Why do Libertarians do Poorly in General Elections?

Great Debates
61

I dunno, I think the impression reflected in the general population is one which has absolutely no idea what the Libertarian Party stands for, much less what the demographic of its proponents happens to be. Let’s face it, many people in this country are so staggeringly ill-informed about politics that they have only a passing idea about the major party platforms; you can hardly expect them to be arguing the merits of the Non-Coercion Principle well into the night.

In 1989, the Washington Post asked people to name as many Supreme Court justices as they could, and got 1,005 responses. Of that 1,005, 71 percent could not name any justice at all. 23 percent were able to name Sandra Day O’Connor, and none of the rest garnered more than 10 percent recognition (with Marshall, Blackmun, Brennan, White, and Stevens getting 5 percent or less). Only 2 people named all nine correctly.

I’d guess that the poll would get similar results if taken now, with Clarence Thomas taking the place of Sandra Day O’Connor as most-recognized, and Rehnquist perhaps gaining a little celebrity for having presided over the impeachment hearing.

My point is this: as much as the Internet is unrepresentative of the public at large, so is the SDMB unrepresentative of the Internet. People here are extraordinarily plugged-in to current events, if you’ll pardon the pun, and just because we’re able to debate the niceties of democratic theory doesn’t mean that the rest of the country knows or could care that much. Many people, after all, have other things to do with their time rather than become an informed political consumer…like working to put food on the table, or tuning out in front of the television after a long, hard day.

I think that the poll question tracer and RTFirefly propose is an excellent way of subverting the “I’m not going to vote for you until you’re popular” paradigm. Until more parties than the Republicans and Democrats achieve substantive name recognition, however, I don’t think the results of that poll will be all that different.

In my opinion, we’ve got to open the scope of debate in this country and start judging campaigns on the basis of policy, rather than as political theater (Gore’s in earth tones!) or a horse race or a game of “who’s got the biggest war chest.”

That’s just my opinion, though. You could be wrong.

62

Just a nit-pick: Julian Simon was not a Nobel Prize winner. Herbert Simon (very different sort of economist) won in 1978.

picmr

63

Hold it! You’re an economist, picmr; tell us, how would a self-regulating market, free from government oversight, likely function for the United States? Tell us, won’t you? :slight_smile:

(It’s interesting to me that libertarians don’t draw more comparisons to the emerging global economic system, embodied in the WTO and the IMF. Though the market itself isn’t self-regulating, the aforementioned institutional bodies charged with its oversight are for the most part instruments of the market, bound less by any particular civic or social dictate than by the economic desires of member nations–a sort of “inmates running the asylum” scenario, I’d argue. Anyway, given the IMF’s failures in Asia, Africa, and South America, it might be best if the libertarians don’t use that organization as a touchstone when discussing the beneficence of the market…)

64

I find it interesting that whenever the subject of Libertarianism comes up here, the Libts will all line up and say that Libtism will 'get rid of taxes, stop world hunger, cure the common cold, AND make your teeth whiter & bighter". However, when we have asked exactly HOW it would do so, and how a “Model Libertaria” would work, the response always is “Libertarianism will not solve every little problem”, and when we say- OK, but how about the BIG problems, and even if Libt dos not solve all the problems, just how would a actual real Libt Govt work, then all we hear is the sound of crickets. I really do not think they HAVE an idea of how a Libt gov’t would actually funtion, (except the no taxes, no hunger, whiter teeth thing), except maybe something along the lines of “If I was God-king of the World, I would…”.

And then they talk about 'deregulation", and how regulations stifle the economy. Well, so far, every time we have 'deregulated" something, it has ended up costing the consumers MORE, and the companies get larger profits. EG, the dereg of electric power in CA. Well, first, that cost the normal user immediately higher bills, because evn tho the cost for the elec went down (by law), the cost of bailing out the Utility companies was added to our bills- net result, a sligtly higher bill. But, wait, in San Diego, the rates were finally deregulated- result- bills 5 times higher during the summer months, and 10% cheaper in winter. Ie.- the consumer got screwed again.

65

What an unfair characterization. Look: Libertarians claim that people can regulate their OWN affairs. Thus, when you ask them how a libertarian government would control this or that, the proper answer is that it wouldn’t.

When pressed for examples of the free market regulating things, they can point to the vast majority of human interaction, which is self-regulating. There are plenty of examples of self-regulation that works very well. Hong Kong was mentioned - the governor of Hong Kong for something like 40 years was a laissez-faire capitalist, and let things regulate themselves without state interference. The result has been wildly successful.

The computer industry is almost entirely unregulated. Is there anyone here who would argue that the computer industry would be better served by having had a large component of government regulation of its affairs?

66

dhanson: I know this thread has gone in about forty different directions since you last posted, but I do want to point out to you that the issues you raise have already been addressed to one degree or another–the conversation’s gone beyond “how would a libertarian government control this or that” to relatively specific policy discussions. Conversely, there are more fundamental issues that some of us believe to be fatal flaws in the practical application of libertarianism; these have also been raised on this thread. I guess what I’m saying is that I look forward to hearing your comments about the rest of this thread, particularly where several people, myself included, have addressed what we feel to be flawed presumptions within the original post.

Regarding Hong Kong, I’d like to get a cite on their unregulated economy and its spectacular success. Also, note that neither Hong Kong nor a proposed U.S. libertarian society would exist in an economic vacuum; I submit that the ramifications of an unfettered market in Hong Kong would be different than if it were tried in the United States–it’d look a little hypocritical, for one, for us to keep bankrolling the WTO and the IMF, wouldn’t it? How would you propose to handle international autonomy issues?

Whoops, sorry. That was a direct policy question, and libertarians don’t like those. I assume we’d just back out of the world financial market, since it is to some degree regulated…however dependent upon the interests of the United States, its corporations, and the corporations of other industrial nations those regulations may be.

67

One reason I am generally reluctant to provide the libertarian solution to “the BIG problems” (whatever they might be) is that there generally is no “solution” that I think is appropriate to force upon people. If I had my own solutions to all “the BIG problems” that would work better than the current methods, I would present them. I think that if the government frees people to solve these problems themselves someone would be able to come up with a solution.

As for deregulation not working, I’ll admit that it has not always lowered prices, but I seem to remember that phone, cable, airline deregulation worked out better for the consumer. I’d also like to ask how well regulation has worked. Regulating gasoline in the seventies didn’t really seem to help the problem. Since the Interstate Commerce Commission was founded, the US has gone from having the best railroad network in the world, to one that seems to lag in technological advances by about 20 years.

If anyone has tried to claim that libertarianism will solve every problem, they’re an idiot. I would claim that in general a free market will provide the best solutions. In addition to those mentioned, F.A. Hayek, David Friedman (was Milton Friedman mentioned?), and Henry Hazlitt are a few more economists that would agree with this assessment. From what I’ve read, Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is an excellent introduction to the way a free market works.

68

The libertarians at the Cato Institute seem to like policy questions. They even prepare a handbook for Congress each year outlining their answers. I can try my hand at policy questions, but would not deign to do so while speaking for libertarians as a whole.

As for “the world financial market”, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Libertarians believe that the United States government has no business telling its citizens with whom they can trade. Does that help?

As for Hong Kong, what are do you need a cite for, its success or its lack of regulation? I don’t think that anyone could claim that it truly lived up to the ideal of the non-coercion principle, but it did come about as close as has occurred anywhere. Hopefully, I will get the chance to visit someday, and offer my own analysis (I will probably be living in Japan in about a year, so visiting Hong Kong would be much easier). I’m kind of looking for somewhere to live to avoid Social Security’s bankruptcy, if it becomes necessary.

69

The chief problem with Libertarians is that, while some of the leaders are thoughtful and coherent, many of the supporters are neither. With a small party, the incoherent can be just the ones that get quoted by reporters hanging around a rally.

70

Not really–do libertarians believe that the United States government has any business telling the citizens of other countries with whom they can trade? 'Cos that’s what it does basically, through the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund–albeit in concert with the governments of other wealthy nations. You’re familiar with the concept of a “world financial market,” right? Read some Friedrich List sometime; he’s sandwiched in between Smith and Marx chronologically, but he offers a bit more of a forward-thinking perspective than either of them. Anyway, I understand that libertarians wouldn’t want their own government telling them what to do when trading overseas…in what way does this preclude the government guaranteeing favorable trading conditions overseas, especially when it involves the liberalization of otherwise closed foreign markets?

Both, if you please. To quote Rosencrantz, “First I’ve heard of it.” Any information would be most insightful–if you could find some information not associated with either the Cato Institute or any Austrian, however, that’d be even better. :slight_smile:

71

From the CIA World Factbook Entry on Hong Kong for 1999(edited for length):

For comparison, the per capita GDP purchasing power parity for Japan is $23,400, or $300 more. Whether you consider Japan successful is up to you, I guess. Keep in mind that Hong Kong has almost no natural resources, is about six times the size of Washington, DC, and 100 years ago was a small fishing village.

Now for Milton and Rose Friedman (Chicago School, not Austrian School) in Free to Choose, which is admittedly out of date now (written c. 1980):

For details of the tax system in Hong Kong, this site has all the details.

72

Gadarene: I have only abandoned the discussion of rationality to the extent that I quickly became bored with the same old, same old. Just tell me how much of my money you want is needed to solve all of society’s problems and I’ll submit a check for my portion posthaste.

Daniel: Your straw army is on fire. As usual.

73

pldennison said: *Kimstu: You should do your homework. astorian is right behind oldscratch on the “People I would never mistake for a Libertarian” list. So why are you misattributing your reservations about Libertarianism to someone who doesn’t even subcribe to its philosophy? *

Thanks for the correction about astorian’s beliefs, Phil, but my query still stands with respect to some of the comments from posters like water2j and Bassguy who are self-described admirers of Libertarianism:

So even without counting astorian, we have no shortage of people who espouse Libertarianism but don’t seem to consider most of their fellow citizens sufficiently principled to make a Libertarian society a success. My question still stands, therefore.

*You apparently are having a difficult time distinguishing between laissez-faire capitalism and giving millions of tax dollars to Pillsbury Corporation to promote its products in Europe. It’s a distinction worth looking into, if you’re so inclined. *

Phil, if you’d read my post more carefully, you’d see that I explicitly made the distinction between Libertarian laissez-faire capitalism and supporting corporate welfare. To wit, I said:

My point, which I think was quite clear to everyone else, is that even without promoting corporate welfare, the Libertarian philosophy is so pro-corporate in general that it would not provide a hostile business climate. Are we clear on that now?

74

Kimstu:

For one thing, I hardly think that this opinion is unique to Libertarians (or at least some Libertarians). Over on the “Would a true democracy be a good thing?” thread you’ve got plenty of non-Libertarians talking about how Americans are just too stupid (well, “uninformed”) to handle voting for everything.

(Sample quotes:

)

I don’t believe that any of the people I quoted here are self-identified Libertarians. Some of them, in fact, I know to be liberals. So let’s not pretend that some Libertarians are the only holders of this opinion, or that they created it out of whole cloth. Apparently this is a pretty common belief among people from all over the spectrum.

For another thing, I think you can find many people, both here and among the general population and from all political walks, that think that personal responsibility is in sharp decline in modern America. I even believe that both major party candidates are making it a cornerstone of their campaigns.

Finally, I don’t happen to be of this opinion. I believe that human beings, working in a context of unfettered freedom, are capable of ingenious solutions to problems.

The fact that Libertarians tend to be pro-capitalism (since planned economies and other economic systems are by their nature un-libertarian) might make it appear that they are pro-corporate, but in fact they are pro-market.

If Microsoft and Wal-Mart have engaged in coercion and fraud, then they should be punished for such. If their market dominance is a result of free consumer choice, then their regulation amounts to nothing more than class warfare and misguided egalitarianism. I confess to being unfamiliar enough with both situations to not know.

Again, Libertarianism as such is neither pro-corporate nor anti-corporate; it is corporate-neutral. It is, however, pro-market. That does not give corporations free reign to engage in fraud, coercion, or robber-baron capitalism.

75

Honestly, Phil? The reason we keep asking is cos we don’t ever get any serious response. (Serious as opposed to “just tell me how much of my money you want…”) None that I remember, anyway. So humor me, wouldja?

And 'cause I’m such a helpful guy, I’ll repost the relevant text:

Seems like a pretty fundamental question to me. If you don’t feel up to tackling the “same old, same old” again, you can just cut and paste from a relevant thread in which you deal with this particular issue. Thanks so much.

waterj2: The important part of that Factbook entry was the very first sentence:

The italics are mine. Given that the United States is the world’s leading economic power, how would a libertarian society address the relatively crucial issue of imports and exports; or, more specifically, of trade barriers and international market liberalization? Do we back our businesses overseas by regulating international trade? What if that involves pursuing a neo-mercantilist economic policy, as we’ve basically done since the Open Door Notes of the late 19th century? And what’s to be done about our membership in, and guidance of, the IMF and WTO? Don’t they contradict libertarian principles?

For that matter, (and listen up, libertarians, 'cause this is a big one) I’d like to know how a libertarian society would resolve the following issues of (necessarily) national policy:

Immigration: In a libertarian society, who decides how open our borders are? I realize most of y’all make provision for some kind of INS-equivalent (gotta make sure all prospective citizens are peaceful and honest!), but who would be empowered to actually make immigration policy?

Capital Punishment: Similarly, how is this hashed out? Who bestows the state with the right to kill? Are we just assuming that a libertarian society will perforce lean one way or another on the issue? If so, which way, and why? If not, who decides?

You see what I’m saying? There are certain issues which can’t really be privatized. What sort of provisions does a practical application of libertarian philosophy make for those things?

76

Gadarene:

Unless I am causing direct harm to another person, I reserve the right to make irrational decisions. And I respect your right to make them, too. That’s the most cogent answer I can give.

I trust people enough to recognize and respond to developing situations in their communities with creative solutions. You, apparently, do not.

Who is “we”? You? Or me? Are we making each other’s decisions, or have we vested some third party with the power to make diplomatic and economic decisions on our behalf?

Can you please try and think outside of a nation-state paradigm when discussing the topic? I’m not being snide, but you seem incapable of doing so. All of your questions are directed towards the concept of what “we,” as members of “the nation-state” are going to do. Maybe you want to do something different from what I want to do.

Why “necessarily”? Again, with the nation-state. Is that the only viable form of organizing? Really?

“Our” borders? Do we own some sort of property in concert with each other? I decide how open the borders of my property are; you decide the same for yours. I will protect mine however I deem necessary; you will protect yours.

If you mean, “How will the United States do it, except by United States I mean if they were Libertarian, except I wouldn’t actually change anything about how the United States does what it does,” I have no idea.

We do?

I see you’re drafting from Daniel’s army. Watch out, those guys go up fast.

Property owners.

What “state”?

Really? Huh. Privatization almost always results in greater efficiency and cost savings. Sounds like a good idea to me.

I think you’re less interested in the answers than in pronouncing them a priori ineffective. If I’m incorrect about that, I apologize, but I suspect that any answer that doesn’t contain the words (in some order) “government,” “solve,” “will,” “taxes” and “increase” won’t be good enough for you.

77

Oh, I see. So basically, you’re talking about the dissolution of the United States into a number of anarchic enclaves consisting of consenting property owners. Yeah, I’ve got no idea why libertarians fare so poorly in general elections.

By the way, here’s something you might want to take a look at.

78

You are incorrect, and your suspicion–after the several dialogues we’ve had–leads me to believe that either I’m not being very clear or you’re not listening particularly hard. No offense, but I’m inclined to believe the latter.

And if you don’t like it, you can go taxes government will increase solve. :slight_smile:

79

Hey, look, you asked the damned question. Do you want to ask, “When starting from the ground up, how would a Libertarian society work?” or do you want to ask, “How could we have a United States that does exactly everything the exact way it does it now, except we’ve stuck a Post-It[sup]TM[/sup] note on the Constitution somewhere with the word ‘Libertarian’?” You decide which question you want me to answer, and I’ll answer it as best as I can.

You want to know who controls immigration levels? (My preference, by the way, is for open borders worldwide.) Well, who owns the land? You? Me? Someone else? You, me, and John Corrado? If it’s the latter, then who gets to decide? You, me, or John? What if you and John want the same level, and I want something different, but I don’t have enough money/power/whatever to get one of you to agree with me?

If you want to have a discussion with me, please don’t condescend to me. While I may not be an economist, or a political scientist, or a great intellect of any kind, I am not an idiot.

What you appear to be looking for are answers which describe a process, under a Libertarian context, which would result in exactly what we have now in the United States, only more so. I’m afraid I’m incapable of giving such an answer.

80

Immigration is only a problem insofar as we have lots of free goodies to hand out to citizens. If charity is voluntary, and employers are not forced to hire certain people, and my income will not be confiscated and given to others, then there is no public immigration problem. That’s what PlDennison is getting at: Immigration becomes an issue only for individuals, because there are no public goods being used.

Imagine a situation today where we said that anyone can emigrate to the U.S., but they won’t qualify for Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. until they have been gainfully employed for ten years. The only ‘social benefit’ we have is a one-way ticket back to their home country if they want to use it.

Would this not solve many of the problems we currently have with immigration? Of course the racists would still argue that we don’t want ‘them’ taking ‘our’ jobs, but I’ve never been fond of that argument. That goes for the nationalists who think the same thing. There is no such thing as ‘our’ jobs - there are only employers and employees. If I own a company and need to hire someone, I should have the right to choose whom I want to hire. My jobs are not a national resource for you to hoard and control.

As for tariffs, Libertarians believe in free trade.