the Truth Screwed Bear uses it. It uses javascript and images to count, missing 100% of RSS readers and roughly half of visitors who come to the site.)
Posted by: Tom Hanna | February 2, 2005 03:41 AM
I really do not know anything about the technical “back end” of blogging. I just enjoy reading them. I do want to let you know LG since this Sitemeter dealeo (yes that is a technical term) seems to be big and you are proud of the fact you dispay yours, I do not see any traffic stats when I view your blog. The Sitemeter shows no numbers and seems to be greyed out (technical term) and if disabled (or should I say differently abled to be PC). Could you explain this for the mentis simplis amount us in another post?
Posted by: CoolSchool | February 2, 2005 08:59 AM
Tom,
“Does anyone else see the irony in a post that complains about being pushed towards some sort of libertarian orthodoxy and then maintains that not freely choosing a particular statistics program somehow violates libertarian orthodoxy?”
Good way of putting it. To clarify my earlier post and make it more “libertarian”, I chose statcounter because it was the first thing I came across. I chose that taking the first thing I found, which meets my limited needs, is worth more in benefits than the cost of researching a bunch of different stats programs. Both in the time taken to do that research, and the opportunity cost lost not doing something else.
🙂
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | February 2, 2005 01:43 PM
Post a comment
The Hoax
- I started this blog pretending to be a gorgeous blonde “libertarian girl” who just graduated from college. The ruse worked great until someone discovered that the photo I was using was taken from a Russian brides website. Read the classic post where I admit to the hoax.
Let the Looting Begin
Harold Ford of Tenn., via Talking Points and Brad DeLong, points the way to a likely consensus on Social Security reform (politics being the art of a compromise to tax you more, and all that): in exchange for private accounts, the cap on FICA taxes will be lifted, so that the 20% of the population that earns more then $87,000 has to pay the 6.8%x2 tax on the full paycheck.
This soak-the-rich approach will pay for the transition. This is the favorite plan of Daily Kos and many Democrats who otherwise oppose reform. We might ask how long the privatizers are going to ride this train as it plunges further and further into the abyss. My guess is all the way, since financing the reform requires “tough choices by the president and the Congress.”
(my comments to both)
January 31, 2005
Let the Looting Begin
Jeffrey Tucker
Harold Ford of Tenn., via Talking Points and Brad DeLong, points the way to a likely consensus on Social Security reform (politics being the art of a compromise to tax you more, and all that): in exchange for private accounts, the cap on FICA taxes will be lifted, so that the 20% of the population that earns more then $87,000 has to pay the 6.8%x2 tax on the full paycheck. This soak-the-rich approach will pay for the transition. This is the favorite plan of Daily Kos and many Democrats who otherwise oppose reform. We might ask how long the privatizers are going to ride this train as it plunges further and further into the abyss. My guess is all the way, since financing the reform requires “tough choices by the president and the Congress.”
Posted by Jeffrey Tucker at January 31, 2005 07:54 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mises.org/mt/trackback/2898
Comments
Social Security as a separate tax should be abolished and merged in with regular income taxes. The current system is designed to hide from the voters how much tax they are really paying (because employers pay half the tax) and trick people into thinking that SS is a legitimate pension plan when actually it’s a redistribution of tax money.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl at January 31, 2005 09:58 AM
“Social Security as a separate tax should be abolished and merged in with regular income taxes.”
Why should it be merged with income taxes? Why not just abolish the program completely and forever?
Posted by: Steven Kane at January 31, 2005 11:53 AM
More assertions from Libertarian Girl. Only DC Beltway types think this way. The only clear “shoulds” that apply to any tax is that it “should” be lowered, and it “should” be abolished. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at January 31, 2005 11:56 AM
This issue keeps coming up over and over again at my blog. Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.
It’s not productive to accuse someone of not being libertarian because they make a practical suggestion about tax policy.
The political support to abolish SS does not exist. I offered a sensible suggestion to make the SS tax more understandable and consistent with the way the program actually works.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl at January 31, 2005 01:01 PM
“Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.”
Au contraire. As long as the democratic state has the power of forced, involuntary taxation, it will always tend towards more and more oppressive taxes. I suggest reading Hoppe’s a priori arguments on the subject.
There’s no such thing as a “reasonable tax” any more than there is reasonable theft or reasonable murder.
If enough people simply withdraw their support for the tax regime, it will wither and disappear. The re-emergence of freedom will depend on common people, not politicians or political maneuvering. Advocating a new and improved tax scheme to fix things is like using matches and gasoline to control a fire. Are you going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution, Libertarian Girl?
Posted by: Paul D at January 31, 2005 02:27 PM
Paul, a state is necessary to preserve order. Capitalism requires that laws be enforced. Security requires armed forces to defend the nation.
A state, therefore, requires taxes! To suggest othewise is to be an anarchist not a libertarian.
Without a national defense, it would be not long at all before an agressor non-libertarian nation takes over the defenseless nation.
Mind you, this is not an argument for MORE spending. It may very well be that the U.S., for example, could get buy with a reduction in defense spending. But a certain level of defense spending is necessary in order for a free democratic state to exist.
If the U.S. could just cut spending by 10% it would be a huge step in the right direction. Advocating a 100% reduction in spending just makes the person advocating that someone that no one will ever pay attention to.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl at January 31, 2005 02:36 PM
“This issue keeps coming up over and over again at my blog. Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.”
“Practical libertarianism” (whatever that is) has done nothing to stop or even slow down over 200 years of the growth of the mega-state.
“Paul, a state is necessary to preserve order. Capitalism requires that laws be enforced. Security requires armed forces to defend the nation.”
On the contrary, the state is nothing more than political anarchy. Market anarchy, which is anarchy of voluntary agreements and trade brings order and prosperity. Political anarchy, which is anarchy of force and fraud is what we usually define to be chaos. Saying that we need to impose a regime of chaos to have order is childishly self-contradictory.
http://www.againstpolitics.com/voting/deep_anarchy.htm
“But a certain level of defense spending is necessary in order for a free democratic state to exist.”
Freedom and democracy are opposites of each other. I don’t want a democratic state, and anyone who values private property rights shouldn’t want one either.
Posted by: Steven Kane at January 31, 2005 03:12 PM
“Without a national defense, it would be not long at all before an agressor non-libertarian nation takes over the defenseless nation.”
GASP! Canada doesn’t stand a chance among the non-libertarian nations!
Posted by: iceberg at January 31, 2005 04:26 PM
“Without a national defense, it would be not long at all before an agressor non-libertarian nation takes over the defenseless nation.”
GASP! Canada doesn’t stand a chance among the non-libertarian nations!
Posted by: iceberg at January 31, 2005 04:26 PM
LG, every statement you made seems flawed to me.
“Paul, a state is necessary to preserve order.”
Empirically false. Countless ordered societies have existed, exist today, and will exist in the future without an all-powerful tax state in control. States cause far more disorder through war, theft, and market interference than individuals ever could on their own.
“Capitalism requires that laws be enforced.”
Capitalism merely requires freedom. Society may enforce laws without taxation.
“Security requires armed forces to defend the nation.”
Security which actually serves the protected instead of oppressing them can easily be provided by a free market.
“A state, therefore, requires taxes!”
Your premises are incorrect, so your conclusion is illogical.
“To suggest othewise is to be an anarchist not a libertarian.”
If the absence of a an all-powerful tax regime is the same as anarchy in your books, you have quite a polarized view of reality.
“Without a national defense, it would be not long at all before an agressor non-libertarian nation takes over the defenseless nation.”
To a freedom-loving people, there is little difference between an oppressive foreign state and an oppressive domestic state. People will defend themselves from both if they have anything worth defending and have not adopted the mentality of a slave.
Your remarks are *astoundingly* statist and state-centric for someone claiming to be a libertarian. I have no problem with someone who admits to being statis and non-libertarian, but to espouse both liberty and policies that are completely anti-freedom seems bizarre to me. Why not just come out and say that you favour big government, market regulation, and restriction on personal freedom, so long as you think they can be done in a cost-effective manner? At least we’d know where you were coming from.
Posted by: Paul D at January 31, 2005 11:18 PM
Are you going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution, Libertarian Girl?
I would opine that anyone who wants to move in the libertarian direction (such as making the cost of a social program clearer, in hopes that the public will respond with calls for smalller government) is definitely part of the solution. Nothing wrong with arguing about where we want to end up, but let’s not forget that we’re all friends, working to make the world a better place, one libertarian reform at a time.
Posted by: Blah at January 31, 2005 11:33 PM
I see nothing wrong with LG posting her opinions considering she’s already declared herself to be–for now at least–a “practical libertarian.” I’ll leave it up to her to define her idea of practical; many these days assume that term to mean keeping one’s mouth shut and going along to get along–or blatant defiance of the Pinocchio nose-curse if working for mainstream media (or as plants within alternative media).
I will say that practical libertarians and market socialists seem to be dancing to similar tunes.
Posted by: Vanmind at February 1, 2005 01:08 AM
Look out, Libertarian Girl, you’ve come up against the hard core of liberty found only here at the mises blog.
I don’t know how far into this “libertarian” thing you are, but I’m sure all those who offered critique above once considered such solutions as you proposed. I did. However, when the principle of liberty is your guiding thought in this realm, I think over time you will lose faith in political solutions.
But don’t be discouraged by critique!
Posted by: buzzo at February 1, 2005 01:31 AM
“The political support to abolish SS does not exist…
“The political support to abolish feudalism does not exist…”
Posted by: NamedForRep.Ron at February 1, 2005 01:58 AM
Don’t take my critique too hard, LG. I just hate to see anti-freedom policies portrayed as some kind of libertarian solution. Like Buzzo, I once explored “fixes” and alternate political arrangements for lessening the economic problems of the welfare state. Eventually I realized that no such fixes existed within a socialist framework, and that an all-powerful state was perhaps the wost candidate for protecting personal freedom and property; that’s when I became a libertarian.
Posted by: Paul D at February 1, 2005 02:59 AM
LG is correct!
“Countless ordered societies have existed, exist today, and will exist in the future without an all-powerful tax state in control.”
Please name the non-religious societies that exist and have functioned for more than 2 generations.
Posted by: billwald at February 1, 2005 11:52 AM
“To a freedom-loving people, there is little difference between an oppressive foreign state and an oppressive domestic state.”
Seems to me that historically people don’t mind being oppressed by their own kind (religion, culture and race) of people. They may complain but it is human nature to complain. For example, socialism “worked” in Norway as long as Norway was 90% Lutheran Church supporting Norwegians. One big happy family against the world.
Posted by: billwald at February 1, 2005 11:59 AM
I’ve posted further thoughts related to what I wrote in these comments at my own blog.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl at February 1, 2005 01:46 PM
“Please name the non-religious societies that exist and have functioned for more than 2 generations.”
How about the free-masons?
Posted by: Francisco Torres at February 1, 2005 02:55 PM
LG wrote:
“Without a national defense, it would be not long at all before an agressor non-libertarian nation takes over the defenseless nation.”
Possibly, but as the US is painfully experiencing right now, a ‘defenseless’ people can BEAT BACK an aggressor’s advance, if the army can’t. It is just a question of letting The People arm and defend themselves, like Switzerland does – ever wondered why Leviathan approves all those gun-control laws??
Posted by: Francisco Torres at February 1, 2005 03:15 PM
Libertarian Girl: “This issue keeps coming up over and over again at my blog. Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.
“It’s not productive to accuse someone of not being libertarian because they make a practical suggestion about tax policy.”
This is what the Beltway, activist-libertarian types ALWAYS do: they judge a comment or argument by whether it’s “productive” or “likely to work”. They are always thinking strategy and tactics. So much that the confuse validity with popularity. It is not germane whethet LG is “a libertarian” or not; and we libertarians are free to oppose a policy because IT is unlibertarian, i.e. evil, wrong, immoral.
I am not sure what “practical libertarianism” is but LG seems to assume everyone knows what this is. To my mind libertarianism has always been first and foremost about discerning the truth about what is moral as between people in society. As for “practical” aspects–if you are in it to achieve change, you are deluding yourself. We are not going to wake up one day and have “won the battle”. We enjoy fighting the battle because it is right to do so, but we need not delude ourselves at our efficaciousness. We are entitled to argue with, pick at, make fun of, dissect, study, and annoy our jailers, if we wish.
But activism, for 99.9% of all libertarians, means, at most, an ever-so-slight contribution to an ever-so-slight increase in the chance of an ever-so-temporary and ever-so-slight increase in liberty that mostly benefits our socialistic neighbors who don’t deserve it. In short, it is self-sacrificial and altruistic. The only reason to do it is not for the sake of the end, but because doing it is the right thing, and enjoyable. But one need no strategical, tactical, rhetorical calculus to know this.
“The political support to abolish SS does not exist. I offered a sensible suggestion to make the SS tax more understandable and consistent with the way the program actually works.”
But this does not show why liberty would increase. The problem is not that taxes are too complex. It is that they are too high. If you want simple taxes, just fork over all your income to the feds, I’m sure they’ll take it.
“Paul, a state is necessary to preserve order. Capitalism requires that laws be enforced. Security requires armed forces to defend the nation.
“A state, therefore, requires taxes! To suggest othewise is to be an anarchist not a libertarian.”
While this is an acceptable position for a libertarian to take–they are called minarchists, or minimal statists–it is astounding that LG just asserts this here as if it is obvious, as if she is blithely unaware that some poeple are actually anarchists, heavens to betsy. It is just an assertion, no argument; and an assertion won’t do the trick, as there is healty disagreement among libertarians on this matter.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at February 1, 2005 03:27 PM
Perhaps many people still regard anarchism as being the “evil” that the statists have been insisting in their propaganda marketing.
Following that logic, maybe the next great socio-political evil will be “liberal anarchists.” Whatever they are.
Posted by: Vanmind at February 1, 2005 06:48 PM
I’m a Libertarian, a libertarian, and an anarcho-capitalist. One could arguably say that “practical” libertarianism is really no different from ideological libertarianism because it is (we believe) the best form of political philosophy and would naturally lead to the best possible human society.
Perhaps what LG is referring to is pragmatic libertarianism. Fine. While I still think that getting completely rid of Social Security is the best and most practical thing to do with it, I freely admit that I do not know how to make that happen. Still, I will argue against it, and if I find some convenient “stepping stone” towards its abolishment, I’ll take it, with the understanding that it is just another step, and not the final destination.
There has been enough argument against the Bush administration’s ideas for SS that I’m not sure it’s one of those stepping stones. At the same time, I can’t stand how the mainstream is treating this subject, as if these are the only two possible options to dealing with SS.
Posted by: Michael A. Clem at February 1, 2005 09:29 PM
I, for one, would rather see my SS tax separately itemized, as well as everything else. I think it would be far easier to fight a program when we see exactly how much we’re being billed.
Imagine…
“(X) dollars for (useless immoral government program)?! What the #@%!! I didn’t order a (useless immoral government program)!”
“What’s this? I have to pay (X) dollars out of my paycheck to kill foreigners? I got nothing against foreigners! What the #@%!!”
…& so forth.
If LG got her way, the reality of the SS tax will melt out the public view. Out of sight, out of mind. Brilliant. Let’s take this one step further & not show what the government takes at all. Less people might complain. Problem solved.
How practical!
Posted by: Steve at February 2, 2005 01:29 AM
Sorry. In my above post I meant “FEWER people might complain.” I know some of you can be sticklers.
Posted by: Steve at February 2, 2005 01:34 AM
Your usage of “less” is fine in real English (as described in the OED, for example); the insistence that it should be replaced with “fewer” is a rather odd American thing.
Posted by: The Stickler at February 2, 2005 04:23 AM
Interesting! Of course, with the money the government forced me to “save” in my SS “account” I could have bought my own OED. I’m not even counting my employer’s “contribution.”
Posted by: Steve at February 2, 2005 07:52 AM
Libertarian Girl: The hard-core libertarians rally around Murray Rothbard’s formulation, that government=tyrranny. How can he say that – that’s just anarchy?! He came to that position because he saw the effect that efficiency-maximizers such as Milton Friedman had on the state. Far from working to reduce the size of the federal leviathan, the efficiency-maximizers actually facilitated the growth of the federal government. So although Friedman talks like a Libertarian, he walks like a Keynesian.
Having said that, I can appreciate where I think you are coming from – you sincerely want to see a reduction in the size and scope of the federal government. You want to flip the switch on the federal ratchet, so that it starts ratcheting down instead of up – that’s why you are advocating first steps like putting Social Security “on-budget”. It seems like a sensible first step, from which other steps (“privatization” (forced savings) or phasing out benefits in favor of private saving) will logically follow. This is a vain hope. This is why even those of us who for years just wanted to “flip that switch” that would put us back on the path to limited, constitutional government have recently come to grips with the fact that even if there IS a ratchet (and I now would argue it is more akin to a garbage chute than anything so precise and neat as a mechanic’s tool), there is simply no way you, me, or anybody else with a desire to reduce the size and scope of the federal government is going to be allowed to get anywhere near it. We radical anarcho-capitalists have to be content in the knowledge that when the whole groaning edifice finally collapses, we will have at least had not part in its creation or operation. The same will not be true for the Keynsians and Friedmanites who, along with the Straussians, history will harshly judge.
Posted by: Vince Daliessio at February 2, 2005 02:29 PM
“Libertarian Girl” huh?
Posted by: Libertarian Pat at February 15, 2005 01:04 PM
Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy
February 01, 2005
Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy
Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds wrote:
I’ve never understood the romanticization of the Confederacy. It didn’t last very long, it was horribly run and governed, it accomplished nothing but disaster and defeat, and it existed in the service of a horrible cause.
. . .
One suspects that for a certain sort of infantile mind, pro-Confederacy statements provide the same sort of thrilling sense of nonconformity that Marxism has provided. This, I guess, explains the weird strain of pro-Confederate sympathy that one finds among a certain segment of libertarians.
Maybe he read my recent post about the Civil War and slavery, and was inspired by it.
And I agree, it’s a very weird strain of libertarianism that would glorify the Confederacy.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1763255
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy:
Comments
To let the South and its slavery to secede was to achieve the ambitions of true abolitionists – to separate oneself and one’s state from such barbarism like slavery. The only reason border slave states did not secede is that they were the main beneficiaries of the Fugitive Slave Law.
Yes, it is odd to defend the Constitutional/anti-tariff case from a libertarian position, for it is a de facto justification for slavery.
But it is far more odd to defend the nationalist/pro-tariff case from a libertarian position, for it is a de facto justification for conscription, which just like slavery, except that the likelihood for a bloody, violent death is far, far greater.
Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | February 02, 2005 at 12:34 AM
I think the whole idea of of the civil war brings up a tough point.
IMHO, part of libertarianism is self-determination. It is the idea that if a state believes that the federal government is no longer respecting their rights to self-governance, that state has the ability to remove itself from the United States.
The opposite side of the coin is that slavery, by definition, is anti-libertarian. Libertarianism is founded on the rights of individuals being paramount, and slavery cannot in any way be consistent with that philosophy.
Can a support for the right of secession be misconstrued by most folks as supporting the South and slavery? I think that’s what’s going on here.
Although I wonder how people such as the current Libertarian Party, who are opposed to the US fighting tyranny in other parts of the world, can logically oppose the right of a state to secede from the US and institute slavery. That question, I’ll have to leave to some of the isolationist libertarians here…
Posted by: Brad Warbiany | February 02, 2005 at 01:13 AM
As opposed to those strains of libertarianism that aren’t wierd?
Posted by: clark | February 02, 2005 at 07:05 AM
Yeah, it is certainly weird to think that pot-smokers ought not be imprisoned, and that Congress has the sole authority to declare war. And it is weird to be skeptical of the State and the intentions of politicians.
Libertarians are certainly weird. In other words, it is weird to have a brain.
Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | February 02, 2005 at 11:37 AM
“And I agree, it’s a very weird strain of libertarianism that would glorify the Confederacy.”
How so? The Confederacy is a symbol of a fight against a federal government trying to impose its will over the states. Certainly support for states’ rights is a mainstay of the libertarian ideology–it’s a common topic at the Cato Institute, for instance.
Yes, slavery was awful. So are tariffs and so is the centralization of power; Confederates fought against both–there’s a glory in that.
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 02, 2005 at 12:49 PM
LG, this is yet another exmaple of running your mouth off spouting conventional, mainstream schlock while not knowing what you are talking about. I admit you are kinda hot, but come on, that’s not a good enough excuse. The CSA was no worse than the USA as even the USA when it was founded had slavery; would you say we had no right to rebel from England since the US has slavery at the time?
On other issues, the CSA was better than the USA. For one, it did not initiate a war of aggression against another nation. For another, it had a better Constitution. Check out for example Marshall DeRosa’s The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism. One need not be a rebel flag waving yahoo nor a racist nor in favor of slavery to recognize this. Why do such obvious things need to be explained to you repeatedly?
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 02:59 PM
Check out also a reply to a similar issue here: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2005/02/horwitz-et-al-on-woods.php
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 04:19 PM
LG, the issue is muddied because it is so frequently framed in such terms that any admiration for the CSA is taken as pro-slavery. To me, the CSA represents the last gasp of the original system of federalism and the last stand against overreaching centralized national government. It is also a part of my heritage since every male ancestor of mine of the right age fought for the CSA. They did so not for slavery (they did not own slaves) but to defend their homes and rights. What was the war of secession “about”? is a question that historians and pundits debate. I would argue that it was “about” something different for every single person involved in it. When it is made to be solely about slavery, I suspect that this is frequently part of the justification for the Constitutional and human damage was done.
I would like to think that slavery could have been abolished without destroying the Constitution or killing so many people.
Posted by: Dennis | February 02, 2005 at 04:29 PM
I don’t see how anyone could dispute that the South seceded because of slavery. Abraham Lincoln’s presidency meant that no more slave states would be admitted to the Union and the South correctly saw the writing on the wall that eventually slavery would be abolished entirely.
The states rights stuff sounds nice, but unfortunately it was made up after the fact, or as propaganda to get the non-slave owning majority to fight.
The North was where the action was in the 19th century, the place where the leaders of business and science made their home.
I think it’s justifiable to debate whether the North should have just let the South go its merry way, but there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl | February 02, 2005 at 05:14 PM
“I don’t see how anyone could dispute that the South seceded because of slavery.”
Because there is no single “because of”. It’s a but-for cause, but there were many others.
“The states rights stuff sounds nice, but unfortunately it was made up after the fact, or as propaganda to get the non-slave owning majority to fight.”
States rights was made up after the fact? How about in 1789?
“there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.”
It is statements like this, LG, that make you look like a complete idiot neophyte. Jesus.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 05:57 PM
“there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.”
It is statements like this, LG, that make you look like a complete idiot neophyte. Jesus.
Watch me defend Libertarian Girl!
YOu are the one who looks like an idiot, Stephan.
The defining characteristic of the Confederacy was their enthusiasm for enslaving their fellow human beings.
Very admirable.
Posted by: dadahead | February 02, 2005 at 07:03 PM
If one stops for a moment and realizes how few southerners could afford to own a slave (they weren’t exactly as inexpensive as a slurpee at the local 7-11), it becomes rather silly to argue that defending the Confederacy was about defending slavery. Does one really think that the non-slave holding majority would really be willing to fight and die so that their slave-holding minority could carry on owning slaves? People can be motivated to fight for others, but there are limits. Lincoln only spoke of preserving the Union in most of his speeches. Abolishing slavery took a back seat, after all, because he wanted to enslave the South.
Posted by: | February 02, 2005 at 11:27 PM
doodoo-head: “YOu are the one who looks like an idiot, Stephan.
The defining characteristic of the Confederacy was their enthusiasm for enslaving their fellow human beings.”
This is so asinine it’s not worth replying to. This stupid assertion is so 8th grade level as to be unbelievable.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 11:39 PM
“The defining characteristic of the Confederacy was their enthusiasm for enslaving their fellow human beings.”
Moreover, do you have any proof that this is the case, or shall we simply level our own assertions at each other?
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 12:14 AM
Googling around, from what I can tell, the Civil War was the result of a combination of factors, including slavery, tariffs, and a question as to the legality of secession.
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 12:24 AM
OK, you tell me what the defining characteristic of the Confederacy was.
And don’t say state’s rights, because that’s bullshit. States’ rights to own slaves, is more like it.
And no b.s. about “southern heritage”. Southern heritage IS racism.
And don’t call me doodoohead.
Posted by: dadahead | February 03, 2005 at 12:51 AM
I don’t recall using that particular epithet.
Slavery was of course a factor, as I said, but the Civil War was also the result of the states’ rights vs. federal power question, and the possibility of secession. There were also questions of tariffs.
Along those lines:
“We’re not fighting for slaves.
Most of us never owned slaves and never expect to,
It takes money to buy a slave and we’re most of us poor,
But we won’t lie down and let the North walk over us
About slaves or anything else.”
Confederate soldiers in John Brown’s Body, a book length poem by Stephen Vincent Benét
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 08:42 AM
The men who controlled the Confederacy were rich plantation owners who owned large numbers of slaves to work the fields.
They believed that their wealth was in their slaves, and secession was the only way to keep their wealth intact.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl | February 03, 2005 at 09:49 AM
Doodoohead wrote: “OK, you tell me what the defining characteristic of the Confederacy was.
“And don’t say state’s rights, because that’s bullshit. States’ rights to own slaves, is more like it.”
There IS no “defining characteristic” to the Confederacy, you dope.
“And no b.s. about “southern heritage”. Southern heritage IS racism.”
You’re a moron.
Libertarian Girl: “The men who controlled the Confederacy were rich plantation owners who owned large numbers of slaves to work the fields.
“They believed that their wealth was in their slaves, and secession was the only way to keep their wealth intact.”
This may be true but it does not at all imply “there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.” Such a statement displays sheer ignorance… worse that that gleeful ignorance, an ignorance so profound it is proud of itself.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 03, 2005 at 10:30 AM
Dadahead’s assertion that southern heritage is racism is hate speech. It is one of the only kinds of hate speech that pc types such as dadahead recognize as permissible. They seek to cut off meaningful discussion by hurling anti-southern epithets because they do not know enough about history to question the conventional “wisdom” that was planted in them in their northern schools.
Posted by: Dennis | February 03, 2005 at 10:46 AM
“The men who controlled the Confederacy were rich plantation owners who owned large numbers of slaves to work the fields.”
Yes, but the men who fought for the Confederacy were by and large not slaveholders–they were too poor. Nor, I presume, were the men who fought for the North necessarily abolitionists. Is it so hard to see that libertarians might find something admirable in a people who fight against a government?
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 11:22 AM
“We’re not fighting for slaves.
Most of us never owned slaves and never expect to,
It takes money to buy a slave and we’re most of us poor,
But we won’t lie down and let the North walk over us
About slaves or anything else.”
Just to clarify, I have no doubt that a large number of Confederate soldiers were fighting in the Civil War for reasons other than slavery, just like a lot of German soldiers were fighting in WWII for reasons other than Nazism, and like American soldiers today are fighting for reasons other than US strategic power in the Middle East.
(I don’t mean the comparisons to be nasty; my point is that in all wars, even when they are a good cause, the reasons the soldiers fight are often different than the reasons heads of states go to war.)
It is obviously the wealthy slave owners who wanted to fight the Civil War, and they probably used the usual methods of whipping up the population into a frenzy: “Dem damn Yankees is comin’ ta destroy ow Southan way o’ life. Less getem.” Or whatever.
You’re a moron.
No I’m not.
Dadahead’s assertion that southern heritage is racism is hate speech.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now conservatives are screaming “Hate Speech!”!!
Dude, white southern heritage is all about racism. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynching, etc. etc. etc.
I’m not saying there wasn’t (and isn’t) racism all over the country, but nowhere was it (is it?) as prevelant as in the south.
Posted by: dadahead | February 03, 2005 at 02:41 PM
Dadahead is clearly prejudiced against southerners and has hateful ideas about southern heritage. That explains his or her take on this issue. He is an anti-southernist.
Posted by: Dennis | February 03, 2005 at 03:52 PM
“It is obviously the wealthy slave owners who wanted to fight the Civil War, and they probably used the usual methods of whipping up the population into a frenzy: “Dem damn Yankees is comin’ ta destroy ow Southan way o’ life. Less getem.” Or whatever.”
Ah, and the Southerners who they whipped were too stupid to think for themselves?
Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 03:55 PM
Dadahead, please do a study on the Black Codes. You will find that they existed in the North and during Reconstruction laws patterned after the northern Black Codes were implemented in the South. Do you know was in control in the South at the time?
Asked by a Yankee soldier a Southron POW answered “because you are here.” The question was, “whay are you fighting us?”
Posted by: Confederate_Coqui | February 07, 2005 at 11:04 AM
Sagascend would have been one nice, content house negress back in the Old Days. I would have set her sweet caramel ass up good & proper.
Posted by: Stonewall | July 19, 2005 at 06:05 PM
I do declare that would have made me a might *happy* my kind sir. lol
Posted by: sagascend | July 19, 2005 at 06:07 PM
^ Oh please. You clearly don’t have anything better to do than pretend that I would give you the time of day.
In the words of Eddie Murphy, “wuddent me” people.
Posted by: sagascend | July 19, 2005 at 06:44 PM
All this rationalising of the Confederacy’s existence is nothing more than historical revisionism. Ted Turner and the New South ilk as well as Southern politicians -both liberal and conservative- wish for the world to believe that the American Civil War had more to do with the notions of federalism, “states’ rights” and a more traditionalist way of life, this is nonsense. Slavery was the issue from the beginning to the end. Lincoln and the Republican Party were dreaded by the landed Southern gentry because Lincoln and the Republicans called for a halt to the spread of slavery in newly formed states, thereby isolating this evil practice. They feared that this isolation would lead the federal government to make bolder attacks upon the practice in the future. The right to secede was brought into question when the aristocracies of the Southern states demanded secession and independence over what they believed was their God-given right to own, buy, sell black men and women.
True, most who fought and died for the Southern cause weren’t slave owners, they were too poor (some of them were worse materially worse off than the slaves); however, they fought because they were told by the landed interests that there was an invasion of Northern professional armies, bent upon destroying their culture and way of life. Most of the enlisted rank and file who made up the bulk of the Confederate Army came from backgrounds that, in essence, were as serfs towards the gentry who became their politicians and officers. The white rural poor looked to these men of property for guidance in matters political, social and religious. In short, they were duped.
Posted by: American | July 20, 2005 at 10:26 AM
I do not understand people who support the ‘anti-slavery’ cause of the North, without bothering to research it. The emancipation proclamation was a war tactic to stir the slaves agains the south. It says specifically that only the slaves in the Confederate states were free. The neutral states slaves were not free, of which there were four slave states, and the pro-Union counties in the South were not freed either.
When the United States seceded from England they supported slavery. Slaves were improted by the shipload. When the Confederate States seceded from the Union, they outlawed the importation of slaves.
It was big government versus individualsim. States’ rights versus socialism.
Posted by: Luke Duke | November 29, 2005 at 06:46 PM
I think you all need to do a little research into the actual true history of the Confederacy before slaming it as some sort of Nazi state that advocated the enslavement of Blacks and all minorities.
Slavery in the South was not as wide spread as we have been lead to believe by the US Government, which are masters of putting there own spin on historical events.
Slavery in the Confederacy was isolated to certain states that were die hard Pro-Slavery. However a hand full of states unoffically ended slavery as early as 1861 by allowing milita commanders, and army generals the right to draft slaves, and give slaves the right to own land for farming (I.E. Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland).
Lousiana had as early as 1861 over a half dozen 100% Black militia units preparing to engage the Elephant (I.E. Union Forces), Florida which was the 3rd state to join the Confederacy was the most anti-Slavery in the south, and was also home to the first Black governor after the Civil War.
I know these facts to be true b/c I researched this information by reading period books written prior to 1910. All history books written prior to 1910 back up the above facts and basically contradict current modern history on the Civil War.
You see for some reason the US Dept. of Education mandated in 1910 that all history texts begin to call the “Southern Revolution” the “War of Southern Independence”, which was changed again in 1920 to “The War Between the States”, to its current title “The American Civil War” in 1942. This about the time that the US. Dept. of Education reclassified the cause of the war as slavery.
The history took an even more hardlined stance in 1933 at the hieght of the great depression.
Pro Nazi members in the US Government began trying to compare American history to the plight of the Nazi Party by officially changing all history texts to show that the South was only fightning the war to preserve slavery.
Prior to 1910 the primary causes of the war was illegal taxation of Southern shipping and interstate commerce, taxes effecting new states coming into the Union, and distribution of wealth between the states, with slavery coming in forth as the primary reason that Gerogia, Alabama, Mississippi, South & North Carolina, and Tennessee left the union.
Period texts go on to point out that the Confederacy was fightning it self over the continued legalization of slavery. Anti slave states such as Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia led the anit slave charge with Arkansas, and Missouri deciding to stay out of the fight all together.
The fact is gentlemen people are pro-South b/c it is where we are from I’am proud to be a Southerner and despise the corrupt US government and thier illegal occupation of the South.
I’m not a Libertarian, but instead a Confederate and am President of my own party the Dixie Party. My party works with other Pro Sepratist / Confederate parties with the goal of organizing a unified party hopefully by 2014.
However hate groups such as the KKK & Nazi’s have hindered our goals. The Dixie Party since its formation in June 2002 has worked with State Authorities to lock up 427 KKK / Nazi members caught flying a rebel or Confederate Flag. You see under Florida State law 256.051 it is illegal to discrace the Confederate Flag by using it in hate rallies or for purposes of hate.
Attacking any and all hate groups is the secondary goal of our party, and we will not stop until it has been accomplished.
Other goals of our party besides erasing hate, and Sucsession are to erase corruption, and eliminate all corporate influences on politics. Drastically cut harmfull Green House gases, deforestation, and pollution of our oceans, if it already is not too late. Expose all US Government lies (Kennedy Assasination, 9/11, TWA Flight 600, etc.).
Also if we ever get in power we will stive to boost our tech in order to colonize the Moon and Mars before we milk Earth dry of all natural resources such as Iron, Lead, Steel, and other valuble resources.
So Libertarians, if ya’ll are interested in an alliance visit our temporary HQ at Yahoo groups, currently our party has 3,782 members through out the South.
Posted by: Boba Fett | February 15, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Other goals of our party besides erasing hate, and Sucsession are to erase corruption, and eliminate all corporate influences on politics. Drastically cut harmfull Green House gases, deforestation, and pollution of our oceans, if it already is not too late. Expose all US Government lies (Kennedy Assasination, 9/11, TWA Flight 600, etc.).
Also if we ever get in power we will stive to boost our tech in order to colonize the Moon and Mars before we milk Earth dry of all natural resources such as Iron, Lead, Steel, and other valuble resources.
Posted by: AMEN! | February 16, 2006 at 01:08 AM
See Asian men vigorously fucking and pounding away at hot tight white pussies.
!!!CLICK ON THE “POSTED BY:” LINK BELOW!!!
Posted by: A RICH ASIAN GUY | March 27, 2006 at 07:38 PM