The Myth of Libertarians as Social Liberals

National Review Online ^ | 2009-02-11 | Jonah Goldberg

[rabscuttle385]

All good points and I agree with them all to one extent or another. But — and you knew there had to be one — it bothers me when conservatives offer the blanket concession that social liberalism and the social aspect of libertarianism are one and the same.

To say you are an economic conservative is to say you are a libertarian on 95% of the relevant issues. But to say you are a social liberal isn't anything like saying you are a libertarian on 95% of social issues.

Social liberals are often quite aggressive advocates of using state power to impose their preffered versions of "liberty." Most libertarians are disgusted by thought-policing political correctness, by forced "sensitivity" training, by so-called Hate Crimes tribunals and racial and gender quotas. They detest smoking bans, forced volunteerism and the whole panapoly of Nanny State outrages. They may detest religious incursions on government, but they also detest governmental incursions on religion. Most libertarians are localists who believe that the federal government doesn't have an all purpose writ to make everything better. They believe in the autonomy of business and other institutions to do what they want — within obvious limits — even if what they do is bad.

. . . . .

...liber(al)tarians make a terrible mistake when they assume that a few shared values about what constitutes "social goods" or "tolerance" means that libertarians and liberals actually share a common vision of the role of government.

...liberals are dishonest or ignorant when they claim that they are particularly libertarian in their outlook when, more often, they are merely strong champions of having the State mirror and impose their value choices.

[tacticalogic]

If fetuses are held to be persons—as they should be—then the federal government is indeed mandated to prevent it in every case not meeting the strict scrutiny of the courts.

The if they are provided every protection extended to any other child, any miscarraige should be investigated as a potential homicide, just like the unexplained death of any child.

[Philo-Junius]

This troubles you why, exactly?

But in any event, why, all of the sudden, are we arguing practicality instead of principle?

I thought it was the principle which was important here.

[tacticalogic]

I thought it was the principle which was important here.

I have a habit of looking for potential unitended consequences.

[Swing_Thought]

The Constitution is the tie that binds libertarianism and conservatism.

Bingo!

My suggestion is that we join forces and work together until the federal government is, what, half it's current size? Then we can argue amongst ourselves about the "true reason for government."

[Philo-Junius]

The death of fragile children (neonates, etc.) are rarely subjected to criminal investigation, just as the deaths of most elderly persons are closed with a simple physician’s signature on the death certificate.

But it’s interesting to see how quickly vaunted libertarian principle goes by the board when there’s any threat to the sex, drugs or rock’n’roll.

[JSDude1]

Yup! And I also know that is the left who is the “agressor” (and big government/tyranny advocate) when they force “social issues” to come into the forefront through the courts. It’s a false dichotomy to believe one ~’CAN’T’~ be both a conservative socially, fiscally, ~and~ libertarian. CHEERS!

[tacticalogic]

But it’s interesting to see how quickly vaunted libertarian principle goes by the board when there’s any threat to the sex, drugs or rock’n’roll.

Not nearly as intersting as how quickly a difference of opinion turns into accusations of moral turpitude and criminal intent.

[Lakeshark]

I was referring to your statement. Which was incorrect.

I said nothing about now.

[Philo-Junius]

Shrugging your shoulders and walking away from infanticide is indeed moral turpitude.

[tacticalogic]

Fascinating.

[Philo-Junius]

Anyone with respect for human life and liberty and an iota of understanding of embryology should find it fairly straightforward.

What’s fascinating is the fact that libertarians always have the same blind spots in their paeans to liberty.

[tacticalogic]

I’m sure a proper indoctrination in the immorality of attempts to limit government authority can rectify that, pending survival.

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[uncommonsense]

I think Limbaugh meant “more effective government” versus larger. Perhaps he was misquoted, intending to say larger conservative representation, or was simply caught up in a moment. I don’t listen a whole lot to him, but he quotes Reagan all the time “government is the problem” and advocates minimal government - railing against the “nanny state”.

[Rhino371]

Why should we consider a fetus a human being who deserves rights?

Answer that question well and you will convince libertarians that abortion is wrong and should be banned.

Calling them immoral isn’t going to do anything.

[Philo-Junius]

Why should we consider libertarians humans deserving rights?

Both questions are equally morally obtuse.

Libertarians who are willing to draw lines between humans deserving basic rights and those undeserving of them expose a grossly utilitarian selfishness in their moral calculus: life and liberty for me, but not for thee.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Limbaugh is top of the heap on this along with that idiot Hannity.

Hannity maybe sometimes. Rush....no way.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Libertarians as a party “punt” on abortion.

libertarianism on pure principle believe that Gubmint exists to protect the lives, liberty and well being of their citizens and nothing else. That is a legitimate and mandatory function of Gubmint.

That by definition includes citizens who have not yet exited their Moms womb.

[Ken H]

...and also suspects that there was less of a "drug problem" in 1880 with no prohibition, than there is now

According to figures at the USDOJ website, addiction to cocaine and opiates was actually higher in 2000 than in 1900.

"By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm

_______________________________________

"Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm

______________________________________

"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."

--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm

______________________________________

The US population in 2000 was about 280,000,000. So using those figures, the combined addiction rate was about 1.6% in 2000 vs 0.5% in 1900.

[Ken H]

And lets not forget that Libertarians want all drug laws overturned so they can all get legally stoned.

Do you think using the Commerce Clause to outlaw marijuana within the borders of a state is in keeping with its original understanding?