Sitemeter and libertarianism

What does Sitemeter (the stat counter used by a lot of bloggers) have to do with libertarianism? Until a day or two ago I would have said, "absolutely nothing!" But today I see the connection.

I call myself "libertarian" because I believe in smaller government, a position which neither the Republican nor Democratic parties stand for. The Republican party is libertarian to a slightly greater extent, but their positions are pretty close. Since Bush has been elected to office he has done absolutely nothing to reduce the size of government, and in fact has been pushing new big-government initiatives like Medicare drug benefits and expansion of federal involvment with education. Even his "fix" for Social Security involves a new government program.

So I thought my moniker fit in with my political views. But since starting my blog, I have received a lot of animosity from hardcore libertarian nutcases who inspect everything I write with a magnifying glass and condemn me for every sentence that somehow doesn't mesh with their own view of libertarianism. (And I recently had an argument with those types in the comments of a post at Mises Economics Blog.)

Libertarians, if they ever hope to effect actual change, have to be inclusive and not exclusive. But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can't create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!

I've blogged before about problems with libertarians, but unfortunately the first post didn't sink in.

And then two days ago,I blogged about Sitemeter, complaining about blogs that haven't gotten with the program and put an open one on their blog.

That post too has, surprisingly, received a lot of negative comments. Looking at the referrals on my Sitemeter report (which can help you find inbound links that Technorati sometimes doesn't find), I discovered another anti-me rant by a self-proclaimed libertarian who doesn't think I deserve to be part of his non-movement. And he brags about not having a Sitemeter on his blog as if it were a badge of honor. The implication is that a pure blogger doesn't care if anyone is reading his or her blog.

I am not ashamed to say that I do care if people are reading my blog. If you don't care about having any sort of influence, why bother to have a blog at all? You could just write stuff and save it on your computer. It would be easier and you could save yourelf the expense of paying $90/year for Typepad. Bloggers without Sitemeters are like the libertarians who don't care if they ever win an election or influence a single real vote.

Sitemeter provides a clue with regards to how much influence your blog has. Obviously not all hits have the same value. The Calico Cat has a post about blog traffic explaining how to identify quality vs. quantity. In addition to Sitemeter, I have also been using Technorati and the Ecosystem to check on my influence.

If you're interested in increasing your blog's influence, then examining from where your blog and other blogs get their traffic will help you to better understand the process. Which is why it's annoying when other blogs don't have Sitemeters.

Do I blog differently because of this? Yes, I put a lot of effort into making my blog interesting so people will visit, and I appreciate everyone who has visited and left comments. I even appreciate the people who write about how stupid I am, like dadahead. I know that I've at least helped to provide them with some sort of entertainment.

Comments

[David Foster]

I've actually been surprised at how rigid some of the libertarians commenting here are...that they apparently believe there is only one approved set of views that constitutes libertarianism. It's the kind of thing one would expect more among hard-core Marxists or extreme religious fanatics.

Maybe it's because libertarians generally believe that their beliefs are derivable from pure deductive reasoning, and that hence and deviation is a sign of mental or moral failing.....

photoncourier.blogspot.com

[Mexigogue]

To be fair I don't think you would have caught so much hell except for the fact that by calling yourself Libertarian Girl one would expect a cut and dried libertarian. If your blog had some other name (like "Pretty Chick Who Will Stab You") and you simply described yourself as leaning towards libertarian views, it might have been an entirely different response.

To put it another way if I called my blog MexiMuslim I would be sure to catch hell every time I posted about drinking beer and picking up hoochies as those don't come to mind as being very Islamic activities.

[David]

I guess if you are trying to "influence" people with your blog then obsessing over your Sitemeter statistics is understandable.

I am not trying to influence anyone. I just write what pleases me and if they come, they come.

For the record, I have about 20 repeat readers, with the rest linking to me from posts I put on other blogs or from links I have had included in stories on three or four blogs like The Moderate Voice. I also get those "next blog" visits which are not "quality" but still have the potential of turning into regular readers.

Oh, and Mexigogue is right on! If you name yourself after an ideology, then you better stick very close to that ideology.

[dadahead]

It's for your own good, Libertarian Girl.

Truth be told: I was once a libertarian myself.

Eventually, however, I was swayed from the Dark Side, and it is now my duty to help sway others.

And I don't think the Republicans actually are closer to libertarianism, BTW. Massive corporate welfare, plus the extraordinary disregard for personal liberty and privacy that is found in the Patriot Act, would seem to me to actually move the R's further away from libertarianism than the D's.

You have, however, convinced me to open up my site meter stats.

[New Anarchist Man]

Truth be told, most people I have encountered are quite convinced that this entire blog is all part of some elaborate joke. As many of your statements are so at odds with libertarian principles.

[dadahead]

Hey, I just discovered something cool about sitemeter. You can set it up so that it ignores your own visits to your own site.

Maybe everyone knew that already, but for my fellow retarded people, this info might be useful.

[Trubeliever]

There is a good essay by Anthony Gregory ,as to why Libertarians should not compromise their principles, even in the effort to "... [have] an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections."

Trading principles for victory gets you neither

[Outlaw3]

LG, I understand why you use a meter and look at the statistics. Understanding the audience, and to some extent tailoring some entries to that audience makes sense. If this was a business, you would want repeaters - otherwise why blog at all? And you can also steer away from subjects that get a lot of hits from random searchers, but offer little except bots crawling to collect email addresses to spam or attack. You could pander to the meter readings by titling a few posts with popular search words and see the visits skyrocket. But don't do it! There is some stuff out there that says the regular readers become very protective and insular against newcomers butting in on one of their "home" blogs, even to attacking the person running it. Hope those types won't get you down. I come here to read and have enjoyed pretty much all your entries. If I don't know about it, or don't like it, *Gosh* I can just skip that one! Another interesting one will be up shortly.

As an audience of one, sitting in my own corner, I come back for the entertainment value, interesting posts, and some views just slightly different than my own but well enough thought out we could have great conversation in person or over dinner. At the same time, driving each other nuts wondering how anyone could believe THAT. A very good time!

Truth be told, if you spewed the standard libertarian line this would get old fast. As for the micro-examiners, well, good that they have the time to do a detailed exam. But you have a point, they will never link every libertarian leaning person into a single group by squelching all non-toe-the-line views. Not to mention no converts and driving off potential converts who cannot accept their religious fervor for a particular brand of libertarianism. Whew, talk about the worst of group-think. How dull at a party.

If I have to have a complaint, just to join the "cool kids" who comment here, okay, here it is: I wish LG would post more often! Her infrequent posting throughout the day makes me have to surf other sites for content to fill up my day! I think LG should post hourly to satisfy my audience needs. Anyone else?

[DC Carter]

Quite an Algonquin Table you got going here. Yeesh, lighten up people...

LG - All good points, I'm in full agreement (U'Oh, I guess that means I'm not a real libertarian either).

Outlaw3 - I agree.

[Adam Lawson]

I've posted in your comments, and on my blog, before about the stupid whinery of the Libertarians. On the blogs without sitemeter: If you don't care if someone is reading your blog, you're full of crap. Either you're justifying your low traffic -- becausey ou don't care -- or you're high enough in traffic that you don't need to count.

I think Acidman said something like, "If no one reads your blog, it's called a diary." He had a post not long ago about sitemeter, too, I believe.

[Ben]

And here I thought that libertarian ideals centered on personal freedom. I for one enjoy every post on this blog, whether or not I agree with it.

[Scott Scheule]

For one thing, arguing with the Mises crowd is bound to get you into trouble. I probably agree with 99% of their principles, but still I wouldn't dare pick a fight. You're a minarchist, and there are many anarchists over there. That can be a bitter divide. There's a story about a Hoppe and Milton Friedman debate, where Hoppe ended up calling Friedman a socialist.

For another thing, you're probably attracting a non-random sampling of the libertarian crowd. The more passionate the libertarians are, the more likely it is that they'll be hooked into our little orbit of the blogosphere, the more likely it is they'll find you, and--being passionate--the more likely it is that they'll speak their minds.

One wonders if other people with "Libertarian" in their blog titles inspire this much animosity.

Regardless, all the libertarians I know love to argue. For whatever reason, it's something one should be ready for if they propose to be a libertarian blogger. If the comments bother you too much, you can always turn off the commenting option.

[Stephan Kinsella]

Scott: "For one thing, arguing with the Mises crowd is bound to get you into trouble. I probably agree with 99% of their principles, but still I wouldn't dare pick a fight. You're a minarchist, and there are many anarchists over there. That can be a bitter divide. There's a story about a Hoppe and Milton Friedman debate, where Hoppe ended up calling Friedman a socialist."

Are you sure you aren't thinking of Mises doing that at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting, storming out, saying, "You're all a bunch of socialists!" (see the quotes here)

Of course, he was right. Socialism is the institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property rights. The state institutionalizes some degree of aggression by its nature, so any state is to an extent socialistic. This is just a simple matter.

That means, by anarchist lights, minarchists are a bit socialistic, not as bad as liberals, or outright commies etc., but still, advocating immoral laws. That does not mean that on balance they are not all libertarians, or our allies, for we all want to radically reduce the size of the state. But such practical considerations do not imply there is a duty to lie or refuse to name things as one sees them.

[Brad Warbiany]

LG,
A couple of things... First you didn't post about problems with libertarians, you posted in response to a post about problems with libertarians (mine). Gotta give credit where credit is due, right? ;-)

I think you catch a lot of flack with your posts about things like taxing breast implants. My reading of that post was that you were trying to use libertarian values to support something you wanted to do. The more logical is to start with the values themselves, and then see what conclusions are supported. While you entered an argument about externalities and how a breast implant tax might have libertarian backing, most of us read it as a way to tax behavior you didn't agree with. And despite a slight libertarian justification, it didn't seem to really sit right with with spirit of libertarianism. I can't think you could make that argument without expecting people to jump down your throat. I think you did it half in jest, but I can't be too sure.

Regarding the sitemeter, I understood your point until you concluded with "I have a negative view of any blog that doesn’t have an open stat counter, preferably Sitemeter." I personally agree that I don't understand why someone who cares about their blog traffic, which is pretty much all bloggers, wouldn't have a site meter of some sort. However, I like to keep an eye on who's visiting, keep an eye on where they're coming from, but don't really care whether or not my readers can access all that information. I mean really, does it matter to you how many hits *I* get daily? As I've said before, I'm OCD and refreshing the hit page every half hour to see if anyone's shown up, but I never even thought someone else would care... And at the same time, the "preferably Sitemeter" makes no sense. Why should it be Sitemeter? Who knows, it may be better than some of the other options, but I'm not exactly unhappy with StatCounter.

Anyway, those are just my opinions. I do think you catch a lot more flack than is warranted, especially by some of the hard-core libertarians... They expect since your site is named "Libertarian Girl" that you have to spout the party line at all times. And that's not really all that realistic, IMHO... In other news, though, can I get a link on the blogroll? If I got half the *negative* comments you get here, that'd double how many I get now!

[Scott Scheule]

You may very well be right, Stephan, I'm no expert on Austrians.

As to naming--yes, to a degree minarchists are socialists, but they are not what is intended by the traditional use of the word. In a sense, though an anarcho-capitalist, you could very rightly call me a communist, since I support a type of communism--the typical family--even though I support unbridled capitalism in the larger spheres.

My objection is not that there is some duty to not call things what they are, but rather simply, that it may be impolite nevertheless, and that is a reason to refrain.

[Stephan Kinsella]

LG: "I call myself "libertarian" because I believe in smaller government, a position which neither the Republican nor Democratic parties stand for. The Republican party is libertarian to a slightly greater extent, but their positions are pretty close."

I agree with this. You do seem to be a libertarian, but not a very consistent or principled or knowledgeable one. That's okay, but that's the way it seems to me--otherwise you would not endorse a utilitarian-based tax on breast implants (I think you were just trying to show off that you know a slight amount about some fancy, but elementary, economic reasoning) or state that Lochner or Roe are libertarian decisions. This is just my view...

"So I thought my moniker fit in with my political views. But since starting my blog, I have received a lot of animosity from hardcore libertarian nutcases who inspect everything I write with a magnifying glass and condemn me for every sentence that somehow doesn't mesh with their own view of libertarianism. (And I recently had an argument with those types in the comments of a post at Mises Economics Blog.)"

LG, you are in error to refer to serious and knowledgeable libertarians such as myself as "nutcases". Being hardcore does not make one a nutcase. I hate to make things about me but I am clearly a professional, serious libertarian; it's possible to be principled, radical, and not a nutcase. LEt me be clear: althogh I like to be blunt and not waste bullshit time when communicating, to cut to the chase, all in all, you are clearly "libertarian" and an ally, despite some disagreements.

When I and others write to critize what you and others like you write, it is not to decree from on high some holy writ. It is because libertairans like to debate and argue. And also, in your case, b/c you state some things that seem breathtakingly oblivious to the fact that there are serious strands of thought out there (e.g., about workable anarchy) that you seem, not to dismiss for any serious reasons as if you have considered, but rejected it, but as if you are unaware of it; as if any REASONABLE libertarian "of course" realizes we have to have a state, or need "some" taxes. Or the continual implication that libertarianism judges all arguments by whether they are strategically useful or not, not whether they are true or not.

"Libertarians, if they ever hope to effect actual change, have to be inclusive and not exclusive. But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can't create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!"

I have no idea if this latter is true; I do not claim to be an expert in tactics and strategy; and I am not sure LG is either. But what is wrong with her comment here is that it assumes that all libertarians are activist types, who are in this only or primarily to "effect actual change". Some of us have little hope of that; or specialize in other things. You are free to try to be an activist, but do NOT assume that we all are; and please do NOT make the mistake of always judging a fellow libertarian's assertions or views by whether they are "likely to persuade" others. That is a concern only for strategy.

For example, most decent people, even non-libertarians, think outright murder is immoral, aggression, and should be outlawed. They oppose murder and think it immoral. Yet, they do not think that merely believing this, or even stating it or outlawing it, is going to actually ever eliminate all murder. Crime is wrong despite the fact that it will always be with us. Yet it is not "impractical" to condemn crime, to state and realize that crime is wrong. Likewise, I believe we will alwyas have a large state, for psychological and other reasons (most people are too stupid or ignorant or petty or partly-criminal to permit real liberty to ever be achieved, apparently), but that does not mean it is "impractical" to believe that the state is nevertheless immoral and wrong.

So while I do not condemn you and others for focusing apparently only on strategy and tactics and activism, why don't you at least recognize the difference between an argument's soundness, truth, or validity, and its usefuless in tactics and strategy and activism? And if you do recognize the difference, why don't you stop objecting to an argument's soundness on the grounds that it is not likely to persuade our opponents? Isn't it just dishonest and disingenuous, or at least confused, to use the wrong standards like this?

"I discovered another anti-me rant by a self-proclaimed libertarian who doesn't think I deserve to be part of his non-movement. And he brags about not having a Sitemeter on his blog as if it were a badge of honor. The implication is that a pure blogger doesn't care if anyone is reading his or her blog."

I have no idea what the last sentence means, but if LG is referring to me, let me be clear: I would acknowledge you are a fellow libertarian (as far as I know), but just wish all you movement/activist types would not always jugge everything by activist standards.

"I am not ashamed to say that I do care if people are reading my blog. If you don't care about having any sort of influence, why bother to have a blog at all? You could just write stuff and save it on your computer."

This is not an uninteresting question, but notice it is a subtle change of subject. It is sidetracking. It becomes a meta-discussion. Instead of discussing the issues, it asks why people do discuss issues. What is the point of this kind of question? Are you trying to say that just b/c someone takes the time to publish, they are trapped into the logic of admitting that everything is about strategy?? That truth does not matter? Maybe I, for example, hope to influence to a degree, sure; but given that I have integrity in my views and value truth above any very low chance we really have at "influencing" things, I choose to pursue truth. NOthing wrong w/ the other choice. But nothing wrong with us more "theory libertarians" and "activist libertarians" recognizing our different roles without disingenuously lumping them together.

I've posted some related and similar comments in reply to LG here.

[fling93]

I don't consider myself a hard-core libertarian. I label myself a pragmatic and moderate libertarian, much like Megan McArdle, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, and Tyler Cowen, and in contrast to the Libertarian Party. After all, while I support free trade, ending the drug war, and phasing out Social Security, I don't believe in getting rid of the income tax, and I do think government should step in to address market failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Also, I can't stand Ayn Rand, and while I like Friedman, I've never read anything by von Mises.

But as far as I can tell, I'm still far more libertarian than LG (heck, Matt Yglesias might be more libertarian than LG). I don't think this blog is an elaborate joke, though. I think that LG just hasn't yet put in a lot of thought into many of the issues yet. But she's young, and I suppose blogging is an excellent way to explore such things anyway.

[Stephan Kinsella]

Fling: "I don't consider myself a hard-core libertarian. I label myself a pragmatic and moderate libertarian, much like Megan McArdle, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, and Tyler Cowen, and in contrast to the Libertarian Party. After all, while I support free trade, ending the drug war, and phasing out Social Security, I don't believe in getting rid of the income tax, and I do think government should step in to address market failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Also, I can't stand Ayn Rand, and while I like Friedman, I've never read anything by von Mises."

I'd say these are all reasonable, except never reading Mises , and your income tax comment. Note, that before 1913 or so, many *mainstream* people had trouble with an income tax.... there was even a proposal, I believe, to include a 10% cap in the 16th amendment, but Senators were afraid to do so b/c of fear the feds would instantly go all the way to the limit. So they left it silent, thinking it would never approach 10%. This implies that even mainstreamers of just 90 or so years ago were more libertarian than YOU on the income tax issue. Doesn't that at least give you pause?

"But as far as I can tell, I'm still far more libertarian than LG (heck, Matt Yglesias might be more libertarian than LG). I don't think this blog is an elaborate joke, though. I think that LG just hasn't yet put in a lot of thought into many of the issues yet. But she's young, and I suppose blogging is an excellent way to explore such things anyway."

Yes, I think this is correct... but then, given your income tax comments and never having read Mises, you might not be much above in having put thoguht into these issues (and I do not mean this in a snide way... I see nothing wrong w/ this, and admit that I may be wrong about you).

[Andrew]

Though I'm one of those Mises/No Treason/Two--Four readers who calls himself an anarchist, I have to say I've been enjoying the week or two I've been paying attention to your blog. Your posts and the reactions to them in your comments threads and on other sites have prompted a lot of get-back-to-basics, "what does it mean to call yourself 'libertarian'" discussion that I think it's good to see from time to time (too much navel-gazing gets counterproductive, though).

Like many of your readers, I have moved over time from Cato Institute-Beltway type "movement" libertarian to LP activist (for a short while) to non- or anti-political market anarchist. That's why this comment of yours particularly attracts my attention:

LG: "But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can't create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!"

The difference between you and "those types" at the Mises blog is that we're not interested in creating a movement, still less "winning some elections." Trying to shame them (us) by saying we're destined never to win an election makes us chuckle, at best. If you can stand to spend any more time over at No Treason, I encourage you to check out JTK's "Rational Evangelism Won't Work." http://www.no-treason.com/Kennedy/2.php

There are more thoughts I could add, but this is long enough already.

[fling93]

Stephan Kinsella: I do not mean this in a snide way

Oh, no worries. My whole point was that I myself am hardly much of a standard to judge libertarians (and I don't have "libertarian" in my blog name). I should also mention my two core issues are campaign finance and electoral reform, neither of which are libertarian issues (although I think both must be addressed before libertarian ideals can be represented fairly in our government).

[David Heinrich]

Libertarian Girl,

The libertarian movement tends to be filled with the most passionate people, who thus tend to be the most outspoken. Within the broad label "libertarian", we can include three categories. Within each category, I list the most impressive and significant member, in my opinion. I venture to say that most people would tend to agree with me on these judgement-calls:

1. Anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray N. Rothbard.

2. Minarchists, such as Ludwig von Mises.

3. Constitutinalists, such as Ron Paul.

(4. Pacifists. Tolstoy is one of the most well-known pacifists; however, I am not sure we could call him a libertarian. Prof. Robert Murphy is one of the only libertarians that I know of who is also a pacifist, and thus necessarily a pacifist.)

Stating something that catches these categories is difficult; however, broadly put, we could say that libertarians support economic and social freedom, property-rights. That is something that is broad enough to include all of these groups, to differing degrees. Those at or affiliated with Mises.org have a great deal of respect for individuals in categories other than anarcho-capitalist. Ludwig von Mises, after whom the institute was named, was a minarchist. Ron Paul is regularly cited, and writes articles for the website (and for LewRockwell.com), as well as gives speeches. However, great respect does not mean deification, or the absence of any criticism (Rothbard too is criticized).

While I agree with Stephan Kinsella on most of what he's said, I don't agree that we will always have a large State. I'm optimistic: there have been stateless societies in the past, and there can be the same thing again in the future.

Since you seemed to be caught by surprise that there were libertarians advocating a stateless society (anarcho-capitalism), I would suggest For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. It is a good introduction to anarcho-capitalism, and the views of anarcho-capitalist libertarians. Everyone -- except for the brute -- agrees that we need government. Minarchist libertarians believe that we need a State to provide government, anarchist libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) don't.

If you're interested in talking about this, my Yahoo! and AOL IM's are both dh003i.

Sincerely,
David Heinrich

PS: Mises.org is a very heavily trafficked website. In fact, it consistently receives more traffic than the Libertarian Party's homepage and CATO.org, a website focused more on what you consider practical policy issue (but what I consider less than wise suggestions).

[Stephan Kinsella]

Dave, good post. I hope you are correct that I am wrong in my lack of optimism! In any event, surely there is no obligation qua libertarianism to be an activist type as opposed to a theory or academic or whatever type.

[James Leroy Wilson]

Some time in the future, I will pay for features that would improve my blog, such as sitemeter, but as of now, I have no inclination to do so. I do not even know which free stat-counting service is most reliable.

To not care who reads my blog, means I can say whatever I want. I'm not trying to please anybody, but here is a free soapbox, and I will stand on it.

Albert Jay Nock, one of the five or six key intellectual "Old Right" writers who shaped modern libertarianism, desired only the freedom to say exactly what he wanted, how he wanted. He knew that persuasion of the masses was a futile project. He even wrote an essay, "Isaiah's Job" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html)on the subject. The prophet Isaiah was quite unpopular in his time. He is also one of the architects of modern civilization. I'm not equating myself, or any libertarian blogger who lacks sitemeter, with Isaiah. But the principle is essentially the same. Speaking the truth, as one understands it, is more powerful than concentrating on one's temporary influence and reach.

[Scott Scheule]

For an alternate view, I personally think of David Friedman as the greatest of the anarcho-capitalists.

Not having read Mises, Milton Friedman would be my name for minarchists.

As to Ron Paul, I agree. I actually met him a few months ago--fantastic guy.

[chad]

You asked why blog if you dont care about traffic. Here is why, my blog started because I was pissed about something and i wanted to make a point. That lasted about 15 minutes for two reasons 1. I'm not very smart so I cant really express myself in a way that holds interest 2. I got bored. Now it is just a dumping ground for stuff I find humorous or interesting. It is aimed at about 3 readers. Sometimes I get feedback sometimes I don't no big deal either way.

I wouldn't worry to much about what other people think of your site. Especially people who say things like I don't find you very principled. My experience in life is that people who have the luxury of describing themselves in terms of their principles, generally have that luxury because they have no principles.

Now to the breast implant tax. (just kidding).

Finally to Fling93, thanks for showing I am not the only one who doesnt like Ayn Rand.