I have, at times, kinda liked Mike Huckabee. I liked him before he was a serious contender--I preferred his interpretation of Christianity--i.e. one that included positive responsibilities to the environment and the poor, among other things--to, say, George W. Bush's, which seems to mostly involve paying lip service to the family and doing nothing, plus a little gay bashing. Not that Huck's opposed to gay bashing per se, but at least his Christianity, like, involves a few things Christ actually said.
But this makes me like him all the more. His takedown of libertarianism is pretty shrewd positioning if he wants to run as a "Sam's Club" Republican in 2012, though perhaps not if he actually wants to run on McCain's ticket this year. Huckabee basically says that libertarianism is a soulless form of economic conservatism--and he's right. But having (briefly) been a libertarian myself (I think I've been, at various points, pretty much everywhere on the political spectrum, from socialism to hard-core Christian conservatism) I can say that this critique, while true, is a bit beside the point.
The main problem with libertarianism is that it is too inflexible. When one believes philosophically that government is always bad, one is invariably constrained in one's ability to respond to issues. Libertarians will invariably say that the private sector is a superior way of providing services than government, and there is a kernel of truth to this. However, one cannot, for example, respond to natural disasters by taking bids for response crews. Some libertarians might say that the government needs to run some things, like police, fire, etc., but this merely disproves their central thesis, and they're here arguing with the rest of us about when the government ought to intervene in our lives.
Herb Simon compared libertarianism to anarchy, which it sorta is. This is because the libertarians believe that humans can survive without governments, without hierarchy, without those structures and institutions that run our lives. At the bottom of this philosophy is a belief that humans are smart enough to get along for ourselves. It's based on the rational economic actor theory, which I find to be a bit problematic. People don't always make decisions based on their own best interest. People don't always make right decisions. Sometimes they screw up. Now, libertarians might say that we need to allow people to make mistakes so that they can learn lessons themselves, and that government interference keeps them from learning such lessons. I actually agree, but when such mistakes--like, for example, not getting health insurance--put themselves in grave risk and, even more importantly, cause huge problems for the community in general, I think it is fair to say that the government has a compelling interest to step in and take some steps to insure safety. It's a social utility argument, basically. This is why, for example, we require people to wear seatbelts in 49 states (New Hampshire, that redoubtable redoubt of libertarian sentiment, is the holdout). Sure, getting in an accident without a seatbelt will probably teach a lesson to the victim, but that victim will probably be dead and thus unable to process the lesson.
Now, one might say that liberalism is too eager to impose such constraints upon people, and it's probably a fair critique--well, maybe it was at some point in history. I don't really think it is now. But, regardless, the reason why I'm a liberal as opposed to a libertarian (or a conservative) is that liberalism isn't afraid of using government to solve problems while acknowledging that some problems cannot be solved by government. Liberalism is often critiqued as not being a uniform, easily encapsulatable concept. This may be, but I think it's actually a strength: liberalism has a large toolbox to solve problems, something that anti-government philosophies like libertarianism (and, to a lesser degree, conservatism) have to offer. Liberals can take things by a case-by-case basis, the others can't. And when a problem does require the sort of authority that only government can provide, liberals are willing to use that authority. This is not to state that liberals love government action. Indeed, on social issues, liberals tend not to like the government involved much at all, and though there is more diversity on economic issues, there are plenty of liberals (like me) who support deregulating things like professional requirements and zoning laws, as well as free trade. But, basically, there is a line drawn for where we accept government involvement--we believe in the free market, though we believe it has some defects. Conservatives also draw a line which sorta mirrors our own--they're more comfortable dictating social policy and hard-line militarism. But, ultimately, both liberals and conservatives are willing to draw a line as to where government involvement is acceptable and where it isn't. I personally think that conservatism has gone too far in drawing theirs, but time will tell.
Libertarians, though, think we can avoid drawing a line altogether. The impracticability of this viewpoint, as well as the lack of public appeal for these positions, is probably why libertarianism is a boutique phenomenon, and likely long will be. So, I'm really looking forward to 2012: Huckabee vs. Romney ought to be interesting.
