Libertarian Takes On Occupy Wall Street

I've previously mentioned the common ground I believe libertarians can hold with left and right alike on Occupy Wall Street. Mainly, the bailouts to financial institutions were not just. If we just keep it right there, we can get along. If we start shading it, the coalition that would be falls apart- fast.

I really like what Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle had to say about OWS and crony capitalism, in a recent press statement:

"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.

"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.

"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.

"Unfortunately, hypocritical Republican politicians have taught a lot of Americans to think that 'free markets' means freedom for government and big business to engage in crony capitalism.

"That's not what free markets are. A free market is where the government leaves businesses alone, does not attempt to pick winners and losers, does not stifle competition, does not hand out corporate welfare, and does not absolve businesses of liability for their actions. Most of our economy today does not resemble a free market at all.

I would be interested in seeing an OWS reaction to this statement. Can people on the left agree and draw the distinction between actual capitalism and crony capitalism? Can the left agree that corruption is dependent upon crony capitalism, or do they actually like crony capitalism- so long as the winners chosen are ones they favor, such as green business?

For that matter, can the right see the same distinctions? Can they shed crony capitalism when the chosen winners are military suppliers?

Doug Masson has some similar ponderings today:

It’s always seemed to me that the corporate form should be anathema to Libertarians. It’s a government construct that exists for the purpose of evading personal responsibility.

I quite agree. It's interesting to see some libertarians and folks on the right who love all things business, and should equally cherish self-responsibility, overlook the latter in embracing corporations, merely because corporations are business entities. Business in and of itself is not the same thing as free enterprise.

We all have blind spots. These are the days when it would be a great idea to self-examine and find those blind spots, and acknowledge them. We end up with shitty solutions when we're full of shit.

New Podcast Posted

For LPIN Weekly Podcast #19, I took a different approach, reaching outside the roster of Libertarian Party leaders and recent candidates to Doug Masson, a Lafayette blogger and lawyer who has common ground with libertarians, especially on civil liberty issues, but is not a partisan Libertarian.

Several things occurred to me in leading me to ask Doug to sit down at the microphone.

1. One strategy employed by the Libertarian Party has been to court disaffected supporters of the party with majority power. For several years, it was a courtship of disaffected fiscal conservatives, as Republicans delivered smaller government rhetoric alongside exponentially growing budgets and bureaucracies. As power has shifted to Democrats, we are quickly seeing the delivery of pro-civil liberties rhetoric met with restrictive policy by the Obama Administration.

2. When you only talk amongst those who completely agree, the tendency to develop blind spots grows. I wanted to hear from someone outside the partisan-Ls in what ways the Libertarian Party is missing the opportunity to draw from the Left.

3. Doug's blog, Masson's Blog, is really excellent. It is the one on the Left that I read daily, without fail.

This and all podcasts are available via this archive link. You know what to do.

Many thanks to Doug for taking the time to sit down with me for this interview.

Interesting Banter

(Crystal Lake, IL)- Doug Masson's blog is one of my favorite Hoosier reads. It's been on my link list for 2-3 years now. He and I agree on a lot of civil liberty issues, but we sometimes part company on economic liberty items.

Doug brought up the topic of inherited wealth. It generally bothers him, so he posted about it. A great discussion has ensued, with me taking the side opposite him. It interests me that some can be very strong advocates for some kinds of individual liberty, but also strong opponents of others. Freedom is not an a la carte item for me. It may not be perfect, especially when placing isolated cases under the microscope, but it's better than the alternative.

It's easy for some to become frustrated with the practice of passing wealth to others when your examples are Paris Hilton or the Astors- the former for bad behavior, the latter for the sheer longevity of that wealth. But what does it matter to you or me? It doesn't pick my pocket. It doesn't prevent me from living my life. No harm, no foul.

Just like issues of civil liberty. Look at gay marriage. How does that pick my pocket? Or prevent me from living my life? Or threaten my marriage? It doesn't, and yet there are plenty of people who are bothered by it enough to want to restrict others from engaging in it.

Right and left pick and choose when it comes to examining policy in these terms: Does it pick my pocket? Does it prevent me from living my life? I think that's just it. Too much policy is emotionally driven, and not examined in such terms. If it were, I do believe our society would become a much more tolerant, and happy, place.

As for me, I intend to leave a little behind to my successors, but not a huge amount. I share a good deal of Doug's concern that inherited wealth creates problems for those who receive it. I know I value my own struggles as developmental. But as a parent, I want to endow my children, or perhaps more likely my grandchildren, with a little assistance. Doing so will leave me a happier man at the end of the trail. I do waver on what an appropriate amount is. Being able to make the choices as seems fit to me when the time comes is all I ask for.