Posted on 05/19/2002 3:02:10 PM PDT by aconservaguy
In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.This, of course, is from his essay, "Why I am Not a Conservative" an appendix to The Constitution of Liberty. While I have highlighted his comments on Libertarian and Old Whig, earlier in his essay he stresses all the parts of Conservatism, both Continental and American, that he has problems with. In an effort to not post too lengthy a read, I have included only the parts bearing on both of your comments.7. We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.[16] Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, "Whig" was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.
The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals. But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the overrationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the "old."
To confess one's self as an Old Whig does not mean, of course, that one wants to go back to where we were at the end of the seventeenth century. It has been one of the purposes of this book to show that the doctrines then first stated continued to grow and develop until about seventy or eighty years ago, even though they were no longer the chief aim of a distinct party. We have since learned much that should enable us to restate them in a more satisfactory and effective form. But, though they require restatement in the light of our present knowledge, the basic principles are still those of the Old Whigs. True, the later history of the party that bore that name has made some historians doubt where there was a distinct body of Whig principles; but I can but agree with Lord Acton that, though some of "the patriarchs of the doctrine were the most infamous of men, the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation"[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. It is the doctrine from which Continental liberalism took what is valuable in it. It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based. In its pure form it is represented in the United States, not by the radicalism of Jefferson, nor by the conservatism of Hamilton or even of John Adams, but by the ideas of James Madison, the "father of the Constitution."[18]
I do not know whether to revive that old name is practical politics. That to the mass of people, both in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere, it is today probably a term without definite associations is perhaps more an advantage than a drawback. To those familiar with the history of ideas it is probably the only name that quite expresses what the tradition means. That, both for the genuine conservative and still more for the many socialists turned conservative, Whiggism is the name for their pet aversion shows a sound instinct on their part. It has been the name for the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power.
8. It may well be asked whether the name really matters so much. In a country like the United States, which on the whole has free institutions and where, therefore, the defense of the existing is often a defense of freedom, it might not make so much difference if the defenders of freedom call themselves conservatives, although even here the association with the conservatives by disposition will often be embarrassing. Even when men approve of the same arrangements, it must be asked whether they approve of them because they exist or because they are desirable in themselves. The common resistance to the collectivist tide should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the belief in integral freedom is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been.
The need for a clear distinction is absolutely imperative, however, where, as is true in many parts of Europe, the conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed - a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to "conservative" parties who created them.[19] Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.
Soros is one of the libertarian core allies? One what subject other than the WOD does Soros happen to agree with the LP? It isn’t the 2nd amendment that’s for sure. Soros’s political philosophy doesn’t match that of the LP or libertarianism, but then again I’m sure you knew that. Why do you hate libertarianism so much that you debase yourself with propaganda techniques?
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin America---the post-modern age
I reccommend the fourth chapter of The Constitution of Liberty to all that want to understand Hayek's conception of how good Whiggish limited government is formed.
Well said.
"Well said." Lies roscoe, in another idiotic attempt to smear libertarianism with an obviously false conclusion. You are refuted by Hayek:
--- "the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism [libertarianism] began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation"[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. ---- It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based."
Roscoe, -- THAT is well said. -- Can you dispute Hayek as an authority?
The actual quote:
"the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation."
What is the "obviously" false conclusion? That "Libertarians repudiate this insight of the Founding Fathers"? How is the conclusion "obviously false"?
You are refuted by Hayek: --- "the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism [libertarianism] began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation"[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. ---- It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based."
on what evidence do you base the equivocation of "Whiggism" and libertarianism? I don't see how van den Haag's and Hayek's quotes clash (or how van den Haag [and roscoe] are refuted by him): where do they clash and how does Hayek refute van den Haag? Hayek himself admits the doctrine of the "American system of government" -- the government which van den Haag praises, i'll assume -- is one based on this english whig tradition. Even if this historical fact is true, it is changes not van den Haag's assertion: hayek discusses the achievement of english whigs and the foundation of the american system; van den haag dicusses conservatives' belief that "limited constitutional government" is "essential" to "secure... rights." There is no dispute on the foundation of the government -- in fact, the quotes seem to be discussing different things (whigs/foundation of american gov. vs. conservative beliefs) -- the quote from hayek does nothing to refute the van den haag quote.
Roscoe, -- THAT is well said. -- Can you dispute Hayek as an authority?
Must he? It seems that van den Haag and Hayek could share similar ground. And whether or not Hayek is an authority (which is obvious that he is) seems secondary to whether or not van den Haag is "well said" in his quote (i think both men are).
Another good quote.
While I've met a few Libertarians who are reasonable, rational individuals who are genuinely interested in preserving our Constitutional republic, the majority I've spoken to, both in person and on this very forum, believe that 9/11/01 was a conspiracy by our government over oil, that we are NOT at war, that Afghanistan is either a dirty little police action or a conspiracy to A:) get Afghanistan's non-existant oil or B:) non-existant pipeline...that our post 9/11 actions would be unnecessary if we only pulled all US citizens and servicemen back onto US soil, close our borders and build a huge wall around the entire country...there's a libertarian on another thread right now who says the Bali bombing is a prelude to a US invasion of Indonesia...
I try hard not to paint groups with a broad brush, but some posters make it difficult...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.