Paul Starr, on the other hand, sounded more willing to defend modern, welfare-statist liberalism on philosophical grounds. "What do liberals and libertarians have in common? The fundamental value of liberty. What do liberals and libertarians disagree about? What liberty means." Liberals, he argued, see threats to liberty from concentrations of private power and will continue to defend government as a means of combating those threats: "The value of these programs," such as Social Security, he said, "isn't just security but liberty itself."
Meanwhile, the libertarian side conceded what seems to be quite a bit of ground:
[Brink Lindsey, Cato Institute scholar] echoed Massey's call for open empirical discussion of how large a welfare state would be effective, saying that countries like Sweden suggest that once nations are wealthy enough, they can "afford" welfare states. "That just doesn't seem like a matter of great importance," he argued. Instead of an all-or-nothing, "yes or no" argument about whether to have a welfare state at all, Lindsey envisioned a collegial conversation about the size of the government safety net. "Bottom line: I'd rather hang out with the liberals and argue about economics than hang out with the Republicans and argue about Darwin and stem cells."
I have a lot of sympathy for his "bottom line," though. Overall, the libertarian side seems to be very fed up with their alliance with the Republican Party of today.
I'm still very much gathering my thoughts about the election and what to do going forward, so I'll confine myself to saying that the whole thing is very much worth reading.