Peter Dreier of Occidental College writes that David Brat, who beat Eric Cantor, is the worst kind of libertarian. He is so far to the right that he doesn’t believe in any minimum wage. He is a follower of Ayn Rand. Imagine electing a man to Congress who doesn’t believe in government. Dreier predicts Brat will be a reliable ally of crony capitalism and big banks, all celebrating selfishness. He may be against the Common Core, but this is a man who should be defeated. What kind of society ignores festering social and economic problems?
His opponent is Jack Trammel. Both Brat and Trammel are professors at Randolph-Macon University.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
libertarians believe in government. Government as a necessary evil. The only problem function of government, in the libertarian point of view, is to punish the initiation of violence, protect private property, improvised courts for the civil disagreements of the citizens. There are some public goods that libertarians of every stripe recognize.
.
The the ignorant comments made about libertarians should send one to the books to find out exactly what a libertarian is.
Not all Libertarians favor government as the protector against violence. I have read many who want private security firms to replace the governance monopoly on violence. Also, I think it is open question that the sanctity of “private property” should trump all other concerns.
Private property is the basis for all other rights. Without the right to private property you do not have the right to your own life. If want what your life produces to support your life and the lives of those you care about, then private property must be protected from the arbitrary confiscation and seizure by others. otherwise you have no rights at all. This is one of those self evident rights mentioned in the founding documents and are a part of the Enlightenment. Without private property we are nothing but a herd to be shepherded by tyrants.
Miller…I agree whole-heartedly with both your posts.
I think libertarians put too much faith in the ability of decentralized markets to solve all of the economic problems of society. Both governments and firms arise because of the inability of markets to coordinate some activities. Libertarians are correct though that markets are often a good way for folks to cooperate and that there is government failure as well as market failure.
I lean toward libertarianism, but I recognize that a super-wealthy individual or group of individuals, or corporations, can be as harmful to the average citizen as any government. It seems to me that at the current time, our government, our freedoms, our choices are for sale to the highest bidder, and anyone or anything which narrows opportunities and sets up roadblocks against the average citizen is a tyrant, whether governmental or private. At least when it comes to government, one can pretend that one has a say in the successes and the failures . . . though the unregulated bankers, hedge fund managers, and their ilk are rapidly showing us the measure of that lie.
Blind Noise,
The caveats in your post, are well-stated.
I think that a libertarian would reply to Blind Noise by arguing that the way to prevent the government from being for sale to the highest bidder is to vastly limit the number of things that the government can sell.
How does one prevent politicians from being for sale? Given selfishness and the desire for one’s status quo, position, and power to continue, what is for sale is not services contracts, etc., but our “elected representatives” — and after all, if that is what the market will allow, who am I to complain? It’s just freedom of speech . . . which is now for sale.
I think the theory is the less you allow a politician to do less folks are less interested in buying them. Any permit creates the possibility to solicit a bribe, any change in regulation is a potential source of campaign funds.
The very *act* of running for a political position requires acts of bribery, promises made, and so on. A truly average American citizen does not stand a chance of being elected unless he or she “plays the game”.
I am not that pessimistic.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx thank you, blind noise, you sound like an actual libertarian.
And somehow this guy is a college professor. What are the odds that he will turn out to be one of those hyper-conservative eco profs that the Koch’s et al have paid to plant in college settings in order to push Rand’s gospel of selfishness out into the world.
Peter, you have this guy tried and convicted before he even gets to the general election. Bill Ayers was a college professor, so was his wife. There are a lot of both kinds of people out there. Why don’t you wait until the general election is over and see how he does before casting aspersions on the man?
I feel quite comfortable casting aspersions on him based on what he has already had to say in the process of running his primary campaign.
Brat(worst) is definitely not a healthy choice.
I support certain Libertarian-ish ideas: local control of schools by democratically elected local school boards, instead of federal control and Common Core. Simplification of tax codes that eliminates handouts to corporations. In foreign policy, Ron Paul, and now Rand Paul, are more anti-interventionist than Obama and Hillary Clinton, and I applaud that. Rand Paul has said he is for very gradually increasing the social security retirement age, in pace with rising average lifespans since the program was instituted, and I agree with that, too.
Ending the minimum wage? No way.
But I think it is important to avoid getting tripped up with political labels. Once I would have called myself a liberal Democrat. Nowadays I find myself agreeing with Rand Paul, Elizabeth Warren, Wendy Davis–people from all over the political spectrum. We should be a nation of ideas and ideals, not dead-end partisanship.
Be careful with increasing the SS age. Those in the lower half of the income distribution have seen scant changes in life expectancy while those in the upper half have made great advances. It is exactly the low-wage workers in physically demanding jobs who who can least afford to wait until 72 to retire.
Raising the Social Security age dooms the program, as hedge fund owner, Pete Peterson, architect of Fix the Debt, knows.
The average U.S. age of death is 79. As an approximation, people are not going to be willing to pay into a system for 52 years, ages 18-70, with a 50% chance of collecting for 9 years or less.
One suggestion offered is to change the spousal guarantee of benefits, after 10 years of marriage, to 15 years of marriage.
In 1970 the life expectancy was about 71 (I think that is where you are getting the average age of death being 79) and the full benefits retirement age was 65. That was only six years different.
The 30 years preceding 2014, in contrast to 1971, were characterized by pay interruptions due to job insecurity, fewer pensions and years of stagnant wages. All of which, make retirement income from Social Security, a more critical component of well-being in older age, as the plutocrats know.
I agree with Ang, the 1% need to pay more into S.S. They consume a disproportionate share of resources relative to their productivity, which may be less than nothing, if they are financial services like hedge funds.
Or we could consider scrapping the SS payroll tax cap.
“Many people don’t know that any income above $117,000 per year is not taxed by Social Security (this limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation). That means that someone who makes twice the cap this year – $234,000 – pays the tax on only half of his or her wages. And those lucky enough to make at least $1.2 million per year are taxed by Social Security on less than one-tenth of their income.”
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap#ixzz34j410Hi4
Ang,
That would help, but it would only get us part of the way. Social Security is a relatively easy fix compared to Medicare, however.
It also doesn’t touch the income of people who income is not derived from wages.
Brat won because of populist anger against Cantor. This was a throw the bums out situation. Brat will of course when elected act just like Cantor. He lied to get elected just like Obama.
Andrew…How do you know he lied? How do you know he will act like Cantor? Were you there in his mind? How can you or any other person presume to know what is in another person’s mind? It’s like presuming to know the will of God.
Are you saying that this guy is like God? If not, then you may want to be careful with your similes. It’s actually relatively easy to know a candidate’s idea on things–that’s the whole point of campaigning! If we don’t know what the candidate wants to do, then WHY should we elect him/her?
The will of god???
There ain’t one-yeah both will and god.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes he won because of populist anger against Cantor. The rest of your comment is just name-calling. Cantor, once in office for a while, found some ways to make bi-partisan deals (i.e., actually did some governing). The electorate perhaps didn’t like that– or perhaps just didn’t like that Cantor became a national figure & didn’t pay enough attention to the locals. Brat, too, may, after enough time in office, find that one cannot govern w/o making bipartisan deals.
I get confused with these uber-conservatives who simultaneously praise God, and worship at the altar of Rand. Is there a sect that believes disrespecting/exploiting all-of God’s creation (including other people) must be okay…otherwise why would God let me get so rich and powerful doing it? Are you a super-Christian for a consuming self-interest and belief that greed and motivation are synonymous?
It is a deeply weird combination, given Ayn Rand’s deep contempt for religion and the people who followed it.
John Rogers, “There are two novels that can change a bookish 14 year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a life long obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
Love Linda’s response.
Linda: TAGO!
My treat at Pink Slip Bar & Grille.
😎
Brat’s Libertarian label may mislead if it serves as a disguise. Closer to the truth are Brat’s comments like “This win was a gift from God.” and “This win was God’s miracle.” or “God worked through the people to win this election.” Dan McConnell’s questions are important. Are all forms of exploitation, greed and destruction of the democratic public good a very good thing under the rule of a God defined by Brat?
Hear, hear!
It’s not just limited to Brat…It’s a GOP guiding principle. Defense of marriage, right to life…mainstays in their platforms but where you fall on these isn’t really important because the real issue is the GOP moral convenience of insisting on the flag, the ten commandments, and a spectrum of aversion to rabid animosity towards non-western religions (or towards an absence of religion/religious neutrality)…while at the same time knowing they have an epic Christian fail when it comes to the teachings of Jesus. A comfortable, paternalistic and entitled old-testament plantation style belief mixed with a dash of Ayn Rand is an easier way to reconcile their lack of restraint and obligation to anyone other than self.
Dan, I just want to say . . . you’re awesome.
I’m not sure I really understand your statement, but leaving that aside, let me ask what is the scope of our obligation to our neighbor?
We are obligated to not limit our neighbor’s access to success as the means to increasing our own. Sustainable resources means sustained, strong and cohesive society.
I think back to the teachings of the FOX philosopher, part time fake street beggar and ambush interviewer of the ignorant, Johnathan Stossel, Once on The Factor, he described the tragedy of the commons as the lesson colonists learned when lazy colonists failed to work but still expected to be supported by the work done by others on commonly held land in the colony. The saving grace, according to the mustached sage was the initiation of privately held land and a profit motive.There was no discussion on who likely made the rules governing ownership, got the best land, or who was forced to work it.
The true tragedy is what we see in Rand/GOP self-interest unfettered by morality or obligation to the commons. The REAL meaning of the tragedy of the commons isn’t about the lazy who do not go out and seize the commons and expect to be supported by others that do-it’s about the commons depleted for ALL through the greed/consumption/ownership by the few.
Frankly, Dan, I doubt you can identify specifically any oligarch who is occupying “land” that someone who wants to get ahead needs to “farm.” What kept you down? Anything?
I am borrowing the philosopher Stossel’s metaphor, but relaying it in a way more true to it’s intent (rather than an unapologetic self-absorbed uber capitalism translation). The commons is no longer land, but the economy and government that is supposed to stay healthy and active, sustaining those who work to sustain it. The reality that efficient managers of the commons may have some greater measure of wealth and privilege is acceptable, when they truly work for the better of all. But the system, the government and the protections of the constitution are being gamed by the wealthy (defacto government) to generate speculative pretend wealth for the already wealthy, on the backs of actual workers producers who are being strangled off from the rewards of honest capitalism.
But, HOW is that being done, specifically? How was it done to YOU?
Can we hear from anyone who knows what it is that Trammel offers as an alternative to Brat? The media focuses so much on Cantor’s monumental defeat (who cares), and makes assumptions that Brat is the winner in November that, as a non-Virginian, I am wondering what Trammel stands for if anything. Is he pro-teachers and unions, against charters and vouchers, anti-VAM and standardized testing, or is he just another Obama-Duncan-Cuomo-Nutter-George Miller-Emmanuel Democrat shill for big corporate money. If he is the latter, then, to quote Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make.
I would appreciate being educated on Trammel by anyone in the know.
Did some of my own research. Seems as though Trammel was once a special education public school teacher and his wife, Audrie, is currently a special education teacher at Orange County HS in Richmond. And Trammel brews his own IPA! So maybe he is worth our support. Hopefully once his campaign gets rolling (there is nothing on his website, absolutely nothing), we won’t find out that he is being bankrolled by Democrats for Education Deform.
What is IPA for those of us who are AI?
I think it to be Indian Pale Ale.
So many microbrews and so little time to enjoy these days!
Chuckle. Try that sense of humor more often.
Oops! I spoke to soon!
There is one better candidate than the other. But long term, they are both horrible.
Does this mean that only libertarians voted in the GOP primary in Virginia?
According to a 2009 Gallup Pole, Virgina tends to lean Democratic in it’s most recent voting patterns in federal and state elections.
In addition, “Republicans” are not the same as “Republican primary voters.” In 2012, Eric Cantor won the general election with more than 220,000 votes. Tonight, Brat beat him with about 36,000 votes. It’s possible and even likely that the vast majority of Republicans in Virginia’s 7th District liked Cantor just fine. But primaries only count the people who come out to vote.
The results of the general election will be interesting when people come out to vote who didn’t vote in the primary. Some moderate Republicans might stay home or vote Democratic. In fact, Peter Dreier might be the medicine needed to galvanize democrats who only vote in Presidential elections to get out and vote while many moderate republicans just stay home.
I’m glad to see that the faculty room chatter here on Brat’s victory isn’t entirely devoid of voices sympathetic to constitutionally limited government and to the institution of private property as the foundation of political freedom.
It’s also interesting to see how many other posters, including Diane herself, just don’t get it.
Meanwhile, in Ann Arbor, the school board has issued an ultimatum to the union that unless it agrees to a continued pay freeze for next year, it will abrogate its contract with the union which runs to 2016. A doctor of my acquaintance just got put on his wife’s Ann Arbor Public Schools cadillac health care plan, which he was delighted to report saved him $20,000 a year. His wife recently got hired, not as a teacher, but as a para-pro. What’s the connection?
” A doctor of my acquaintance just got put on his wife’s Ann Arbor Public Schools cadillac health care plan, which he was delighted to report saved him $20,000 a year.”
Yeah, right. I rather doubt that his wife is getting free healthcare, which is about the only believable scenario for a doctor saving $20,000 with his parapro wife’s healthcare coverage.
If the physician was buying health insurance in the private market the premiums can be very high.
It is becoming more difficult to constitutionally limit a government swollen and driven by the very few most wealthy, with the most property, who have convinced someone that their massive wealth=massive voice in government and left the actual workers/producers trailing behind disempowered/disenfranchised while speculation on the worth of workers and what they do has become more important than actually working and producing.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Why? What has any of that to do with the Constitution?
If the Constitution is meant to limit gov’t, and wealth = voice, and corporations are people with lots of money and voice, then the very few with the most money and the most voice are the most unlimited government. The Constitution and the interpretation of it are for sale.
I was thrilled when Palin. McCain and Romney became the frontrunners representing the GOP. This country may be polarized, but they do recognize the mental capacities of people ( after Bush showed them that electing that ‘great guy’ is electing disaster.
I hope the democratic candidate that runs against this brat, will show the GOP how deaf they are to their own consitituents.
They have a very limited constituency.
Dave Brat is a very conservative guy who is running in a very conservative district.
Brat was endorsed (again and again) by Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin (who claims he’s a Constitutional “scholar” but seems to know precious little about it). Brat won because the most conservative voters turned out in the primary. In effect, these voters told Cantor that he wasn’t conservative and obstructionist enough.
Brat has already taken Koch money to set up an Ayn Rand worship program at Randolph-Macon College. Meanwhile, he is also a religious conservative who is ardently anti-abortion, and evangelicals helped him to beat Cantor (who is Jewish).
Brat is a Republican – a Reagan Republican – though he claims to be ‘libertarian.’
He will oppose any tax increase, and he will vote to provide more subsidies to corporations and the rich, and expect everybody else to pay for it.
Libertarians are, in a sense, cognitively stunted. They believe in make-believe. There’s a reason that the Koch brothers fund the libertarian Cato Institute; it is simply a propaganda factory for laissez-faire supply-side economics, which is the economic orthodoxy of the Republican Party, and which has failed miserably. They say (wink) that they are all about freedom (liberty), but really it’s money they care about, and they don’t really like democracy, even though they live to wrap themselves in the flag.
An interesting take on political life now. I always thought Republicans did believe in democracy, i.e. in fair elections, but that it was Democrat politicians who wanted to cheat at the ballot box by buying votes, by promoting multiple voting by illegal voters, and the like. Democrat politicians would have far more credibility with me if they weren’t uniformly opposed to photo I.D. for voting. But they like to call that voter repression, when my suspicion is that they don’t want photo I.D. because it would discourage election fraud. Whatever differences on policy we might have, it does seem that EVERYONE ought to be in favor of honest elections.
Public financing of campaigns. Elephants vs Donkeys matter little. They have joined to keep big money in, people out, and everyone mesmerized by the game.
This is pretty much ironic since Cantor was a member of young guns preaching for market.
Here’s Tom Frank’s recent article about Cantor shake-up and troubling conservativism with a hilarious title.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/15/off_with_their_heads_eric_cantor_the_tea_party_guillotine_and_the_certainty_of_conservative_sell_out/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Again, high sounding rhetoric, anti-wealth. I’m more optimistic about the vote. Professor Brat beat the really big money man, Cantor. It’s still possible. All conservatives (not all Republicans are actually conservative) recognize the debt every citizen owes to the commons, but thinks there is a legitimate limit. Liberal Republicans and Democrat politicians appear to want to have a big state which can grant favors to corporations and other lobbyists, and can regulate in the interests of ideology, making doing business harder. They are the ones, the statists, against whom you should be arguing, not the tea party, or even libertarians. We all believe in the rule of law, but disagree about some of the things that law, manifested as regulations, should be applied to. The CCSS in my view is one of them. Hands off the public school systems, Washington. Is that an example you’d agree with? Jeb Bush and Obama are in the same bad bed together on that, and on immigration. Were do you stand on those two issues, or at least on CCSS?
I feel you may be setting up a straw man here to argue against, for your own purposes, whatever they may be.
Oh, and on elections. We still have them, and I think they are still important. Where do you come down on Photo ID to vote?
If we truly have lost the corrective of the vote, as you seem to think, in saying that money buys all votes, then we have lost everything.
Can anyone say Unhinged? This is what occurs what differing opinions must be confronted by rigid thinking liberals.
The typical throw away line, “doesn’t be in govt.” is meant for the ignorant. To them, no amount of govt. is too much.
Unfortunately, there are times when ultra liberals (some prefer progressive) get bitten in the ASS.
So it is now as Common Core is front and center with what govt should NOT do….yet the liberals among still embrace it.
And, there is nothing wrong with being against a minimum wage, just as it is OK to say it should go higher. Both need to be examined to see the true benefit to the workers and employers, not the politician who benefits.