Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have.

Wulf,
I'm a libertarian and a vet, and I think everyone should be obligated to serve. In fact, I think everyone should be obligated to vote, too. In this way, I could say folks on both sides like Bill O' Reilly earned his right to be a public jackass. Am I wrong? Does my desire for everyone to own up to sharing a piece of the responsibility for protecting our way of life make me anti-libertarian? If it weren't for the military, I might not have had the funds to attend college and graduate school. And being a veteran sure made buying my first home much easier. I'm all for the government delivering our mail, protecting our shores, and paving our roads; aside from that, stay out of our business. But remember that "protecting our shores" still requires warm bodies.

Regards,
Hugh

Hugh, I'm always one to admit that the term "libertarian" covers a lot of ground, and doesn't have a good litmus test. But the way I figure it, having the government compell citizens to do anything in particular is authoritarian. Forbidding things - that's understandable. That's law. That's just the difference between a libertarian mind and an anarcho-capitalist (which I clearly am not).

I think your "desire for everyone to own up to sharing a piece of the responsibility for protecting our way of life" only becomes un-libertarian if it stops being a desire and starts being a mandate. I share the desire, personally. But I choose when/how/whether to act on that desire, and nobody can force it out of me. I feel that is supremely American.

Incidentally, being a veteran is probably the only reason I was able to finish college, too. And it did make buying our first home easier, and has made other aspects of my life easier. I really think that community service of some kind (military or not) is good for nearly every young person. But I oppose service obligations, and I feel that is as close to a libetarian litmus test as I can think of.

I welcome any expansion on your thoughts, however - either here or at your site.

Good evening, Hugh, and thank you for posting at Atlas Blogged.

As the one author on this blog who's most likely to agree with you about mandatory service, I still have to concur with Wulf on this one. Don't get me wrong, I think it would do our country a world of good if *everyone* served time in one of our military branches, or...dare I say?...humanitarian causes (i.e. Peace Corp). But I just don't see how anyone can still refer to himself as a libertarian and also believe in compulsory service. It's about as far from libertarianism as you can get. That being said, I will be right there alongside you (i.e. the private sector) in helping to encourage individuals to serve their country in the best capacity they can.

As unlibertarian as Republicans can be, the case for the libertarian Democrat is far from well-made

Indeed. As far as I can tell, the only rational choice for a libertarian is to focus on changing the voting method to something that doesn't necessitate a two party system. Any of them would be better than plurality, but I think AV is the best combination of effectiveness and simplicity.

My next obvious question to you both is whether or not you pay taxes? My assumption is yes, but does that make our system of government anti-libertarian with such a mandate? I can see both of your points that compulsory service is about as anti-libertarian as it gets, but how many people in this country do you think would pay taxes if they were voluntary? Perhaps, instead of compulsory service, the government should offer more incentives for service. I suppose I'm frustrated with so many friends and peers who never served, rarely vote, but take the time to complain about everything that is wrong with the country. Libertarians are for freedom and personal choice on all matters, but some things in life are just necessary for a government to work (e.g., taxes).

Jeff, by "AV" do you mean Alternative Voting? The method of ranking candidates 1, 2, 3 as opposed to just casting a single "for" vote?

If that's the one you are talking about, it has always struck me as a great idea, but I wonder how the implementation goes. Are you familiar with this system actually being used anywhere?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to Approval Voting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

Same as plurality, except you're not limited to voting for one candidate. Rather than selecting a single candidate, you're allowed to mark all of the candidates of whom you "approve". That way, you can indicate support for your true favorite (most likely a third party) _and_ the lesser of two evils.

Obviously, there would be no practical difference in the short term, but it would allow a properly run third party to gradually build support in the long run with the hope that it could eventually challenge the major parties for high profile positions.

Ridiculously easy to implement. The ballot is identical to plurality voting, so all you have to do is modify the machines to count "overvotes".

There are other methods which are considered mathematically superior in that they do a better job of expressing voter intent, but most of them are at least an order of magnitude more complicated.

Hugh, I pay taxes at every turn. Income, sales, I’m pretty sure I paid a Stamp Tax this week. And you are correct in that the reason I pay my taxes is that I fear the repercussions of not doing so. If I did not, the government would get a lot less of my money.

But to your question: Every government is, by definition, a limitation on liberties. It is, by definition, authoritarian – i.e. unlibertarian.

We surrender certain freedoms and subjugate ourselves to the rule of law. That's not pro-liberty. But as I said, I am no anarcho-capitalist, so the basic concept of this is not something I oppose. The problem is that people have very different ideas of how much liberty is an appropriate amount to surrender. It should be easy enough for us to agree that "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." But even liberty-loving people will disagree on what the legitimate functions of government are, and how they ought to be funded. Just because I agree to some level of government (which necessitates service and funding) does not mean that I agree to greater and greater levels of it. I want as little of it as possible.

Interestingly, they just had a variation of this conversation at QandO last week. Allow me to direct you to this article by Dale Franks. I read some of the comments, but I find some of the commenters (for example Tom Perkins) windy and annoying, so I eventually had to stop. Still, it’s a good read.

I think your points about frustration and incentives deserve expansion. I might try to pry that out of you at some point.

Wulf, I couldn't agree with you more about all of what you said. I too am bound to paying taxes for fear of imprisonment if I do not. I think the government gets far too much of our money, and the people who are in charge of managing it, red or blue, seem equally intent on spending every last dime we give, now and into the future. Republicans promise smaller government and fewer taxes on their side, but the Bush administration has been anything but beholden to the party line. Despite his tax cuts for the wealthy, he has already increased the size of government more than Clinton did in his entire tenure, while he has indebted our future generations with massive deficit.

This relatively old article is a refreshing reminder of just how many like-minded people are fed up with both of the major political parties and see the need for a third party. More and more, I notice how we libertarians are spending too much time bashing the left and right, and elucidating how their views are incongruent with ours. I think it would behoove us to focus on a more positive message to the undecideds, as well as others.

As for frustration and incentives, I think democratically...no vote, no voice. Many of my friends and colleagues do not take the time to vote, but they DO take the time to complain about elected officials and government in general. If people want to complain, they should honor their duty as Americans and vote. I'm not sure about more incentives and what they might be. I can say (and I think as a vet, you will agree) that those who wear the uniform should at least be afforded the quality treatment they have been promised, not this Walter Reed crap. Stories like that only serve to hurt recruitment, thus increasing the chances for, dare I say, the "d" word.

Thanks for the QandO story...I'll digest it today.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments: