Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Sean Speer: Why conservatives are so keen on cryptocurrencies – The Hub

Why are Conservatives increasingly interested in cryptocurrencies?

It might seem like an odd fit at first blush. Conservatism, after all, is something of a backward-looking persuasion. It starts from a premise that traditional ideas and institutions should, as a general rule, be protected and sustained. Theyve come through a process of trial and error over the course of history and therefore deserve our deference and respect.

This call for epistemological humility can sometimes manifest itself in an aversion to novelty and even progress. Michael Oakeshott famously described it as:

to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

The point here is that the conservative instinct tells us that most new ideas are false or wrong precisely because they havent been subjected to the rigours of practical wisdom. Conservatism, in this sense, is the political expression of the famous line from Will and Ariel Durant: Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional response which they propose to replace.

That might seem like an odd philosophical basis from which to embrace something as far-out as digital money. Yet there are limits to mere abstractions about conservative ideas and the conservative persuasion. Samuel Huntington tells us that conservatism must be understood in a specific situational context. Its a contingent perspective that reflects particularistic circumstances. A Saudi Arabian conservative is different from a European conservative whos different from a North American conservative. What they seek to conserve necessarily reflects their unique culture and intellectual inheritances.

North American conservatism has long distinguished itself by its unique combination of a deference to tradition and a commitment to change. In his famous essay, Why I am not a conservative, Friedrich Hayek attributed this mix of posterity and progress to the fact that what North American conservatives are essentially seeking to conserve is a classical liberal tradition. That is to say, the North American conservative is, at some fundamental level, a liberal. His or her conservatism is dedicated to the preservation of the continents liberal ideas, institutions, and values.

Its worth emphasizing this point: North American conservatism is somewhat oxymoronically committed to preserving a cultural and political liberalism which itself is fertile soil for growth, dynamism, and innovation. Its a conservative tradition committed to a set of ideas, institutions, and values that are inherently pro-progress.

David Brooks spoke to this unique amalgam of ideas and intuitions in a 2018 podcast episode with Tyler Cowen. When asked about his own conservative worldview, he answered the following:

Well, Im anAmericanconservative. My two heroes are Edmund BurkeandEdmund Burkes core conservative ethosis epistemological modesty, the belief that the world is really complicated, and therefore the change should be constant but incremental My other hero is Alexander Hamilton His conservatism was very different. Its about dynamism, energy, transformational change. And so a European self-conservatism doesnt work here. You have to have that dynamic, recreated, self-transformational element.

This applies to Canada too. As Ben Woodfinden and I outline in a forthcoming essay on Sir John A. Macdonalds own conservatism, the countrys first prime minister personified this unique mix of backward- and forward-looking ideas. He was at once a dispositional conservative as represented in his personal preferences and tastes and something of a futurist with an ambitious vision of the frontier that was manifested in his nation-building agenda. As we write:

For his part, Macdonald saw entrepreneurial freedom, limited but energetic federal power, and national greatness as inextricably linked. These instincts for national development were actually quite Hamiltonian. Like the father of the American commercial revolution, Macdonald came to represent a business liberalism which was suffused with a Toryism concerned with a virtuous and ordered liberty.

I share this abridged story of the North American conservative tradition because its important to understand the compatibility of conservative ideas and technological progress in general and conservatism and cryptocurrencies in particular. The conservative persuasion in North America should be generally viewed as sympatico with frontier-like ideas, inventions, and technologies.

These conceptual points bring us back to the more practical question at hand: why are conservatives increasingly pro-crypto?

The first point is to establish that they are indeed showing growing interest in digital currencies. There are various examples, including, for instance, MP Michelle Rempel-Garners recently-tabled legislation that would have the government consult on a framework to encourage the growth of crypto assets in Canada.

Some have dismissed these developments as merely related to the recent trucker protests in Ottawa. But this critique fails to reckon with the broader movement of conservative intellectuals and politicians that has come to support bitcoin and other forms of crypto-currencies in recent years.

The highest-profile proponents arent themselves politicians. The two biggest are probably Elon Musk and Peter Thiel who are investors and entrepreneurs with significant influence on society and culture in general and the world of libertarianism in particular.

Theyve both come to be associated with the growing cultural and political movement around crypto-currencies through a combination of their personal investments, public commentaries, and large online followings. The former has frequently talked about how he owns crypto-currencies, including Dogecoin, which he has been instrumental in popularizing. The latter has described bitcoin as the one asset that I most strongly believe in.

The appeal of crypto-currencies to Musk and Thiel isnt merely about the financial upside. Theres also an ideological dimension. Digital moneys decentralized nature conjures up possibilities of new, more libertarian economic and political arrangements. Thiel has even argued that if we want to think about contemporary technologies in ideological terms, artificial intelligence can be thought of as communist and crypto-currencies are libertarian.

Its no surprise that in the face of sustained pandemic restrictions, libertarian ideas seem to be resonating more and more these days. In this context, Musk and Thiel have emerged as major figures among a cohort of millennial or Generation Z followers who are drawn to their contrarian rebuke of the stuffy conformity of modern life. Ross Douthat has thus described the rise of folk libertarianismor what others have called Barstool conservatismas one of the key socio-political developments of the pandemic age.

This movement is less steeped in the tomes of libertarian thought and instead more reflective of contemporary cultural and political trends, including the rise of cancel culture, identity politics, and perceptions of government bossiness. Its followers are more Dave Portnoy than Ludwig von Mises.

As a cultural and political movement, its highly active online, a bit coarse and politically incorrect, and mostly engaged in politics from the periphery using GIFs and memes rather than direct action. It reflects a series of intuitions about individual responsibility, personal expression, a commitment to technology and progress, and an aversion to so-called wokeism. Recently, The Hub contributor Ben Woodfinden summed up this worldview and its followers as crypto bros. Hes not wrong.

The key point here though is that there are cultural and intellectual factors behind North American conservativess growing interest in new and novel monetary innovations. Its broadly consistent with continental conservatisms interest in frontier ideas and technologies as well as the growing appetite for non-mainstream, decentralized models of economic and political organization in the face of perceived top-down conformity. But it also possibly holds out the potential to bring new and different votersparticularly members of Canadas sizeable non-voter constituencyinto the Conservative fold. Crypto has therefore become an ideological and political rallying cry for North American conservatives.

Its not to say that there are serious issues with crypto-currencies. The recent volatility raises legitimate questions about whether this is a sustainable market development or merely a hyper-online fad. One gets the sense that the true story is somewhere in the middle.

But as Matt Spoke recently argued in an essay for The Hub, there may be a case for a country like Canada to make a huge bet that the future of crypto is more sustainable than it is faddish. Theres reason to believe that the presumptive, next Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, broadly agrees with this perspective.

To the extent that he does, it shouldnt be viewed as inherently incompatible with the conservative tradition. North American conservatism has since its origins reflected an intellectual and political persuasion with both a backward- and forward-looking impulse. A careful yet curious view on crypto-currencies is well-rooted in this long-standing tradition.

Link:
Sean Speer: Why conservatives are so keen on cryptocurrencies - The Hub

Here’s your guide to casting a ballot in the Texas primary runoff elections – Caller Times

Here's what you need to know if you plan to vote in the Democratic or Republican runoff on May 24.

Texas governor election 2022 race: Abbott vs. Beto breakdown

It's Greg Abbott against Beto O'Rourke in the 2022 general election. Here's what you need to know about their key policy positions.

Niki Griswold and Nate Chute, Austin American-Statesman

AUSTIN The runoffs are May 24 to finally select the Democratic and Republican slates of statewide candidates for statewide and down-ballot races for November. Here's what you need to know.

Any registered voter may cast a ballot in the runoffs. However, voters who voted in either the Democratic or Republican primary may only vote in the same party's runoff.

But voters who sat out the March 1 primaries may vote in either one of the parties' runoffs.

Also, third parties, such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, do not choose their candidates in primaries, so therefore there are no runoffs.

Lieutenant Governor: Two Democrats, 2018 nominee Mike Collier and state Rep. Michelle Beckley of Denton County are competing. The Republican nominee, incumbent Dan Patrick, won his primary outright.

Attorney General: On the Republican side, two-term incumbent Ken Paxton faces Land Commissioner George P. Bush. The Democrats will choose between Brownsville lawyer Rochelle Mercedes Garza and former Galveston Mayor Joe Jaworksi.

Comptroller: Democrats Janet Dudding, an accountant, facesbusiness strategist andcommunity organizer Angel Luis Vega. Republican incumbent Glenn Hegar easily won renomination.

Land Commissioner: State Sen. Dawn Buckingham of Lakeway and educator and minister Westley are competing for the Republican nomination. The Democratic race features Sandragrace Martinez, a professional counselor, andconservationist Jay Kleberg.

Railroad Commissioner: Incumbent Republican Wayne Christian faces oil and gas attorney Sarah Stogner. Democratic activist Luke Warford won his primary unopposed.

If you do not possess and cannot reasonably obtain one of these IDs you may fill out a:

Either a certified domestic birth certificate or a document confirming birth admissible in a court of law which establishes your identity. This may include a foreign birth document.

Under a sweeping elections overhaul bill passed last year, applicants for mail-in ballots must complete a form and list a state-approved ID number such as a driver's license orthe last four Social Security numbers, depending on how they originally registered to vote.

This has caused some confusion in many counties, which has led to rejected applications because some voters do not remember which number they originally used. The application forms can be found on the secretary of state's website.

The site also includes an application and mail-in ballottracking form, similar to one used by parcel-delivery services, so that voters can monitor the progress.

Here's how the Secretary of State's Office explains who's eligible to vote by mail:

John C. Moritz covers Texas government and politics for the USA Today Network in Austin. Contact him at jmoritz@gannett.comand follow him on Twitter@JohnnieMo.

Read more:
Here's your guide to casting a ballot in the Texas primary runoff elections - Caller Times

Andrew Cuomo, Chomping at the Bit to Run for Governor Again, Would Consider a 3rd Party Run – Yonkers Times

On March 17, former Governor Andrew Cuomo told Bloomberg that Im open to all options, when asked if he is considering a run for Governor this year. And when asked if he would consider creating his own party line to run on, he added, Ive done so before. My fathers done it before.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/andrew-cuomo-says-he-s-open-to-running-for-n-y-governor-again-1.1739184

It has only been 8 months since Cuomo resigned as Governor during a sexual-harassment scandal. A recent Emerson poll showed Cuomo trailing Governor Kathy Hochul by only four points, 37%-33%, in a democratic primary. But the same poll found 63% of New Yorkers saying that Cuomo should not run for office again.

By tossing out the idea of running on a third-patry line for Governor, Cuomo is realizing that a challenge to Hochul, his former Lt. Governor, in a democratic primary, is a difficult challenge. Most New York democrats asked for Cuomo to resign last year, including Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, and Attorney General Letitia James, whose report on the sexual harassment allegation made against Cuomo most likely forced him to resign.

Cuomo would have to search for some New York Democrats to support him. And who would his Lt. Governor candidate be?

But running as a third party candidate in New York State, and winning by running only on a 3rd party line, is almost impossible. I think the last time it happened was in the 1970s when James Buckley was elected US Senator from NY on only the conservative line.

Heres the path for a Cuomo for Gov. third party. He would first have to collect about 45,000 signatures to form his own statewide party and get on that partys ballot for Governor in November.

The democrat and republican candidates for Governor would have to agree to debate Cuomo. Plus there is already a third party candidate who looks like he will be on the ballot. Libertarian Party candidate Larry Sharpe is trying to collect the 45,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Sharpe is also said to have the support from UniteNY, an independent group that also might try to get on the ballot this summer.

And when Andrew mentions that he ran on a third party line before and so did his father, both did so when they also had the democratic party line, which they received the lionshare of their votes from. Gov. Mario Cuomo ran on the Liberal party line, and Andrew ran on the Independence, Working Families, and Womens Equality Party lines at different times during his three elections. It is also interesting to note that while Cuomo is considering a third party run, he was the one who forced through changes to the election law to make it more difficult for third parties to exist in NY. Cuomo was made at the Working Families Party for nominating Cynthia Nixon to run for Governor, so he tried to cancel all the minor parties by requiring them to run a candiate for President and get 130,000 votes.

The other, political questions, is who does Cuomo help and hurt if he is also on the ballot in November. Polling will have to be done, but at first look Hochul would be hurt and republican Lee Zeldin would benefit, if both are the democratic and republican nominee.

A recent Comptrollers report about the underreporting of nursing home deaths in NY during COVID reminds voters of the other side of Governor Andrew Cuomo.

And his accusers are still out there, standing by their allegations of sexual harassment. And NYAG James is also standing by her report, and recently called Cuomo a liar.

Cuomo has about $15 Million left in his campaign account after spending $3 Million in TV ads recently. But once the ads against Cuomo start running against him in the fall if he ever gets on the ballot, what happens to any favorability that he has left?

Read more here:
Andrew Cuomo, Chomping at the Bit to Run for Governor Again, Would Consider a 3rd Party Run - Yonkers Times

Stewart files to be the Libertarian Party of Iowa candidate for Iowa Governor – The Iowa Torch

DES MOINES, Iowa Rick Stewart of Cedar Rapids on Monday officially filed with the Iowa Secretary of States office to be a candidate for Governor of Iowa. Stewart was endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Iowa at their state convention in Des Moines on January 29, 2022, and filed over 5,000 petition signatures gathered by friends and volunteers. Since losing major political party status in 2018, Libertarians do not have a primary election, but have to file signatures for the general election in November.

Stewart, 70, was born in Postville, Iowa. He earned a bachelors degree from Coe College in 1991 and an MBA from the University of Chicago in 1993. He is the founder of Frontier Natural Products Co-op in Norway, Iowa, where he served as CEO until his retirement. Stewarts first career was as a law enforcement officer in Maquoketa, Iowa.

He recently ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senator in 2020 and Iowa Secretary of Agriculture in 2018.

Im running for Iowa Governor because it is time for a governor for all Iowans and not just for members of a particular political party. It is time for a governor to unabashedly stand for ending Iowas destructive and bigoted war on drugs. To stand with working Iowa families to ensure all Iowans have access to a quality education that best meets the needs of their children through universal school choice. To stand with Iowans who are threatened with having their property forcibly taken for private carbon pipelines and other projects benefiting the wealthy, or had their businesses shuttered by the executive order while Wal-Mart remained open. Marco and I are the ticket that, if elected, will be the Governor and Lt Governor who stand for all Iowans, Stewart said.

Marco Battaglia of Des Moines will be Stewarts running mate for the partys Governor/Lt. Governor ticket. Battagliais active in local politics, a regular at Des Moines city council meetings and was a candidate for Des Moines city council in 2019. He also earned over a quarter million votes in his unsuccessful 2018 race for Attorney General of Iowa, a record for a Libertarian candidate. Battaglia works in corrections and has a passion for helping inmates through addiction and with mental health rehabilitation that will allow them to become good neighbors upon release. Battaglia is also known as a musician and as a regular on Des Moines metro area radio.

As we campaign across the state, Marco and I look forward to hearing the concerns of our fellow Iowans and finding solutions for Iowans that empower them to make their own decisions through expanded personal and economic freedom. I believe that, if elected governor, I will be an honest broker between the two other parties in control of our legislature, and will work toward solutions that empower all Iowans, not just a privileged few.

Continue Reading

Read this article:
Stewart files to be the Libertarian Party of Iowa candidate for Iowa Governor - The Iowa Torch

The limits of libertarianism – Spiked

Over the past half-century, libertarians have played a critical role in the ever-growing war against governmental nonsense. If you want to read the best critiques of wasteful transit policy, sports stadia, government pensions or cancel culture, you can find it among liberty-minded outlets like Reason magazine, the Cato Institute and numerous free-market think tanks. They have provided a strong and necessary voice for free-market capitalism at a time when it faces serious challenges, notably from China and other state-directed systems.

Yet in recent years, libertarians increasingly seem less concerned with how their policies might actually impact people. Convinced that markets are virtually always the best way to approach any issue, they have allied with many of the same forces monopoly capital, anti-suburban zealots and the tech oligarchy which are systematically undermining the popular rationale for market capitalism.

Perhaps after the endless regulatory assaults of the Covid years, we could be nudging to a libertarian moment, the Wall Street Journals Gerard Baker hopes. But this would depend on having a vibrant social base, whose personal wellbeing is at stake, to push society in that direction.

The critical issue here is class. Libertarians tend to enjoy theory, but flounder when it comes to addressing the actual needs of people. Barely anyone today looks to former House speaker Paul Ryan, with his notions of privatising social security, or to other Fountainhead politicos of his ilk for leadership. The corporate superstructure has moved to the Democrats, while a large part of the GOPs class base notably small businesspeople, artisans and skilled workers feels abandoned by the corporate free-market Republicans and is more attracted to populist politics.

Nowhere is the disconnect between libertarianism and its traditional base of small-property owners more obvious than in housing. In their zeal, sometimes justified, to end the worst zoning abuses, the libertarians have allied themselves with two forces, monopoly capital and social engineers (also known as city planners), whose goal is not to expand the blessings of ownership, but to squelch it for all but a few. Their end game is to leave most people stuck in small apartments.

Libertarians have served as fellow travellers and allies to the hyperactive, oligarch-funded YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) movement. In essence, as former Cato fellow Randal OToole notes, the libertarian right has betrayed the very middle class that most supports conservative causes. OToole, who had been Catos land-use expert since 2007, was forced out in favour of an alliance, as he puts it, working hand-in-hand with left-wing groups seeking to force Californians to live in ways in which they didnt want to live.

Some libertarians see this as a free-market housing fix, although in their worship of markets most have said little about policies that prevent construction on the periphery a principal contributor to excessively high housing costs. Expanded ownership is a noble cause. But it is hardly the intention of the strongest advocates for these policies. Victoria Fierce of the YIMBY pro-density lobby in California, for example, favours increasing urban density in part because it promotes collectivism. In some senses, the approach of some YIMBYs reflects the planning orthodoxy seen in the late Soviet Union. In the 1950s, Alexei Gutnov published The Ideal Communist City, which, while acknowledging the appeal of suburbia, rejected it as unsuitable for a society that prioritises equality and social control.

Yet its not just YIMBYs who favour densification and an end to single-family zoning. This notion also appeals to large financial institutions that seek to develop a rentership society, where homes, furniture and other necessities are turned into rental products, offering an endless cashflow to the oligarchs. Large financial institutions like Britains Lloyds Bank and US investment managers BlackRock are massively involved in this process. In the first quarter of 2021, investors accounted for roughly one out of every seven homes bought in the US a marked increase from previous years. This undermines the chances for wealth creation and aspiration for coming generations, since homes account for roughly two-thirds of the wealth of middle-income Americans.

The current agenda of severe housing and land-use regulation, which libertarians have provided critical cover for, is closely associated with housing affordability losses. Indeed, studies in Vancouver, Canada and several other locations have linked densification with higher land prices and diminished housing affordability. California already has the highest urban density of any US state and suffers from some of the highest rental and housing costs in the country. The densification agenda is already being implemented in places like California, with policies aimed at destroying single-family home ownership at a time when the market has shifted even more towards suburbia. Former World Bank chief urban economist Alain Bertaud has slammed such arbitrary limits on city expansion. The result is predictably higher prices, he says. In other words, in backing YIMBY densification policies, the libertarians have inadvertently pushed prices up further.

The key point libertarians need to understand is that, with the decline of the property-owning middle class, so too goes the market economys natural support base. In 2019 the OECD reported, in Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle Class, that the principal contributor to the decline of the middle classes has been house prices growing three times faster than household median income over the past two decades across high-income countries. The share of national wealth held by those below the top 10 per cent has fallen since the 1980s by 13 percentage points, a similar proportion to that gained by the top 0.1 per cent. Today, roughly half of all Americans earn less than $35,000 annually, living essentially paycheck to paycheck. This middle class may be far less likely to support market-focused policies if they see little personal reason to do so.

In many ways, libertarians, like all of us, are victims of history. The high-water mark of libertarianism, roughly the period from Reagan to Obama, occurred before the decline of the middle classes had become so clear. The Soviet Union had collapsed, and Russia had not yet emerged as a neo-Tsarist bully, and China was still struggling with mass poverty and severe underdevelopment. The US economy, notably its innovation and energy sectors, performed as supporters of a market-based system would predict, and it assured the country a modicum of prosperity and an enviable global role.

Now that China has shown the power of state capitalism on a massive scale, many countries instead look to Beijing for answers to their development needs rather than capital centres like New York or London. Globalist orthodoxy, basically against restraints on trade, has allowed state-supported companies to subsidise production, develop capacities and essentially drive the West out of numerous key markets (we saw this clearly with medical equipment during the pandemic).

Meanwhile, the once entrepreneurial tech scene, like the financial markets of the past, has morphed into a handful of zaibatsu, or oligopolistic corporate conglomerates, whose goal is to control virtually every growth industry, from global entertainment to local news, electric cars, medical services, housing and the Metaverse. Yet rather than defend grassroots capitalism, libertarians have been prominent in defending monopoly power, opposing any effort to employ anti-trust laws on companies with market shares of 80 to 90 per cent, all in the name of defending free enterprise.

Most critically, as opportunity has waned, belief in capitalism is failing, particularly among the young. In the 2016 primaries, the openly socialist Bernie Sanders easily cleaned up among voters under 30, a performance he repeated in the early 2020 primaries, even as the older cohorts rejected him decisively. Annual polling by the Communism Memorial Foundation shows a growing number of American millennials favour socialism over capitalism (and a small minority even say they would prefer communism or fascism to our current market system). By 2024, millennials will be the countrys biggest voting bloc by far.

Well-educated professionals, not to mention lobbyists and elite media, have feasted well in the world of neoliberalism. They have little reason to want to alter the status quo with China, which has created opportunities for them, even as most Americans are struggling, our industrial structure has declined, and the pandemic-caused supply-chain problems have undermined the ability of the market to function efficiently even further.

Industrial policy la Europe or Japan may not be the best solution libertarians could have some useful ideas here. But allowing other countries to avoid environmental or labour norms, while we impose ever more regulations, transforms the whole logic of the market is efficient into a headlong rush into deindustrialisation and decline. The Wests supply-chain issues, which are accelerating the demise of smaller businesses and the continued ascendency of larger firms, clearly require new policies, and libertarians may well have some good suggestions, particularly about what not to do.

To survive, free markets need to prove their current efficacy not just in terms of stock earnings or the personal fortunes of a few. One cannot expect life-time renters or people whose jobs have been sacrificed to the globalist gods to become ready devotees of laissez-faire.

Ultimately, however, more than just economic freedom is at stake. Democracy was born when both Athens and later Rome included small property owners in governance. Democracy died when these small owners lost power to what Aristotle labelled the oligarchia some of the very people some libertarians seem passionately interested in supporting. As nonprofits, oligarchs and bureaucrats plot out the future, small business owners and the middle class, as one entrepreneur put it, are simply not at the table. This class has driven much of the Wests economic progress, nurtured self-government, and constitutes the traditional basis for thriving market systems.

The primary importance of dispersed property was critical in the thinking of such revered figures as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams. All considered the over-concentration of property in a few hands as a basic threat to republican institutions an insight shared by intellectuals like Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville and Adam Smith. As Burke put it, what really matters in the end is not ideology but reality: The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.

Capitalisms greatest opponent, Vladimir Lenin, also saw that free-market capitalism draws its primary strength not from giant institutions or the managerial elite but in the operation of small players in local markets. Small scale commercial production is, every moment of every day, giving birth spontaneously to capitalism and the bourgeoisie Wherever there is business and freedom of trade, capitalism appears, he noted. Capitalism begins in the village marketplace.

To become relevant again, libertarians need to go beyond their dogmatic attachments, focus on bolstering the vitality of competitive free markets. An economy dominated by a handful of oligarchs, who exercise power over information on the major platforms and simply buy up promising competitors, might seem swell to the free-market think tanks, but it is not likely to nurture grassroots capitalism.

Ultimately, the great values that libertarians bring to the policy debate are more relevant than ever. But their suggestions will only be heard if they can demonstrate particularly to the young generation the potential of markets to make lives better. In the end that is the real issue. While libertarians are so valuable in ferreting out government cronyism, they need to face up to the prospect that markets, although theoretically free, are in reality becoming ever more oppressive and controlled.

Libertarian ideas still have great relevance, but only so much as they reflect markets that are open to competition and capable of improving everyday lives.

Joel Kotkin is a spiked columnist, the presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. His latest book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, is out now. Follow him on Twitter: @joelkotkin

Go here to see the original:
The limits of libertarianism - Spiked