Best of the Blogs: Jane Galt on Democrats and Economic Freedom
by The Editors
October 9th, 2006
Why Libertarians and Democrats Will Have to Agree to Disagree
by Jane Galt
Asymmetrical Information, October 6, 2006
And now I will alienate a large chunk of my readership by announcing that aside from the New York State races for governor and attorney general, I will probably vote the straight Democratic ticket come November 7th. However, I will do so because our feckless, spendthrift Republican congress deserves to lose, not because I think the Democrats deserve to win. My vote won’t matter anyway . . . the Democrats will pretty much sweep the board in New York State regardless of my vote . . . but it might put a little of the fear of God into Republican politicians, in a way that voting the straight libertarian ticket, as I might otherwise be tempted to do, will not.
The rising number of these protest votes has brought back Markos Moulitsas’ push for the idea of “Libertarian Democrats”. As the party is currently constituted, this strikes me as the equivalent of “Feline Dogs”. Mark Thoma doesn’t go quite that far, but he does try to argue for the Democrats as the real party of smaller government, at least where it matters:
I’m astounded at those who tolerate so many intrusions into their personal lives or the lives of others, intrusions that have grown in recent years, just because their incomes are higher due to tax cuts. The power to tax is but one power the government has, and to me it’s far from the most worrisome one. I want government to lend a helping hand where it’s needed, to regulate markets and overcome market failures, to provide law and order, to protect us from enemies, etc., and I believe that, for the most part, the people in government are well-intentioned and dedicated. But I have no desire for a government that is constantly looking over my shoulder and setting bounds on what I can do, or a government that is any larger than is absolutely necessary. I know most on the libertarian side share that sentiment, but it sure is hard to detect it in today’s political environment.
As I said at the debate I was in last night: who does the average American fear more–the FBI or the IRS? The local zoning board, or the NSA? What does he fear more: the ten commandments on the wall of his child’s school, or having the new addition to the house disallowed by the zoning board, the EPA, or the Americans with Disabilities act? On what does he spend more time: preparing his taxes, earning the money to pay for them, and arguing with the various tax authorities about what he owes . . . or checking for roving wiretaps?
Let’s face it: one of the biggest problems civil libertarians are battling in the war against warrantless wiretaps, and so forth, is that 99% of the citizenry (correctly) believes that the government is not planning to use such measures against them. I’m on the side of the civil libertarians, mind you, but I recognize that this is why all the cries about America descending into a dark night of fascism, and Bush being the worst president ever on civil liberties (which even a light perusal of history reveals as silly), are falling on deaf ears.
For most people, the economic areas of life dominate their contact with the government. And the powers granted to the tax authorities are broader and more abusive than any other civil authority that deals with US citizens. They have their own special, and opaque, court system in which their cases are tried. The rules for criminal acts are, by and large, clear and commonsensical; most people have a pretty good idea of what constitutes assault with a deadly weapon, murder, burglary, criminal trespass, and so forth. People may be falsely accused of being involved in a terror plot, but at least they have a solid notion of what “conspiracy to commit terrorist acts” means. Tax law, on the other hand, is incomprehensibly complex, and the courts tend to make their decisions based less upon what is just than upon what maximises revenue collection for the government. Securities law, environmental law, zoning questions, building codes, and so forth, are similarly flawed.
Democrats say: but look at all the goodies we get! And that’s a fair argument–but not a convincing one to libertarians, who want to maximise freedom of action and minimise interference of government, not maximise security and minimise white collar crime. That’s why they tend to vote Republican: they disagree with the Republicans on many issues, but if you want to minimise the power of the state, you need to hack deep into the apparatus limiting economic freedoms, because that is where there is the most state to minimise. The Democrats will, I expect, get a fair number of libertarian votes this election, including mine. But it will be a vote of protest against the various sins of the Republican party, not a conversion to the notion that sexual freedoms are the only ones that really matter.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
More Response to Libertarian Democrats
Cato Unbound has a response to the idea of libertarian Democrats from Jane Galt. The article helps put into perspective why so many libertarians can get fired up by economic issues but not civil liberties.
As I said at the debate I was in last night: who