Markos vs. Gillespie

It's getting to be a battle to the death between Markos and Gillespie over at Cato Unbound. Bruce Reed is MIA and Harold Meyerson has only made one additional contribution, if you could call it that. For now, it's between Markos and Gillespie.

While I started off optimistic that Markos would help build the libertarian brand among Democratic activists, he's not doing those of us who are already libertarian Democrats any favors. His argument is that a libertarian Democrat is a new breed of Democrat that is in many ways independent of the modern libertarian movement.

The fact is, there is a new breed of libertarian-flavored Democrats that is emerging on the scene. They are no more traditionally libertarian than I am. We don't advocate the elimination of safety-net programs or the abolition of publicly funded education or any of the more extreme manifestations of libertarianism. We don't think that "corporations derive their power from government," hence less regulation will magically make corporations respect my individual liberties (a notion I find patently ridiculous). We are Democrats, after all. Yet we Democrats are also struggling to find a coherent philosophy in a world where globalization has made many of its core precepts increasingly archaic.

Fair enough Markos, you're trying to describe an internal shift in the Democratic Party. Then why the hell did you pick "libertarian" as a descriptor. Why not something else?

And how can a guy so focused on this internal struggle ignore the fact that his side would benefit from allying with libertarian voters who are fleeing the Republican Party. According to Cato's new analysis, libertarian support for the Democratic Party went up from 20% in 2000 to 38% in 2004. Does Markos even want to try to respond to that? Markos admits that the problem with too many Democrats is that they are afraid of standing up on socially liberal issues like gay marriage and the Patriot Act. But he doesn't consider that if Democrats stopped running campaigns as if libertarians didn't matter, they would win more often and perhaps loose some of that fear.

seems to be that Markos wants to use libertarian as a marketing label, but without a clear understanding of what it is that makes a libertarian a libertarian. It's possible to start with a set of premises (the non-agression principle: no initiation of force of fraud; fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, and no deficit spending; when in doubt err on the side of fewer rather than more laws) and build a case for a libertarian-liberal fusion grouped around the Democratic Party. It's also possible to simply argue that libertarians should cast a tactical Democratic vote in 2006 because divided government is preferable to one party controlling all branches. Kos is doing neither. What he does seem to be doing is preaching, "you're wrong on issues A, B, C, and D and that's why you should change your views", which almost ensures him a hostile reception.

If libertarian candidates can run in both parties, it would help in disrupting total party consensus. As it is now, congressmen and congresswomen in both parties kowtow to its party's agenda, instead of constitutional representation. In my opinion, what's needed is a bi-partisan Freedom alliance of Democrat Libertarians, Progressive Libertarians, Libertarians, and Republican Libertarians to shake up the status-quo. Obviously, all in this alliance are not going to see eye to eye on every issue. However, I believe the differences are going to be few and these differences can be easily worked out so that a reasonable pro-freedom policy can be advocated.

the right of self-ownership.

from this you must construct a system that addresses the concern traditional democrats have for social justice and equality that does not effect efficiency and liberty.

distributive justice advocates (mutualists, georgists, distributists, agrarians) understand that the roots of this theory is with classical liberalism (Physiocrats, Locke, Paine, Jefferson) and that something changed with the onset of the neo-classical/marginalist utility revolution which the Austrian school is the prominent voice for.

it was creating the amoral, "dismal" science of economics out of what had been called the study of "political" economy a social science based on ethics.

the ethics that was excercised out of the production equation was the treating of the natural and social commons as simply "unowned" prior to the application of labor rather than owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.

by doing this they have created a system of externalities that make a mockery out of the fundamental tenet of libertarianism as the right of self-ownership has been violated by the costs FORCED on those being excluded by privatization as costs are socialized.

"right" libertarians want to privatize more without ending privilege

libertarian democrats apparently want to continue to allow privilege and regulate and tax after the fact of production but just get the government out of the social sphere.

'left" libertarians are the only ones who have the right approach.

end taxation on labor and capital from the bottom up.

end privileges, subsidies, barriers to entry from the top down.

capture the economic rental value of enclosing the natural and social commons and return it to the owners of the commons in the form of a citizen dividend/basic income guarantee that puts a floor under wages and creates a true cost pricing system ending externalities.

someone plase tell markos this before he does anymore damage to OUR cause!!!

What has Markos offered in except to libertarians except that his Democrats aren't these Republicans? I wouldn't identify myself as a libertarian, but what Markos proposes is ridiculous.

He described the vast spectrum of Democrats in the nation without reconciling those from the Mountain West region and those of New York and Massachusetts. He describes a shift in Democratic party as libertarian without basis in libertarian ideas. It's an attempt to co-opt the libertarian brand for his own purposes. The shift in the Democratic party doesn't appear to a change of heart within the base. It appears to be more a change in composition. The crazy left shielded from reality by academia hasn't changed at all.

There is no mention of the debacle going on in Connecticut. While extending what appears an invitation to a more inclusive Democratic party, he is waging a vicious campaign against Joe Liebermann for lacking alliegence to the Democratic Caucus.

While in this election, I'll probably vote Democratic and will definitely not vote Republican, I would rather the libertarians create a strong third party, and in absense of that try to reform the Republican party.

It's practically impossible to have a "strong third party" in the USA unless we modify our election system with something like instant-runoff voting and/or proportional representation...or unless the vast majority of the population abandons the "wasted vote" myth and bothers to educate themselves about their options.