” In short, the problem was the principled abolitionists and other radicals were too few in number, and what existed throughout the 19th century was a confused political dynamic in which no major faction appeared to favor liberty above all. The Antebellum Democrats were great on trade but not so good on war and slavery. The Hamiltonians were cautious of some wars but bad on everything else. This continues to this day, when we have one party that speaks of economic freedom (but doesn’t come through) and another that speaks of personal choice but neither that embraces the full program and philosophy of freedom.
“The reason America is not as free as it should be is there hasn’t been enough principled libertarian thought in American history, and there’s where we come in. To the extent we do have freedom, it is because of the radicals of the past. To the extent we have oppression, socialism and imperialism, it is because of insufficient radicalism of the past, an attempt to mix the libertarian instincts of the American Revolution with the statist values of corporate conservatism, centralized statism, mixed economics, policed morality and continual foreign war.”
Well said. Read the article in its entirety. What I like is it’s optimistic, even upbeat, outlook and its hopefulness about where right libertarianism is and where it could go.
I share the optimism. I think, we – right (and left) libs – are not extremists (which is how we are derided) but principled.
Still, though we are not extremists, we are at the extreme ends of the debate….
Unless your thinking is completely linear, however, the principled right and left do not have to be at the opposite ends of things.