Barack Obama Named "Man of the Year" by Libertarian Party

The title of this post is tongue-in-cheek, but the Obama presidency certainly has sparked a resurgence in the limited-government movement. Professor John J. Pitney, Jr., explores this issue for Reason TV.



I actually wanted Obama to win in 2008 for precisely this reason. Yes, Obama is giving us bigger government, but a McCain victory also would have meant bigger government. Some people will argue, quite correctly, that we wouldn't have been saddled with Obamacare if McCain had won. My response is that McCain's healthcare plan also was bad, and surely would have become even worse as it meandered through a legislative process controlled by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Moreover, cap-n-trade and a value-added tax would have been much more likely under a McCain Administration.

With Obama in the White House, the free-market movement is enjoying a renaissance. That would not have happened under a McCain Administration. Moreover, Republicans on Capitol Hill are at least pretending they now believe in small government. That's only happening because Obama is in the White House.

In short, a McCain victory would have meant continued growth of government with no prospect of a conservative/libertarian renewal. Obama's victory has been giving us bad policy, of course, but at least there's now a backlash for freedom.

For what it's worth, I've always been a fan of this one-step-backwards-two-steps-forward strategy. I wanted Carter to win in 1976, Clinton to win in 1992, and Kerry to win in 2004. If we're going to have someone in the White House who is doing the wrong thing, it's better for it to be a Democrat. After all, Carter paved the way for Reagan in 1980 and Clinton set the stage for the 1994 GOP revolution. I suspect something equally interesting will happen this November.

Giving Libertarianism a Bad Name

I cringed when I read this story from the EU Observer that makes it appear that libertarians - at least those in Sweden - are sympathetic to child pornography. If you read the article, the Swedish Pirate Party does have some legitimate concerns about broad and vague laws that can be misused, but this nonetheless seems to be an example of what I call chest-beating libertarianism. This is the impulse to oppose anything a government is doing and thus be a completely-consistent anti-statist. This generally is a very sound instinct, but it can lead to positions that are absurd (do you get rid of laws against murder?). My main piece of advice to hard-core libertarians is that we should focus on getting rid of the programs, department, and agencies that should not exist. And if we ever succeed with those goals, then we can start fighting and squabbling over how to privatize streets and how to protect against child molesters without giving police too much power.

The libertarian Pirate Party in Sweden has set off a storm of controversy by arguing that the country's current laws on child pornography should be done away with. In an interview with Swedish Radio out on Thursday (5 August) Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge described a 1999 child pornography law as "a battering-ram against the open society." The radio spot and an accompanying article noted how a policy plank in the party's election manifesto, published last week, would "make it legal to hold the image, text and sound with child pornography" on a computer. ..."The big story on Swedish Radio, that said we are positive to child pornography, that is really not the case," [the party's communications manager] said. "We want to make it clear that the Pirate Party does not have a positive stance on child pornography, but rather we are opposed to Swedish laws that say that almost anything, pictures, sound, drawn images, anything at all depicting someone under the age of 18 can be called a sexual image." "What we want is not an end to all child pornography laws but a return to their previous form, which existed before 1999, in which it defined it as images of prepubescent children," he said. "Swedish child pornography laws since then are more like something like a yoke the police can apply to this or any case. It shows well how the child pornography law can be used on anyone." ..."The law could also cover a 17-year-old taking a nude picture of himself, keeping the picture until he's 19 and then he is suddenly in possession of child pornography. It's the 18 cut-off that is the main problem." Mr Kindh gave the example of how a Swedish comic books translator, who specialised in translating Japanese manga, was last week arrested under the law: "From a collection of around 1,000 comics, the police found 51 images that they misread as child pornography." The party does want all child pornography laws lifted in relation to any fictional content.

A Two-Part Quiz on Libertarianism and Patriotism

Here's an appropriate post for today. Having just watched a Bloggingheads.tv debate between Will Wilkinson and Jonah Goldberg on the topic of patriotism, it got me thinking about whether advocates of limited government can love (or at least have warm and fuzzy thoughts about) their country. I think it is correct to say that libertarians are understandably suspicious of patriotism if it means nationalism (my nation is good, so your nation must be bad). But some libertarians, including Will, think any patriotism is undesirable because it can be harnessed to statism. That's a danger, to be sure, but I've always interpreted patriotism as support for the ideals of a nation rather than its government. That's why the sentiments in this image match my definition of patriotism.

That being said, I'll be the first to admit that patriotism in not a particularly rational sentiment. One could live in Switzerland, Hong Kong, or the Cayman Islands and be part of a culture that is based on ideals that are at least somewhat similar to what we have in America. So why feel any special warmth for the United States? In large part, it is an accident of birth. Many of us feel affection to America because that's where we were raised - in the same way we may feel loyalty to sports teams based on our hometowns (Go Yankees!) or where we went to school (Go Dawgs!).

Here's my two-part quiz. One question deals with a trivial topic, and the other one revolves around something more profound. In both cases, though, I'd be interested in feedback on whether affirmative answers put one on a slippery slope to statism.

1. Do you want athletes representing the United States to win international contests such as the World Cup, Olympics, Ryder Cup, and Davis Cup - even if you don't follow the sport?

2. Even if you disagree with nation building and want the US out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, do you want America to prevail in military battles? On a related note, would you rather have 100 (or 1,000) Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters die or one US soldier die?

The first question (at least I assume) is easy. Wanting your nation to win a contest presumably does not imply that you want to persecute other countries, invade other countries, or even have negative thoughts about another nation or its people. I also don't see how it could imply anything bad on the domestic front. Wanting the US to do well in the Olympics, for example, does not have any implications for big government or small government (am I missing something?). Heck, if I understand correctly, the United States (to its credit) does not even finance national teams with tax monies.

The second question is a lot harder. For all intents and purposes, an affirmative response means you value an American life over a foreign life. I'm not an expert on foreign policy, so I don't pretend to know exactly what the United States should have done in the aftermath of 9-11. But I know I'm not a fan of nation building, so I don't want endless occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan in the futile hope of transforming them into democracies. Nonetheless, I instinctively want nothing but good results for the soldiers and others who are stationed there. And if shooting happens, I want all the casualties on the other side. I don't think these views make me a bad libertarian, but I welcome your thoughts.

Is the Mount Vernon Statement Disappointing?

Many of the leaders of the conservative movement just released the Mount Vernon Statement, which is supposed to identify a common set of principles. It culminates with these words:

A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda. It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal. It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life. It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions. It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end. It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

These are fine words, but what do they achieve? Should there be a no-tax increase pledge? A commitment to reduce the size of government, or to shut down agencies, programs, and departments that are not proper functions of the federal government?

To be sure, a statement of principles is not supposed to be a policy platform, so perhaps it's not the right place to call for, say, replacing a bankrupt Social Security system with individual accounts.

On the other hand, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine President Obama's speechwriters putting very similar language in one of his speeches. So if the principles of the conservative movement are so vague that collectivists and statists can pretend to support them, what exactly is the point?