Between libertarians and moderates

To add to my previous posts talking about the present political designations and the relationships between them, there is an uneasy kinship between moderates and libertarians, especially if you look at moderates, as I do, as a form of liberalism -- or perhaps a combination of conservative wallet and liberal heart. Maybe a moderate is merely an anal retentive liberal, I'm not sure, but they definitely hold modern, and some classical, liberal views. It's the mixture of statism/modern liberalism, conservatism and classic liberalism that I have problems with -- what kind of concoction is it and what are its effects?

Peter Orvetti wrote about this, and I picked it up from The Libertarian Republican blog -- it was oginally written at www.LibertyForAll.net. First he talks about the echo chambers in leftist blogs and in libertarian blogs, and I suppose he means any other blogs which are preaching to the choir, and he also warns against the use of terms like "statist", and references to writers like Rothbard and Mises -- all the things I obviously do wrong here -- because most people don't understand the terms or get the references. I tend to think introducing people to these concepts and writers is a good thing, but I get his point -- many people won't wade through all the esoteric stuff, they just want pragmatic issues and regular talk about common politics, if they even have an interest in politics. The question Orvetti asks is -- Can the libertarian movement welcome "moderates"? -- the quotation marks are Orvetti's. I ask another question -- Do moderates want to be a part of the libertarian movement? 

Orvetti writes about moderate libertarians:

This breed of libertarian does not seek the abolition of government, but believes that local government is best, as it is closest to the people impacted, and carries the fewest layers of bureaucracy. He believes there is a difference between the notion that a goal is a good one, and the insistence that the government must assert responsibility for achieving that goal. He concedes that government can and has been a positive factor in the lives of many, but insists on examining whether a non-governmental solution could work better. He believes any government effort, no matter how well-intended, must be considered in light of the unwilling person forced to fund it.

It's sort of a moderate "thang" to always condition their views on government with the understanding that government can do some things well. I'm not sure what Orvetti means by "abolition of government", but most libertarians don't call for the abolition of government, so that's somewhat of a strawman to make the moderates look more reasonable and sane, I suppose. I agree that private solutions should always be looked at first, though, so, this we can agree on.

Orvetti goes on to write:

But this libertarian differs from her purist peers. She accepts that government, like the poor, we will always have with us. She has no practical objection to things like government roads and parks, and is concerned by what would happen to the desperate if the “safety net” should completely disappear. It is her goal to make libertarian ideals achievable within the realities of the present day, by working to keep government as uninvasive and as local as possible, and prefers to focus on the expansion of freedoms rather than the contraction of the state — while bearing in mind that the two go hand-in-hand.

Herein lies the rub. Why is it inevitable that government has to provide the safety net. If the libertarian is always looking for private solutions first, why not defend the principle of non-coercion by developing private means of voluntary charity and creative insurance arrangements to deal with safety nets?

I much prefer the thinker that Orvetti describes to a progressive, but I have to wonder why the moderate has to keep "her" link to state intervention? It always appears to be a capitulation I can't trust. I feel as if I'm being "sold" through a tactic of acknowledging the libertarian principles, but then comes all the stuff on the "other hand".

Like the politican who tells his constituents that they are correct in not trusting the government to run healthcare, and that the proposal from congress is awful, but, on the "other hand" doing nothing is not an option, and since the progressives are in power and a bill is going to be passed, then the politician has to try to compromise and do his/her best to curtail the awfulness of the bill, so on and so forth -- then the politician capitulates and the state grows in power and rolls over the moderate politician on the way to an extreme takeover. At this point you can't distinguish the moderate from the progressive because they are now a part of running healthcare, acting as if there was never a disagreement in philosophy. The public is patronized and conned once again.

To me it's not a matter of whether the libertarian movement will accept moderates, it's will the moderates accept the libertarian principles when it comes to non-intervention, non-coercion, free markets, private charities, individual rights and the like. If moderates think that libertarians should relax on their principles and accept realpolitics, become a part of the statist machine to make tiny changes in the system, then I doubt a strong alliance is likely or desirable by each group. If liberatianism is accepted in spirit but is thought of as literally naive, then we have a problem, because libertarianism is not about posturing, satifying people's desire for freedom with words, but acting pragmatically just to be a part of the power structure. There may be moderate Republicans who want to use libertarians this way, to appear classically liberal, then, to act as a statist, but it's not what libertarians will any longer accept, if I read the movement correctly.

We're in a political climate among the private sector that respects those who walk like they talk, and disrespects political manipulation as usual. I would hope the moderates want to join the libertarian movement -- we need all the help we can get -- but they can't fake it for votes.