Lots of people have these disconnects in their thinking about politics (and they're thinking in general).

I think it was milton friedman who took the approach that there was only one fundamental right, and that was the right to self ownership. That meant you owned not only your thoughts, and the words that followed, but the product of your actions, your work. This means that what people traditionally think of when they talk about civil liberties, and economic freedom spring from the exact same concept; they can't be separated. Because ultimately libertarianism (and more generally freedom) is based on individualism.

But don't listen to me, I joined for the drug policy!
greg | 12.19.07 - 11:08 pm | #

I'm a bill of rights libertarian, who believes in small government primarily because big government is dangerous to individual liberty.

I believe civil liberties to be the heart of freedom. Everything else is secondary. There are certain aspects of fiscal libertarianism that have a direct impact on civil liberties and then I'm interested. Corporate and tax libertarianism, in contrast, tend to seem frivolous and uninteresting to me. I understand them and appreciate them, but they're not of high importance. And I have no interest in the single-issue tax-cut "libertarians" -- some of whom don't really seem to care if government spending is cut as well.
Pete Guither | Homepage | 12.20.07 - 12:46 am | #

it's the classic modern libertarian divide, right? cosmopolitan libertarians or classic liberals.

as for me? ditto what greg and milton say. its all unseperatable, but maybe 2-5% of the population agrees/sees this. so you take allies where you can get them. or else you get no results.

its tough for something like drug policy. you can find yourself standing next to people who are ideologically opposites to you on everything but the drugs and crime. but whatever, you appreciate that they "see the light" on one issue and hope for the best in the others. doesnt do any good to worry about their purity.
Rob | Homepage | 12.20.07 - 2:10 am | #

I see eminent domain as an economic issue, but that could be splitting hairs. Regardless, it's difficult to disconnect the economic/fiscal from the social/civil. When the government is paying for our healthcare, smokers and fatties are in fact a social cost, which creates a moral impetus to regulate their behavior to protect the investment made by the rest of us.

This link is demonstrated much better (than my bumper sticker example) by my college economics professor, Bob Lawson. He is involved in the annual "Economic Freedom of the World Project," which uses various measures of political and economic freedom across over 100 countries to demonstrate the link between economic freedom and political freedom, prosperity, etc. http://www.freetheworld.com/
mike | 12.20.07 - 8:11 am | #

I'm an economic libertarian because I think social policies should be driven by the costs associated with them. Since the government will levy taxes to pay for "common good" welfare projects (streets, police, fire, etc), the issues addressed or ignored by these projects should be driven by economics--can we achieve our goal with the resources available?

I really think the problem with government lies in the self-sustaining vs. perpetual growth models: people want to achieve more and people in government want to do more after they've accomplished what they started. Very few people want to just be a caretaker of the status quo. This is economically unsound when the government doesn't actually generate any wealth for itself--it moves from a symbiotic relationship to a parasitic relationship as it's growth outstrips it's return to the host.

Oh, and the hookers and weed.
Area Man | 12.20.07 - 1:31 pm | #