When Markos Moulitas ZuniwhateverIdontfeellikespellingit jumps on a bandwagon, it’s like walking in uninvited to the best party on the block & taking a shit in the punchbowl.

Found out from Logan that Kos has listened to some of the arguements that Democrats should consider being skeptical of the State for once in order to appeal to people other than wannabe FDRs — and completely flunked in interpretation:

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement — we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want. A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked. A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers. A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness. A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on. (emphasis mine)

This isn’t “Libertarian Dem”, let alone left-libertarianism. It’s the same populist garbage that came out before, with “but we’re with you on the drugs, and maybe the guns” thrown in. This is so transparent it actually doesn’t deserve a sarcastic “nice try”.

See, the reason for the rift between libertarians & statist-progressives is because we define “freedom” & “force” in completely different ways. To a libertarian of any stripe, to be free means to be in a state of existence where the only restraint on ones actions is that they may not apply restraints to others: the only thing I cannot do is tell you what you cannot do and/or harm you for doing or saying different. Force is the application of restraint to someone who has not either requested it or attempted harm against you — the societal equivalent of a “first strike”, if you will. Libertarianism rejects the idea that it is justified for some to override the wants of others, even if claimed to be for their own good. Statist-progressives, on other hand, regard freedom as being unrestrained by not only force but by lack of resources: if you have the right to do something but not the time, space, or money, you are not free to a statist-progressive. As for force, the sentiment of “Jared“, a commenter on Reason.com’s Hit’N'Run, says it all:

Libertarians like to talk about Government being the only one to inititate force, but can’t economic hardship act as a force?

IE, paying two poor single mothers 300 dollars to fight. Legal according to the free market right? But who could deny the presence of an economic force on a person.

Its like the invisible hand shoving you.

Funny, I don’t hear many professional boxers that came from the slums complaining that they effectively whoop their fellow man for money. Is one form of fighting for money somehow morally better in their minds*?

Anyway, notice the implication here: if you need money for something and don’t have it, someone offering you money to do something is morally no different than putting a gun to their head. Logically this clearly does not follow — according to this, I’m being oppressed because I can’t afford a studio with one of these.

This is not to belittle the conditions they worry about at all. Honestly, to not even care it would take a heart of stone or a mind of Ayn Rand — which another Kossack mistakes for the entirety of libertarianism and concludes “f**k libertarians”. The profile of Objectivists is inflated on the internet, the overwhelming majority of libertarians are concerned people who would gladly aid folks who need it by voluntary means. Try asking us sometime.

Now, while Kos is way off in calling himself a “libertarian democrat”, it isn’t a contradictory term. The way I see it, a “Libertarian Democrat” would just be a gradualist, more politically palatable left-libertarian. I personally don’t see the need for the modifier — as I’ve explained before, libertarianism is a “left” philosophy in the original sense of the word, in that its foundation was as a rebellion against the status-quo of unchecked authority — but it’s useful for clearing up distinctions, and some emphasize that position (BradSpangler, for example). Best way I can sum it up would be this:

A libertarian wants to limit government. A left-libertarian has a distinctive reason to limit government, seeing an interventionist State as being inherently a tool of the elite.

From this, I’d say that a “Libertarian Democrat” would be a Democrat who is suspicious of government power and seeks to reduce it, with emphasis on the parts most blatantly used by narrow interests. Whatever remains, they would want to make it as direct & non-burdening as possible. For an example, take social assistance:

-A typical democrat would say the more the better and really not pay attention to costs or infringements on individual liberty.
-A typical libertarian would oppose it, for obvious reason.
-A left-libertarian would say the reason more people are in such positions than private means could serve is because government interference in the market rewarded inefficiency & systematically shut people out that otherwise would’ve done fine.
-A Libertarian Democrat would reason that, IF there politically HAS to be such a thing, it should be as direct & non-burdening as possible — a Citizen’s Dividend perhaps**.

That was simple. How about pollution?

-Typical Democrat: arbitrary regulations saying you can emit X amount of this and Y amount of that, with all the buereacracy & potential for corruption & outlandish error it entails.
-Typical Libertarian: “if you get sick, sue ‘em”
-Left-Libertarian: “If it weren’t for government interference in the market, royally screwing up the environment wouldn’t be so profitable. Yank it & watch people adjust.”
-Libertarian Democrat: “ditto what the left-lib said. I say we gradually pull away the influencing factors so polluters actually start feeling in their pockets what bystanders feel in their lungs. They’ll figure it out. Or get sued, whichever comes first.”

Notice the common theme here: Libertarian tactics (cutting the power of government) for Democrat reasons (concern for the proverbial “common man”). Since the Republicans have become such state-worshipping nutjobs, a little rebellion would go a long way for the Dems.

That said, I’m still firmly on the other side of the libertarian division of labor for now, so it’s up to others to make the sausages here. It’d be nice if it worked though.


(* - This is not to say they are the same thing, nor to somehow slight boxing as a sport. My point is that the differentiating factor USED here seems to be the amount of money offered.)
(** - while there can be plenty of arguement over funding, such an idea is not inherently anti-libertarian. Charles Murray has recently written an entire book endorsing the concept, and the sentiment can be traced back through the history of classical liberalism — Thomas Paine & Henry George, for example.)