Plus it would demand thought and reason and choices and responsiblity…all of which are so prevalent in U.S. society.

Atlas will shrug.

I would say that what Republicans are doing in contemporary government is NOT authentically Libertarian, whatever else it might be. I would make that assessment quite emphatic in light of this presentation by a well-informed and benevolent Libertarian:

http://www.isil.org/resources/fnn/2007sept/text-wmsbg-speeches/butler-shaffer.html

Willis, there seems to be a very interesting dichotomy between “Hamiltonian” and “Jeffersonian” economic theory that appears to be pretty much unresolved since pre-constitutional times in US history. And when I speak of Jefferson thusly, it seems I have to be speaking of a “pre-Democratic” Jefferson, whose notions of economy transcend the particular constitution and its “implied powers” that we have lived with in the US (under FDR included). It seems that the “Jeffersonian” approach (more likely to be authentically Libertarian) became “obscure” since then, because it was never given any sort of a fair trial, or even a fair hearing. Any thoughts on this?

Originally Posted By Sachiko
Thanks for your comments Willis. But as I say in my article, I understand that that’s the way it’s supposed to work in theory, but that was the way it was supposed to work under Reagan as well – and look at the results! The fact of the matter is – in terms of what has actually been done – when people have tried to apply libertarian principles, the result has been disastrous. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t work, but it sure doesn’t look good! I just don’t know if the sort of “small government” that libertarians want is actually possible, at least at this stage in our history.

Certainly not at this moment, not with the debt you mentioned. However, Sachiko, you fail to mention that Reagan cut taxes, & only cut DOMESTIC spending. He spent billions on his star wars initiatives, putting nukes in Western Europe, a program thought to be safely in the politcal wastebin, until W revived it. That is far from Libertarianism, and as a matter of fact, the main source of the ballooned US debt!

I had a whole blog sized response ready for this, but it mostly constituted taking alcove to the woodshed for his sycophantic and under-researched comments, but, seeing he went to school in the 70′s, I’ll chalk it up to that & let it slide

The Libertarians, I now recall more clearly, drew considerable fire from the young editor of the student newspaper on Oregon State U. campus (when I was in grad school there in the early-mid-1970s). The editor appeared to be one of those “quasi-religious JSP” types — a rather athletic, brusque, no-nonsense god-and-country guy. He repeatedly referred to Libertarians as “libertines” in his articles, and took a hard-line stand against US draft-card burners (and bra-burners also, I suppose) in the wake of the Vietnam war. The Libertarians on the scene in those times had a serious and viable interest in Amnesty (eg for draft dodgers, those with connections to both sides in Vietnam, and a wider range of divisive issues). I remember being disappointed with that editor’s coverage of the presentations. But economic theory was mostly absent from those Libertarians’ menu, I’m quite sure.

I vaguely remember some visits and presentations by “libertarians” on US university campuses (1970s?). The kind of messages I heard quoted from such gatherings led me to consider that “liberal” and “libertarian” can mean quite different things in different cultures and in different historical periods. Typically, though, economic planning did not seem to be their strong point. I remember associating the name with lawyers that volunteered to defend people that faced arrest and imprisonment for sexual deviations and other blue-law crimes, that were enforced capriciously or in a discriminatory manner. They seemed to be good at ferreting out hidden threats to Constitutional principles, and suggesting legal remedies, but seemed not enthusiastic about broad-scope political campaign strategies that have been traditionally available. The libertarians you speak of seem to be from a set that is not at all well informed as to modern mathematical work (eg Nash et al) that has challenged and beaten up those simpleminded Adam Smith dissimulations. And (my thanks to Sachiko for showing this particular chart) the hard data, showing performance as a function of theory-mix (via political party) chosen, of course, backs up Nash’s mathematical cogitations very impressively.

Unfortunately, I believe we are facing a world-level attempt at another Soviet-style hostile takeover. In the realm of economics, the continuing bail-out strategy of current US leaders is seriously aiding and abetting this process. The recent 0.7 trillion$ action, I recall, handed a huge proportion of its spoils to so-called “British banking interests”, which would be found to be always “offshore” if anybody in the US or UK should go looking for some kind of back taxes or some kind of redress in the courts. At the same time, notice that good old JP Morgan (-Chase?), as of old, has been gobbling up the failing banks with huge hunks of US treasury pork thrown in with each bite (witness Bear-Stearns’ collapse, then WAMU, etc.). That has to be approaching monopoly conditions, which I’m sure runs afoul of British and Australian public laws, as well as US antitrust legislation… and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. At the same time, there has been a huge surge in new military adventures — for which one might well ask who financed or set up causes for these adventures.