In "High Plains Moochers," Paul Krugman states that at the heart of the standoff between Cliven Bundy and

the government is a "perversion of freedom." What is the perverted notion of freedom, in Krugman's eyes, that "too much of the right" has adopted? He writes: "The freedom of the wealthy to do whatever they want, without regard to the consequences for others."

! !

But Krugman's analysis falters due to his inability to grasp a fundamental distinction within libertarianism. Krugman writes: "Suppose [Bundy] had been grazing his cattle on land belonging to one of his neighbors, and had refused to pay for the privilege. That would clearly have been theft and brandishing guns when someone tried to stop the theft would have turned it into armed robbery." Unfortunately for Krugman, this is an analogy minus the argument. The fact that Krugman didn't feel the need to provide an argument reveals he doesn't really understand libertarianism. A libertarian makes a distinction between persons (eligible and licit participants in the market) and government (an ineligible and illicit participant in the market). In Krugman's eyes, the analogy self-evidently damns Bundy; no need to link the two cases: they're obviously analogous. But Krugman fails to realize that, if Bundy were acting in a consistently libertarian fashion, he wouldn't treat his neighbor's land the way he has the government's land. This is because the libertarian vision of government, which is to see government as a minimal state, doesn't include the right of government to own and lease land.

Krugman writes: "The fact that in this case the public owns the land shouldnt make any difference." If only we could win arguments by claiming, but not going so far as to show, that the distinctions our opponents make just simply don't exist.