Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

Of course, I always hate these kinds of things: I always want to ask for further clarification on the questions!

Plus, on another point, I have to wonder why my Dragon Natuarally Speaking does not work when posting. As we used to say, “Bummer.”

ArthurKirkland: This site’s test provides an interesting, layman-level assessment of a person’s location along a conservative-liberal-authoritarian-libertarian scale.My score:
Economic Left/Right: –1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: –5.28I therefore cede the libertarian ground to few conservatives.It might be enlightening, from the perspective of assessing whether conservatives or liberals should claim affinity with libertarians (or authoritarians), to run some political party platforms, organizational position schedules and ideological wish lists through this wringer.

Tests are fun, I got
Economic Left/Right: -2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.95

Which is interesting, I’ve usually considered myself a libertarian-leaning liberal, but according to this test, maybe it’s the other way around. It’s interesting that most of the people charted on the “international chart” lie along a line, though. That would seem to cut against their claim that a two-dimensional system is useful for most ordinary politics. I also seem to recall seeing a treatment that put the ideologies in the quadrants, rather than on the edges of the social/economic axes themselves. under that treatment the bottom-left quadrant is the traditional left (making me a libertarian-leaning liberal) the top-right is the right, the top-left is the authoritarian/populist quadrant and the bottom-right is libertarianism.

My score:

Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28

I therefore cede the libertarian ground to few conservatives.

It might be enlightening, from the perspective of assessing whether conservatives or liberals should claim affinity with libertarians (or authoritarians), to run some political party platforms, organizational position schedules and ideological wish lists through this wringer.

Ilya Somin: The ACLU agenda does have things in common with libertarianism. It is also at odds with libertarians on many points, such as affirmative action, property rights, various types of antidiscrimination law, and (recently) hate speech. By contrast, Heritage specifically avoids many of the “social” issues where libertarians and conservatives disagree.

The ACLU recently got some heat from Bill O’Reilly because they defended a student who was asked not to wear a T-shirt that says “Islam is of the Devil”. I’ve often heard that the ACLU supports hate speech restrictions, but I’ve never seen anyone point to anything that remotely suggests that, why do you say they support hate speech restrictions?

Also the claim that the Heritage Foundation doesn’t pander to the religious right and all their anti-libertarian goals collapses upon a brief perusal of their website.

Some commenters make the obvious point that the Guide includes some conservative groups that pursue agendas that libertarians might disagree with (and vice versa). This is true, but it doesn’t undermine the utility of the guide. Very few people are likely to be sympathetic to all the agendas of the different groups listed. Likewise, there is no need to criticize the guide for omitting liberal organizations whose agendas overlap with those of libertarians in some way. These organizations are already well-known to most law students, and law school career centers usually already have information on them. By contrast, many law schools provide less access to information about organizations that are systematically libertarian or conservative.

I guess they’re safe because they said “conservative/libertarian” and not libertarian, but the “conservative” part seems to dominate. Including the FRC but excluding the ACLU is truly bizarre if you’re claiming to list libertarian organizations, and I think the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society are prominent enough that saying the ACLU doesn’t need to be listed because it’s already well-known is not terribly convincing.

Mark N.:
I agree some of the intellectual right has been more pro-libertarian than the intellectual left. But as far as Republican and Democratic politicians go, that doesn’t seem to be true, especially if your main interest is personal liberties and you don’t care so much about taxes (the case with me). Both parties are bad, obviously, but the Republicans on the whole have struck me as more enthusiastic about pursuing the drug war (Nixon coined the term), censoring “immoral” books and movies, banning flag-burning, promoting religion, etc.Nixon summed it up pretty well with his “acid, amnesty, and abortion” line, actually: he stood for the opposite, viz. drug prohibition, military conscription, and abortion bans, all quite anathema to personal liberty.

Nixon ended the draft actually. Still, not sure who on the right looks to Nixon as an example on domestic issues. Besides, just as libertarians and conservatives aren’t the same but overlap…neither are conservatives and Republicans the same even if they overlap.

Why is there so little natural testosterone reflected on this baby and effeminate blog?

Must be all us women folk.

Nixon summed it up pretty well with his “acid, amnesty, and abortion” line, actually: he stood for the opposite, viz. drug prohibition, military conscription, and abortion bans, all quite anathema to personal liberty.

Nixon also sponsored the EPA and endorsed wage and price controls; he’s not exactly a guidestar for modern conservatives.

ArthurKirkland: Whom do you think you are fooling? Neither the Pacific Legal Foundation nor the Washington Legal Foundation strays from the right-wing reservation with so much as a toe. Anyone who believes either organization would offend social conservatives (or the hard-right benefactors that fund those entities) must believe in fairy tales. Similarly, I see nothing in the Center for Individual Rights mission statement that isn’t pure conservative orthodoxy, and I see no record of any action that would offend social conservatives.

The test for libertarians is not whether they can “offend social conservatives”; the only person whose goal that describes, apparently, is you. These organizations are trying to litigate public interestedly, not somehow prove that they hate conservatives. PLF’s focus — as its website explains — is

Property owners rights
Eminent domain
Environmental regulations
Preferences based on race or gender
Economic liberty and free enterprise

How is litigating in those areas not libertarian? Similarly, WLF focuses on:

national security and defense
commercial free speech
product liability
punitive damages
food and drug law
environmental and property rights law
administrative law
and constitutional law

The only one of those that isn’t facially libertarian is “national security and defense,” and a review of their website’s description of cases in that area suggests that this is an eclectic category, with some libertarian-oriented cases and some non.

OSU3L:
The most passionate/persuasive 20th Century critic of 2 of your 3 government restrictions was Milton Friedman. What side of the political spectrum do you think he leaned toward?

I agree some of the intellectual right has been more pro-libertarian than the intellectual left. But as far as Republican and Democratic politicians go, that doesn’t seem to be true, especially if your main interest is personal liberties and you don’t care so much about taxes (the case with me). Both parties are bad, obviously, but the Republicans on the whole have struck me as more enthusiastic about pursuing the drug war (Nixon coined the term), censoring “immoral” books and movies, banning flag-burning, promoting religion, etc.

Nixon summed it up pretty well with his “acid, amnesty, and abortion” line, actually: he stood for the opposite, viz. drug prohibition, military conscription, and abortion bans, all quite anathema to personal liberty.

what it’s worth, the leading organizations that actually do libertarian public interest litigation as their main mission are the Institute for Justice, the Center for Individual Rights, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the Washington Legal Foundation

Whom do you think you are fooling? Neither the Pacific Legal Foundation nor the Washington Legal Foundation strays from the right-wing reservation with so much as a toe. Anyone who believes either organization would offend social conservatives (or the hard-right benefactors that fund those entities) must believe in fairy tales. Similarly, I see nothing in the Center for Individual Rights mission statement that isn’t pure conservative orthodoxy, and I see no record of any action that would offend social conservatives.

These organizations are libertarian in the manner that Saddam Hussein — during those periods when he operated in league with misguided American government officials — was a voice and force for American-style freedom.

I give the Institute for Justice more credit. It might be libertarian enough to take on some anti-libertarian conservative sacred bows . . . although, so far, it appears to have resisted the temptation.

“Libertarian public interest” is an oxymoron. Libertarians, by definition, are interested only in themselves, not the public.

I have never understood libertarianism to be based entirely on self-interest. To the contrary, I have believed that a libertarian opposes the infringement of another’s liberty, and will strive to promote liberty even where he would choose not to exercise it (in other words, a libertarian opposes alcohol prohibition even if he prefers not to imbibe).

I would request clarification, but it has become apparent that exceedingly few libertarians visit this site.

[a libertarian] more enthusiastic about NORML than about the Family Research Council (listed in the Harvard guide)? Possibly.

A libertarian would “possibly” feel less at home at NORML — which fights to prevent people from being imprisoned for using certain recreational drugs — than at the Family Research Council, proud home of drug warriors, R-rated movie haters, gay bashers and religous nanny-staters?

That’s a strange breed of libertarian being incubated at George Mason.

The Heritage Foundation is another drug warrior haven that argues against civil unions, let alone same-sex marriage, and champions government spying. More libertarian than the ACLU? Perhaps if viewed from a hard-right perspective, especially by those who believe the Heritage Foundation’s use of “traditional values” is a dog whistle recognized solely by right-wingers.

The Federalist Society aggressively uses libertarianism as a fig leaf, but there are few social libertarians among the blue-blazered, white-shirted, striped-tied, khaki-pantsed young Republicans I see at Federalist Society events. The Federalist Society, which features far more people who would use the Bible to govern their neighbors’ behavior than those who would prefer ungodly liberty, is no more libertarian than the ACLU, the ACS or many other organizations disliked by conservatives. How many Federalist-approved judges are not hard-line drug warriors and fans of government surveillance and open-ended detention?

Omitting NORML — which, I would wager, was no oversight — indicates that the guide involves libertarianism only to the extent it overlaps with conservatism. Omitting the ACLU corroborates a disdain for much of libertarianism. Which means that guide has little or nothing to do with libertarianism, except for the convenience of right-wingers.

Desiderius: break out your “Atlas”. It is altruism, not just statism, that is declared evil. Galt would not do anything for anyone else voluntarily, which is the whole point of the book.

1) You’re trolling.
2) What does Atlas Shrugged have to do with anything? We’re talking Libertarians, not Objectivists.
3) You misunderstand the concept. The altruism that is condemned by Rand is the notion that self-sacrifice is the only moral way to live, that serving others is the highest good and serving oneself is selfish and immoral. But public interest law is not about self-sacrifice; one is trying to improve the world for one’s own benefit, not just for other people’s.

L.

L.

Public does not equal state.

Try again.

The problem with all these classifications is that they are exactly backward for understanding the present American ideological/political scene. There is no American regime more ancien than the one with Harvard as its vanguard and right-thinking Progressivism as it’s creed, frantically defending the prerogatives of altar (academedia) and throne (the corporate state).

That’s the Right.

Institute for Justice et. al. are the only Left that is left.

Mark N.: I would if that same government tried to conscript me into its military, ban me from selling my books, or tell me what I can and can’t grow on my property.

The most passionate/persuasive 20th Century critic of 2 of your 3 government restrictions was Milton Friedman. What side of the political spectrum do you think he leaned toward?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: The Harvard Law School Guide to Conservative/Libertarian Public Interest Law: In response to my recent post on .. http://bit.ly/4IQsuG...

We named our son (second child) Austin after my father (middle name Austin but always addressed that way). When my son was about 5 years old, I discovered that my mother-in-law thought that we had named him that because my husband and I met in TX. She had never heard of ‘a real person’ named that. “But, Mom,” my spouse said, “we met in Houston.”

Well done, Austin. :-)

Happenstance, no doubt, but some friends called me “Austin” for a while after I returned from a year in Texas.

Possibly. NORML, however is neither a libertarian nor a conservative organizations, whereas FRC is a conservative one. Moreover, the FRC does combat a variety of government intrusions into family life., and supports school choice.

more sympathetic to the ACLU than to the Heritage Foundation (listed);

-The ACLU agenda does have things in common with libertarianism. It is also at odds with libertarians on many points, such as affirmative action, property rights, various types of antidiscrimination law, and (recently) hate speech. By contrast, Heritage specifically avoids many of the “social” issues where libertarians and conservatives disagree.

more interested in the Brennan Center for Justice than in the Eagle Forum (listed);

-Unlikely. The Brennan Center devotes many of its efforts to promoting campaign finance regulations, which libertarians hate.

at least as likely to volunteer for the American Constitution Society as for the Federalist Society (listed);

-Not likely, given that ACS is at odds with libertarians on most major issues, while Fed Soc explicitly includes libertarianism in its charter, and has many libertarians in it its leadership (ACS doesn’t have even one, so far as I know).

more likely to volunteer for the National Abortion Rights Action League as for the Free Congress Foundation (listed);

-Possibly. But abortion divides libertarians internally.

and at least as likely to feel at home at the Democratic National Committee as at the Republican National Committee (listed).

-Also possible, but again remember that this is a guide to libertarian and conservative groups, while the DNC is neither.

I understand why conservatives are eager to slap the “and libertarian” label on anything and everything they do, but any guide that doesn’t list NORML is about as “libertarian” as a James Dobson radio program featuring special guest Maggie Gallagher.

-The guide does list many other libertarian organizations that oppose the War on Drugs, such as CATO, as well as some conservative ones that do. Omitting one such organization (one that doesn’t do much in the way of public interest law) doesn’t invalidate the guide.

If you think the natural home of American libertarianism is on the right, you might be are a (faux) libertarian.

Well done, Austin. :-)

So what? If a conservative organization is working on a pro-libertarian case, what difference should it make to a libertarian law student whether it is doing it for “instrumental” reasons or philosophical ones?

I do not disagree with this at all. Politics, bedfellows, and all that.

I was responding to the implication that libertarians are normally – i.e., theoretically – aligned with right-wing/conservative groups. (I rather dislike the whole ‘right/left’ business.)

Thus, if we want to have a list of PIGs with whom libertarians might want to work, I see no reason for anyone to assume that this would be primarily composed of conservative PIGs.

the natural home of American libertarianism is on the right. Always has been.

If you worry more about marginal tax rates than about people placed in prison for drug offenses, you might be a (faux) libertarian.

If you worry more about the Clintons and Barack Obama than about James Dobson and Bill Bennett, you might be a (faux) libertarian.

If you are offended by morning-after pills but not by the revised Pledge of Allegiance, you might be a (faux) libertarian.

If you are offended more by the ACLU than by the Heritage Foundation, you might be a (faux) libertarian.

If you see a gay-suppressing church as a legitimate moral authority, you might be a (faux) libertarian.

If you think the natural home of American libertarianism is on the right, you might be are a (faux) libertarian.

B.D.: Most libertarians, from my experience, find the economic statism of the left far more repugnant than the social conservatism of the right.

That’s the opposite of my experience, though I don’t deny that there are large numbers of libertarians with the opposite view. But most libertarians I’ve met find outright requirement or prohibitions more onerous than taxation. I’d certainly feel less oppressed paying 50% (hell, 75%) of my income to some government than I would if that same government tried to conscript me into its military, ban me from selling my books, or tell me what I can and can’t grow on my property.

I find the fixation on taxes and association with the right is most commonly true of wealthy “business conservatives” who like to masquerade as libertarians— Steve Forbes types.