Progressive Libertarianism

It has often been said — though not often enough — that democracies cannot be empires, and empires cannot be democracies. This has never been more evident than now, when our own “democratic empire” has become less and less representative of the people in these United States. However, this is a fault of representative democracy — the larger it gets, the less representative it becomes. It may still represent the majority, but as the represented population gets larger and wider in scope and diversity, the majority does not always make correct decisions for everyone in the population. Hence, the fewer people a representative democracy represents, the more representative it will be.

That is why our Founding Fathers saw the importance of having a constitutional republic oversee this collection of representative democracies, and for this collection of democracies to be ruled by law. They established what freedoms the people would always be entitled to, and specifically limited the government’s powers, therefore always allowing people to have a certain amount of authority over their government. Anything not addressed within those guidelines could be left up to the local government, so the people living in those areas could be as happy as possible.

All of these thoughts came to me while I traveled to Austin, Texas in February. I was visiting for a national Libertarian Party conference in preparation for my U.S. Congress run in Ohio’s 12th District against Pat Tiberi and Paula Brooks, and was completely blown away by the unique culture, intelligence and overall freedom of the City of Austin. It is hands down the most progressive libertarian city I have ever been to — thanks to its progressive libertarian people and local government. Read More

Stephen Articles

Mark Lilla is a professor of humanities at Columbia University, where he specializes in the history of ideas — in particular, the intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment. Now, one of the principal intellectual legacies of the Enlightenment is the libertarian tradition, so it was not at all inappropriate that Lilla’s article in the May 27, 2010, issue of The New York Review of Books is on the growing influence of libertarian ideas in American society. Lilla writes of the “libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now.” He writes of “the libertarian spirit [that] drifted into American life [over the past 50 years], first from the left [during the 1960s], then from the right [during the Reagan '80s].” He writes pessimistically of how this “libertarian spirit has spread to other areas of our lives,” but he reserves his main pessimism and hand wringing for the impact of this libertarian spirit on our national political life. “Welcome,” he writes, “to the politics of the libertarian mob.”

The “politics of the libertarian mob,” according to Lilla, is “[a] new strain of populism” that is “anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither.” He points out that “[h]istorically, populist movements [have] use[d] the rhetoric of class solidarity to seize political power so that ‘the people’ can exercise it for their common benefit.” But the “populist rhetoric” of the “libertarian mob” is “something altogether different.… It fires up emotions by appealing to individual opinion, individual autonomy, and individual choice.”

More important, according to Lilla, this new populist rhetoric of the libertarian mob is “all in the service of neutralizing, not using, political power. It gives voice to those who feel they are being bullied, but this voice has only one, Garbo-like thing to say: I want to be left alone.” This rhetoric, Lilla tells us, “appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that.”

And, in Lilla’s view, such “petulant individuals” are legion in America today. “Many Americans,” he writes, “a vocal and varied segment of the public at large, have now convinced themselves that educated elites — politicians, bureaucrats, reporters, but also doctors, scientists, even schoolteachers — are controlling our lives. And they want them to stop.” Read More

Stephen Articles

This video presents the case for life, liberty, property, and the principle of non-aggression towards others. Simple yet eloquent, this presentation will change how you view the world around you.

Stephen Videos

Proposition 14, also known as a Top Two election system and mistakenly called an “open primary”, would abolish our current party primary elections and replace it with a free for all June election to pick the top two candidates for the November election. Only two candidates will appear on the November ballot, even two candidates from the same party, and write-in candidates will no longer be allowed.

Presently during the June election, voters affiliated with one of the ballot qualified parties choose their party’s candidate for the November election. Currently in the November election each party’s candidates competes against each other along with any independents, giving voters more than two choices along with the write-in option.

Proposition 14 turns the current system upside down. All voters would get the same ballot in the June election. Voters would choose one candidate from every candidate running from every party. Similar to the free for all California saw when Arnold was first elected; all candidates from all the parties would compete together in the free for all June election. The top two vote getters, even if both of them get less than 10% and they are from the same party, would advance to the November election.

Proposition 14 forbids voters from write-in candidates for the November election, so if Top Two passes California voters will no longer have more than two choices in the November election; except for the Presidential race.

Visit StopTopTwo.org for more information.

Stephen Articles, Legislation

It seems incredible that in the last days, a fundamental right of the whole of humanity, the freedom of association, has been denounced by the New York Times and all major opinion sources, even as a national political figure was reluctant to defend his own statements in favor of the idea, and then distanced himself from the notion. Has such a fundamental principle of liberty become unsayable?

Or perhaps it is not so incredible. An overweening government, in an age of despotism such as ours, must deny such a fundamental right simply because it is one of those core issues that speaks to who is in charge: the state or individuals.

We live in antiliberal times, when individual choice is highly suspect. The driving legislative ethos is toward making all actions required or forbidden, with less and less room for human volition. Simply put, we no longer trust the idea of freedom. We can’t even imagine how it would work. What a distance we have traveled from the Age of Reason to our own times.

Referencing the great controversy about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Karen De Coster put the issue to rest by turning Rachel Maddow’s question on its head. She demanded to know whether a white businessman has the right to refuse service to a black man. Karen asked, does a black businessman have the right to refuse service to a Klan member? Read More

Stephen Articles