Libertarianism or Libertinism? (Frank S. Meyer Flashback)

The Potowmack Institute ^ | September 9, 1969 | Frank S. Meyer

[Pyro7480]

I just read this in In Defense of Freedom and Related Essays, which is a collection of Frank S. Meyer's best essays, and includes his famous book "In Defense of Freedom," which was originally printed in 1962 by Regnery. The collection was edited by William C. Dennis, and is printed by the Liberty Fund. I received my copy more than three years ago during a trip to the headquarters of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which is only several miles from my house. The book is part of ISI's Library of Conservative Classics . I finally got around to reading it recently (it's hard to read your own books when you're in college). I think the ideas outlined in Meyer's book are the closest I've ever seen (in print) to my own ideology.

Meyer is a "forgotten founding father" of the modern conservative movement. He was a senior editor of the National Review from 1957 until his death in 1972. I think Meyer's important contribution to the formation of the conservative movement, both intellectual and political, is often overlooked and/or forgotten. Thankfully, a recent biography titled "Principles and Heresies: Frank S. Meyer and the Shaping of the American Conservative Movement by Kevin J. Smant (printed by ISI Books) tries to right this wrong. The biography came out less than a month ago in May 2002, and was recently reviewed by Ramesh Ponnuru in the National Review. For a short bio. on Meyer, visit the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

[Mo1]

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[Pyro7480]

BUMP!

[Liberal Classic]

This article is interesting, and not without merit. If we can get away from the name-calling (fascist, traitor) we might reach some sort of understanding.

``Recently, however, there have been ominous signs that the danger of a disbalance just as alien to conservatism is arising not from traditionalist quarters, but from an untrammeled libertarianism, which tends as directly to anarchy and nihilism as unchecked traditionalism tends to authoritarianism.''

This sentences makes me want to look for more writing by Mr. Meyer. Pyro, you made part of this sentence boldface, while it is important in its entirety.

This is something I've said frequently here on FR: Liberty and responsibility go hand in hand. Liberty without responsibility leads to mayhem, and responsibility without liberty leads to slavery.

For example, the left-wing approach to drug prohibtion revolves around isolating people from their bad acts with such suggestions like giving people free needles, or free health care and drug counseling. The left cannot see that these undermine personal responsibility. On the other hand, the authoritarian approach to drug-prohibition involves punishing everyone for the bad acts of others. The authoritarian does not acknowledge that some people can handle addiction better than others, and want to jail all users to get the ones would cause trouble.

If we have a balanced approach to drug prohibition, we would in no way subsidize people's bad habits on the one hand, but when someone commits a crime we should lock the door and throw away the key.

[Physicist]

[FreeTally]

You never stop lying about libertarians, do you?

[FreeTally]

If we have a balanced approach to drug prohibition, we would in no way subsidize people's bad habits on the one hand, but when someone commits a crime we should lock the door and throw away the key.

Do you mean when someone engages in a personal or property crime while on drugs? I assume under this balanced approach, possession, sale or manufacturing of "drugs" would not be a crime.

[Liberal Classic]

Not exactly. I believe with any sort of reform of drug prohibition should come two things: one, a similar retreat of welfare, and two, an increase in the penalties for all crime, especially violent crime.

I do not think that committing a murder sober should be punshed less than while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I feel the same about hate crime: is it more wrong to kill someone because of their race, or for the money? Is it more wrong to slay someone with a firearm or your bare hands? No.

I believe with any softening of our stance of drug prohibition should come a strengthening of penalties for all crimes. In my opinion, child rape should be a capital offence. Why is there such gnashing of teeth over what to do with sexual-offenders? If they are such a danger, don't let them out of prison. Likewise with murderers.

[T'wit]

Frank S. Meyer is well remembered by the thinning ranks of what we once called (with capital letters) Young Conservatives, including me. He and Elsie Meyer often entertained the young lions at his mountaintop home in Woodstock, New York. If we respected Frank, we adored Elsie, a dear person and wonderful hostess.

Every wall of the house, and even an addition to the house, was lined with books. This reflected both the Meyers' great minds and Frank's work as book editor of National Review. The discussions were intense and instructive. I was going to say "enLIGHTening," but Frank was so much a night person, he hardly ever saw daylight! The talks lasted all night, over too many glasses of Dewar's.

Their two young sons, John and Gene, frequently joined the grown-up talk, or whupped their elders at chess (Gene today is an international Grand Master, John a Master). Gene is still active as founder and gray eminence of the Federalist Society. He looks just like his dad :-)

[FreeTally]

I believe with any softening of our stance of drug prohibition should come a strengthening of penalties for all crimes. In my opinion, child rape should be a capital offence.

I agree. Actually, I could probably agree that murder, rape, child molestation and treason should be the four crimes that are capital offenses.

[steve-b]

It's difficult to make any sense of this because it doesn't clearly define the distinction between government and society. It gets halfway there with the statement "libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order's politics", but is far less clear in addressing the other half (that social norms must be left exclusively to social tools such as selective association, criticism, etc. and may not become entangled with the state).

[Physicist]

Watch the libertarians apply their principles in defense of cannibalism on this thread here.

"Obviously, nobody around here is in favor of cannibalism, and everyone, libertarians included, agree that murderers should be punished." -- allend, reply #21 from the thread.

Changed your mind, I see. The oldest and crudest rhetorical device for demonizing one's opponents is to claim that they are cannibals. To your credit you've stopped just short of that, and merely declared us to be their moral equivalent.

[Pyro7480]

Thanks for commenting here. Please do look into the writings of Meyer. He was originally a Communist, and after some soul-searching in the 1940s, he became an influential leader of the emerging conservative movement. George Nash, in The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, calls Meyer "an ardent, argumentative libertarian, as well as one of the formative personal influences on the conservative revial," while others call him a "fusionist," someone who tried to reconcile the libertarian and traditionist schools of conservatism. But one of the best reflections on Meyer's contribution comes from Morton Blackwell, founder of the Leadership Institute. He commented on "In Defense of Freedom" in his essay, Read to Lead. Meyer's basic thesis, according to Blackwell, was that "if the conservative movement was going to succeed, adherents of both lines of thought, natural allies on most issues, must be fused together. Supporters of a conservative economic policy, he taught, couldn't expect their policies to be enacted without the backing of social-issue conservatives. And it was equally true, he continued, that social-issue conservatives couldn't expect their policies to be enacted unless they allied with economic conservatives. The presidential elections of 1980, 1984 and 1988, as well as the congressional elections of 1994 and 1996, were manifestations of the wisdom of Frank Meyer."

Another great quote by Meyer comes from his 1964 essay "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism."
"But both extremes (of traditionalism and libertarianism) are self-defeating: truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny."

I admire your well-thought comments. The "essay" describing your train of thought on your profile page seems to back up my thought that you are a well-trained thinker. I agree with you that the all the name-calling on FR needs to stop. It is very immature. It can be a very anti-intellectual environment on here at times.

If you want to read more about the "tension" between liberty and tradition, a good book (also printed by ISI) is "Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate," edited by George W. Carey. It includes essays by Meyer, and commentary by Murray Rothbard on Meyer's ideology.

[Physicist]

Actually, I could probably agree that murder, rape, child molestation and treason should be the four crimes that are capital offenses.

I don't know. Since you've distinguished it from rape, the definition of child molestation gets awfully fuzzy.

I'm a big fan of corporal punishment, myself. If some old lech feels up a 15-year-old, a thorough caning will probably suffice to correct his behavior.

[Liberal Classic]

"But both extremes (of traditionalism and libertarianism) are self-defeating: truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny."

Thank you for your reply. I feel much the same as Mr. Meyer when he said conservatives and libertarians need each other.

[secretagent]

Libertine libertarianism ... In its opposition to the maintenance of defenses against Communism, its puerile sympathy with the rampaging mobs of campus and ghetto...

I don't know what he has in mind here. He mentions Rothbard and Hess, but no position or stand of theirs - no specifics.

[Pyro7480]

Well, this essay was designed as a response to Murray Rothbard and his followers' ideology. As I mentioned before, I just finished "In Defense of Freedom," and in it, Meyer makes a huge distinction between the state and society. He said, "Those who possess the power of the state possess it exclusively and over against the rest of society, whether their power is cofirmed by hereditary right, landed property, wealth, or the democratic ballot." So that would address your issue.

[OWK]

Not at all. I never said that libertarians were cannibals or even supported cannibalism, merely that, when challenged, they were ready to apply their principles in its defense, i.e., to say that as long as no murder or other violation of human rights were involved, the practice should be legal.

Certainly I would apply my principles in defense of the ritual cannibalism practiced by Catholics and other religious sects.

Provided no rights were violated of course.