Probing the Libertarian Mind

The American Thinker ^ | May 19, 2015 | John Horvat II

[Cincinatus' Wife]

"..........Indeed, The Libertarian Mind is a mixture of “whatever” the individual deems to be his interest. “Whatever” can consist of the reasonable libertarian outcry against big government and abusive regulations, or its excellent affirmation of free markets, rule of law and property rights. But “whatever” also consists of the throwing off of moral restraints that inhibit gratification and self-interest. Thus, the author obsesses about the urgent need for same-sex “marriage,” the end to pornography restrictions, and the right to legal drug use.

Throughout his explanation,...(h)abits like drug abuse, for example, are only seen from the individual’s perspective of happiness and not from that of spouses, children, and society at large, all of which are gravely affected by the person’s decision. There is little notion of the “common good” in the common libertarian mind. The common good is at best, the aggregate sum of the good of its parts.

In this vision of society, where society is viewed simply as a machine made up of the sum of its parts, relationships are reduced to contractual agreements whose members are free to mesh or separate with others as they see fit. Even a person’s link with God has an element of contract...

In this sense, the libertarian “mind” seems more like a calculator of self-interest than the actual thinking organ. Such a society is operated as a co-op or corporation which can deliver benefits, dividends and abundance in as much as they serve each individual’s interest. But it lacks the warm social bonds of an organic society organized like a family. It is a bland secular society officially stripped of its spiritual elements, from which, to recall the words of Irving Kristol, we can expect “no high nobility of purpose, no selfless devotion to transcendental ends, no awe-inspiring heroism.”...

[Gene Eric]

A trivialization of libertarianism. Nonetheless, the author is correct in his critical judgment of narcissism.

Yeah, yeah... libertarians are narcissistic... save it for someone who cares about the equivocal charge.

[Rodamala]

“Big L” Libertarians are mostly sub-clinical sociopathic pothead Hedonists with little faculty of empathy. Mostly.

[nathanbedford]

Habits like drug abuse, for example, are only seen from the individual’s perspective of happiness and not from that of spouses, children, and society at large, all of which are gravely affected by the person’s decision

If the editor had altered those words from "are only seen" to the more reasonable "are too often seen" I could agree with every word of that sentence. But the author is absolutist who by overstating his case loses it. Everyone of the sentiments expressed in the quoted sentence above can and should be applied to the reasoning foisting prohibition upon America and, therefore, the author's complaint against libertarianism misses the mark.

I define myself as a conservative with a pesky libertarian streak so I do not presume to speak on behalf of the disciples of Ayn Rand but there are certain obvious observations to make. The author describes the libertarian vision as though it were a series of atomic particles interacting only with contractual relationships and producing a mechanical, sterile, soulless society. As alternative he offers:

There is a big difference between this society and an organic vision of society, where members resemble a family and see themselves like living cells in the context of the whole body.

The author's vision comes dangerously close to those stirrings which motivate the left. I have written many times about the feeling of integration a leftist obtains by the submersion of himself into the embracing arms of liberalism, or, more accurately, the leftist group. He becomes subsumed into the collective and, of course, produces a collectivist model for society. Collectivist models for society fail because they fail to take into account the aspirations and interests of so many divers individuals and because inevitably they degenerate into a top down tyranny.

We have seen the results of collectivism around the world and it has murdered a hundred million people. We have seen the results of moralizing on behalf of society outlined in the quoted material at the top of this reply with the tragically failed experiment of prohibition. In my view, we are reliving prohibition now with an equally tragic war on drugs. If there are victims of drug abuse beyond the abuser himself, prohibition has taught us that we only amplify the harm done by corrupting the law and enriching organized crime. We do not create an "organic society" we create a nation of scofflaws.

It does not matter whether we use the airy fairy vocabulary of this author in describing the ends sought through moralizing by legislation or we use the jargon of old-time religion, eventually we have to come to terms with the idea that salvation is a retail sale between God and man and cannot be vouchsafed to him by any legislature, no matter how well intentioned.

[Terry L Smith]

The author must be born after the time of the fall of The Berlin wall.

There are several ideas that the author does not grasp.

The usage of the term, “Yeah, whatever!” , to describe
Libertarian ideas is as insane, as that term, itself. There
are points to cross:
Libertarians cannot think, if so, Jefferson’s mandate
to stand and question the Creator, could NOT be comprehended
by a non-thinking portion of society!

Relationships viewed as contracts, instead of covenants,
remove ALL the thousands of years of espoused responsibilities
built into them by society, itself. It removes the heart of
the matter, the individual’s heart, mind and spirit from that
bonding, and lowers a relationship to a business attitude
of profit and loss, and lowers any sired children to a commodity
bargaining chips, or worse, tools of The State.

No common good ideology??? The byword that Libertarianism
espouses is Freedom. The “common good” has been
hijacked, in opposition to, “What is good for the future
of the nation,, the next generation?”, as opposed. to
the common good, for me, for right now, which used to
be titled ‘situational ethics’, “what does it matter?”

Legal drug use???? I’m a child of the ‘60’s. My father was a
motorcyclin’, snortin’, sob before I was born. I’m a milvet, from
the days when the hippie drug culture was all over the place.
From what I have witnessed, ain’t no way I support that!

What pornography limits does the author infer???
Again, the author must be referring to the tattered fringes
of pornography laws, or those referring to sodomy,
for there aren’t many left, as I remember them.

For the record, personally, I do not and cannot place my approval
on any of this movement of legal homosexual unions. It
is an insult against society’s basic tenet, the propogation
of the next generation of that society and the future
of the bloodline.

In all, the author’s guesstimation of the Libertarian
Ideology, reads more as something from a Soviet
Proletariat, than from a mind raised in the land of
the free and the home of the brave.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

....eventually we have to come to terms with the idea that salvation is a retail sale between God and man and cannot be vouchsafed to him by any legislature, no matter how well intentioned.

True enough but in the meantime they vote. To me, the libertarian spectrum leans more left than right - of course you can cherry pick parts that match up with conservatism, but in the end the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that whole fits more comfortably with the Left.

[nathanbedford]

I disagree.

Libertarianism stands for fiscal sanity and individual liberty. Conservatism does as well except for a few issues in which social conservatives part company with libertarians. No one can seriously contend that leftists stand for fiscal sanity or for individual liberty.

If we distinguish those social issues involving "victims" from those which arguably do not, there is almost a one-to-one accountability with the difficult exception of the issue of abortion, and then only for some extremist libertarians.

Socialism is essentially a collectivist enterprise, libertarianism is anything but.

[nathanbedford]

I should add there are significant differences between conservatives and libertarians on the issues of immigration and national defense.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I’d like to see the results of a test asking the question, what is a Libertarian?

The devil is in the details, so what something means versus what it is perceived to be may vary considerably.

Then too is the “idea” of being moderate and being a libertarian - like a Jerry Brown Moderate Libertarian.

[Vaquero]

I am too conservative to be a libertarian and too libertarian to be a conservative.

I follow the constitution and the first 10 amendments. So call it what you will.

[Ken H]

Agreed => http://www.freerepublic.com/~kenh/

[VietVet]

Most of the comments seem to confuse the views of the book’s author, David Boaz, with those of the reviewer.

[fwdude]

Libertarians believe we can have a robust, free-market economy without that pesky “moral foundation.” How wrong they are.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Anyone who wishes to, can live as a libertarian in today's world.

If you work hard and amass enough wealth then you can use that wealth to move to a country where everything you wish to do is legal. If such a country doesn't exist, you can use your wealth to bribe a country to pass laws legalizing everything you wish to do, or have police look the other way when you are doing illegal things.

That is what the CEO's of major multinational corporations and crime syndicates (is there a difference?) seem to be doing.

If you have some idealistic notion that the majority of humans, if they were in their right minds, would wish to live as libertarians then you are truly delusional. So anyone who is a libertarian ideologue that wastes any time trying to cajole people into voting in libertarian governments is either living in a dream world or smoking too much reefer.

[Gene Eric]

While the article makes good points, it’s disordered and too clever. Horvat didn’t make good use of the one page he was allocated.

[BearArms]

Libertarians believe we can have a robust, free-market economy without that pesky “moral foundation.” How wrong they are.

No, they simply believe that this "moral foundation" you speak of ought not be laid and maintained by the state. Social conservatives, on the other hand, seem quite inclined to support use of the state to compel moral behavior.

Liberals also support use of government force to compel their idea of moral behavior, which has led to Christian businesses being forced to pay for abortifacient birth control, serve gays, etc.

Lovely philosophy.

[fwdude]

What do you consider “moral behavior?” Remaining clothed in public? Refraining from sexual intercourse in public? Prohibiting the selling of pornography, cigarettes, or booze to minors? Banning the practice of driving on public roadways while intoxicated?

[Moonman62]

“Big L” Libertarians are mostly sub-clinical sociopathic pothead Hedonists with little faculty of empathy. Mostly.

...

Pretty much. They are also behind most of the anti-cop propaganda on FR and elsewhere.

Another way of looking at it is Libertarians are anarchists who own property.

[Rodamala]

Another way of looking at it is Libertarians are anarchists who own property.

Or... as I sometimes call them... Spoiled Brat Douchebags.