Skip to main content

Michael Shermer's definition of Libertarianism...

... appears, of all places, in HuffPo.

Shermer, the regular skeptical columnist for Scientific American and longtime debunker of intelligent design claims, is always interesting, and his writings have always made me think he had a libertarian streak.

Here he lays out what technically is not so much a definition of libertarianism, but a point-by-point description of what Libertarian government would look like. In the libertarian spectrum Shermer is pretty close to me, which means not radical enough for a lot of my libertarian friends. I would suggest that he is more properly a constitutionalist, but his points are worth examining:

1. The rule of law.
2. Property rights.
3. Economic stability through a secure and trustworthy banking and monetary system.
4. A reliable infrastructure and the freedom to move about the country.
5. Freedom of speech and the press.
6. Freedom of association.
7. Mass education.
8. Protection of civil liberties.
9. A robust military for protection of our liberties from attacks by other states.
10. A potent police force for protection of our freedoms from attacks by other people within the state.
11. A viable legislative system for establishing fair and just laws.
12. An effective judicial system for the equitable enforcement of those fair and just laws.

These essentials incorporate the moral values embraced by both liberals and conservatives, and as such form the foundation for a bridge between left and right.


Number five (mass education) and Number seven (legislative system for fair and just laws) will be problemmatic to a lot of my friends.

Actually, however, Libertarians don't object to mass education, just a State monopoly on education. And I'm less Libertarian, perhaps, than many of my peers in that I want to drastically reform "public" education in a lot of ways, but I do not advocate abolishing it. I have written on that at length before.

As for that legislature, this is probably the weakest of Shermer's twelve provisions, because "just and fair laws" is so vague as to be a general grant of powers, without even the existing Constitutional restrictions. Shermer, moreover, punts the question of taxation and redistribution of wealth, I suspect because he know that it would not help the case he is making.

Yet, Shermer is describing--or at least hinting at--a system that is less invasive, more protective of property, and possessed of a more limited government than we now have. Which may make something like this a basis for starting discussion with the increasingly disenchanted from both wings of the Demopublican Party.

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
Two things of note, if you read contemporary accounts of McKindley's assassination it reads as if some distant king was killed not the President. He was so far removed from daily life he might as well have been a million miles away. Contrast that with President Obama and the Gates thing.

Second, I think most people agree on the same things in the abstract (i.e. just laws, good infrastructure etc) just not how those things exist in practice.
Bowly said…
That list, to me, reads like a list of what conservatives used to claim to believe in, and why I liked them then.

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba