Boaz wrote "Meanwhile, Republicans are moving to the wrong kind of right—a culture war pitting Americans against Americans and a new willingness to use state power to hurt their opponents, including private businesses." What he calls the culture war is not coming from the right; they are belatedly and so far not very effectively resisting the left's attack on their traditional values. Nor are they using state power to hurt their opponents, rather they have quit assuming that businesses, now dominated by the woke, are their friends and deserve special favors. We can all appreciate Boaz's (and libertarians' generally) efforts to resist state coercion, but they have never been effective in conserving anything.
It wasn't the Republicans who prosecuted a Christian-owned bakery for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. But maybe for Boaz that comes under the rubric of 'gay rights,' to which Trump is allegedly indifferent. Then there was the conviction of Douglas Mackey for some joke tweet targeted at HRC's supporters. Not to mention the lawfare against Donald Trump. And Peter Navarro is in prison (as Scott Adams frequently points out), and Steve Bannon will soon join him. But according to libertarian Boaz in an essay dated June 2nd, it is the Republicans who show 'a new willingness to use state power to hurt their opponents, including private businesses.' I agree with Guest User - an out of touch movement.
There are a lot of Boaz tributes out there, and I personally respected him greatly for many of his admirable qualities such as his impressive work ethic and indefatigable persistence and determination. Still, I think overall his tenure was characterized by several major strategic failures on net, and perhaps after a suitable period of proper restraint for dignified mourning some retrospective criticisms will emerge from other libertarian fellow travelers who are either on his 'right' or from a more 'purist' perspective.
Forty years ago the public intellectuals who could and would write such compelling critiques would have been easy to find and hard to stop, but today I think there are maybe two or three left and all at least in their 70s and who stopped caring about Cato a long time ago. Boaz himself was 70, David Koch passed away 5 years ago, and Charles is 88.
What things do you think they should’ve conserved? Bush’s militarism and Medicare prescription coverage? Reagan’s massive military spending? Prayer in school? Donald Wildmon’s calls to cancel Seinfeld for mentioning masturbation?
“but they have never been effective in conserving anything.“
And, when someone points this out, the libertarians will play the victim card and claim that they have been “thrown under the bus.” What an out of touch movement.
Also in part because their philosophy seduces them into an overestimation of how much people really do want 'liberty'. They want it Yes....but most of their 8 billion fellow men, not so much.
Glad to see all the tributes to David. His writing along with you, Tyler, Bryan and the Reason crew were ever present in my formative college years when I took a moment to think about what I believed.
He’ll be missed, and it is a shame more college students today won’t have his optimism more present to avoid the bizarre “it’s never been worse” despair these days.
Most non-profits I can think of operate with a heavily advertised position that conditions are awful and they need your help to address the problem(s). climate, environment, threatened species, endangered pets, disease, hunger, poverty, homeless, ...
While maybe you see optimism in that money and effort can supposedly make a difference, there's a bigger dose of these being endless battles we are currently losing. Am u missing something?
It’s the exact opposite. The leasing fundraisers in politics, whether it’s politicians like Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green, or nonprofits like the NRA and Heritage Foundation, are most successful when they pump up the fear. Fox News isn’t the most profitable network because of its hopeful message.
When you need money to sell a marginal, unpopular political philosophy, you need to sell donors on an optimistic vision that you can change people's minds and persuade them to drop old allegiances, despite limited success in previous decades. Fox News' viewers have already bought what they're selling. It's a different situation and requires a different strategy.
Wow this is exactly how I feel. It does not help for polarization that we only have two parties and that we are all in our social media bubbles. Definitely politically homeless here as well. I would like to see some fiscal responsibility in government spending, but cannot bring myself to vote for someone who literally tried to overthrow our government and interfered with the peaceful transfer of power based on a lie.
Can you give any examples? The only ones I can think of are banning CRT and DEI in public schools and government. I don't exactly see that as restricting free speech.
There has been some support for declaring criticism of Israel "hate speech" and making it illegal. Of course, some of it is. But free speech protects hate speech, too.
I've only heard of complaints that not all threats against Jews have been taken seriously as the crimes which they are. No doubt there are differences of opinion on what is hate speech versus threats. I wouldn't be surprised if some on the right include too much as being threats but then the next question is how common that is.
Boaz wrote "Meanwhile, Republicans are moving to the wrong kind of right—a culture war pitting Americans against Americans and a new willingness to use state power to hurt their opponents, including private businesses." What he calls the culture war is not coming from the right; they are belatedly and so far not very effectively resisting the left's attack on their traditional values. Nor are they using state power to hurt their opponents, rather they have quit assuming that businesses, now dominated by the woke, are their friends and deserve special favors. We can all appreciate Boaz's (and libertarians' generally) efforts to resist state coercion, but they have never been effective in conserving anything.
It wasn't the Republicans who prosecuted a Christian-owned bakery for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. But maybe for Boaz that comes under the rubric of 'gay rights,' to which Trump is allegedly indifferent. Then there was the conviction of Douglas Mackey for some joke tweet targeted at HRC's supporters. Not to mention the lawfare against Donald Trump. And Peter Navarro is in prison (as Scott Adams frequently points out), and Steve Bannon will soon join him. But according to libertarian Boaz in an essay dated June 2nd, it is the Republicans who show 'a new willingness to use state power to hurt their opponents, including private businesses.' I agree with Guest User - an out of touch movement.
There are a lot of Boaz tributes out there, and I personally respected him greatly for many of his admirable qualities such as his impressive work ethic and indefatigable persistence and determination. Still, I think overall his tenure was characterized by several major strategic failures on net, and perhaps after a suitable period of proper restraint for dignified mourning some retrospective criticisms will emerge from other libertarian fellow travelers who are either on his 'right' or from a more 'purist' perspective.
Forty years ago the public intellectuals who could and would write such compelling critiques would have been easy to find and hard to stop, but today I think there are maybe two or three left and all at least in their 70s and who stopped caring about Cato a long time ago. Boaz himself was 70, David Koch passed away 5 years ago, and Charles is 88.
What things do you think they should’ve conserved? Bush’s militarism and Medicare prescription coverage? Reagan’s massive military spending? Prayer in school? Donald Wildmon’s calls to cancel Seinfeld for mentioning masturbation?
“but they have never been effective in conserving anything.“
And, when someone points this out, the libertarians will play the victim card and claim that they have been “thrown under the bus.” What an out of touch movement.
Also in part because their philosophy seduces them into an overestimation of how much people really do want 'liberty'. They want it Yes....but most of their 8 billion fellow men, not so much.
Glad to see all the tributes to David. His writing along with you, Tyler, Bryan and the Reason crew were ever present in my formative college years when I took a moment to think about what I believed.
He’ll be missed, and it is a shame more college students today won’t have his optimism more present to avoid the bizarre “it’s never been worse” despair these days.
Optimism is better for fundraising. Not a knock on the man, may he rest in peace, but pessimism isn't going to motivate anyone to cut a check.
Most non-profits I can think of operate with a heavily advertised position that conditions are awful and they need your help to address the problem(s). climate, environment, threatened species, endangered pets, disease, hunger, poverty, homeless, ...
While maybe you see optimism in that money and effort can supposedly make a difference, there's a bigger dose of these being endless battles we are currently losing. Am u missing something?
It’s the exact opposite. The leasing fundraisers in politics, whether it’s politicians like Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green, or nonprofits like the NRA and Heritage Foundation, are most successful when they pump up the fear. Fox News isn’t the most profitable network because of its hopeful message.
When you need money to sell a marginal, unpopular political philosophy, you need to sell donors on an optimistic vision that you can change people's minds and persuade them to drop old allegiances, despite limited success in previous decades. Fox News' viewers have already bought what they're selling. It's a different situation and requires a different strategy.
Wow this is exactly how I feel. It does not help for polarization that we only have two parties and that we are all in our social media bubbles. Definitely politically homeless here as well. I would like to see some fiscal responsibility in government spending, but cannot bring myself to vote for someone who literally tried to overthrow our government and interfered with the peaceful transfer of power based on a lie.
"... and aggressive efforts to restrict free speech in the name of fighting “hate speech.”
Just Democrats? This looks like a bipartisan trait to me.
Can you give any examples? The only ones I can think of are banning CRT and DEI in public schools and government. I don't exactly see that as restricting free speech.
There has been some support for declaring criticism of Israel "hate speech" and making it illegal. Of course, some of it is. But free speech protects hate speech, too.
I've only heard of complaints that not all threats against Jews have been taken seriously as the crimes which they are. No doubt there are differences of opinion on what is hate speech versus threats. I wouldn't be surprised if some on the right include too much as being threats but then the next question is how common that is.
Evidence please.