Posted on 02/01/2002 9:55:30 AM PST by Exnihilo
Critiques Of Libertarianism: Robert H. Bork Critiques Libertarianism
Last updated 12/05/01.
[The following (rather long) critique of Libertarianism is found on pages 150-152 of Robert Bork's popular book, "Slouching Towards Gomorrah." Thanks to Joe Steve Swick III, who posted this to the net.]
Libertarians join forces with modern liberals in opposing censorship, though libertarians are far from being modern liberals in other respects. For one thing, libertarians do no like the coercion that necessarily accompanies radical egalitarianism. But because both libertarians and modern liberals are oblivious to social reality, both demand radical personal autonomy in expression. That is one reason libertarians are not to be confused, as they often are, with conservatives. They are quasi- or semiconservatives. Nor are they to be confused with classical liberals, who considered restraints on individual autonomy to be essential.
The nature of the liberal and libertarian errors is easily seen in discussions of pornography. The leader of the explosion of pornographic videos, described admiringly by a competitor as the Ted Turner of the business, offers the usual defenses of decadence: 'Adults have the right to see [pornography] if they want to. If it offends you, don't buy it.' Those statements neatly sum up both the errors and the (unintended) perniciousness of the alliance between libertarians and modern liberals with respect to popular culture.
Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of 'rights' incessantly, not only to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right --whether pornography or abortion or what have you-- discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be deminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and "rights" cannot win every time. Why there is a right for adults to enjoy pornography remains unexplained and unexplainable.
The second bit of advice --'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do. The aesthetic and moral environment in which you and your family live will be coarsened and degraded. Economists call the effects an activity has on others 'externalities'; why so many of them do not understand the externalities here is a mystery. They understand quite well that a person who decides not to run a smelter will nevertheless be seriously affected if someone else runs one nearby.
Free market economists are particularly vulnerable to the libertarian virus. They know that free economic exchanges usually benefit both parties to them. But they mistake that general rule for a universal rule. Benefits do not invariably result from free market exchanges. When it comes to pornography or addictive drugs, libertarians all too often confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be available on the market. The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature. I have heard economists say that, as economists, they do no deal with questions of morality. Quite right. But nobody is just an economist. Economists are also fathers and mothers, husbands or wives, voters citizens, members of communities. In these latter roles, they cannot avoid questions of morality.
The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.' But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories. As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.
Can there be any doubt that as pornography and depictions of violence become increasingly popular and increasingly accessible, attitudes about marriage, fidelity, divorce, obligations to children, the use of force, and permissible public behavior and language will change? Or that with the changes in attitudes will come changes in conduct, both public and private? We have seen those changes already and they are continuing. Advocates of liberal arts education assure us that those studies improve character. Can it be that only uplifting reading affects character and the most degrading reading has no effects whatever? 'Don't buy it' and 'change the channel,' however intended, are effectively advice to accept a degenerating culture and its consequences.
The obstacles to censorship of pornographic and viloence-filled materials are, of course, enormous. Radical individualism in such matters is now pervasive even among sedate, upper middle-class people. At a dinner I sat next to a retired Army general who was no a senior corporate executive. The subject of Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs came up. This most conventional of dinner companions said casually that people ought to be allowed to see whatever they wanted to see. It would seem to follow that others ought to be allowed to do whatever some want to see.... Any serious attempt to root out the worst in our popular culture may be doomed unless the judiciary comes to understand that the First Amendment was adopted for good reasons, and those reasons did not include the furtherance of radical personal autonomy.
Not likely. But an interesting article nonetheless. Libertarians will part company by paragraph 3. They do not recognize "the idea of restraints on individuals by communities " as legitimate.
EBUCK
Bork hasn't addressed the externalities of censorship:
One way the Nazis cleansed the country of "un-German" thoughts was through censorship. A "brown shirt" (member of the SA) throws some more fuel--"un-German" books-- into a roaring fire on the Opernplatz in Berlin. May 10, 1933.
Photo credit: USHMM Photo Archives
EBUCK
The former are less violent.
EBUCK
The second bit of advice --'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do.
Sarah Brady says the same thing about guns.
He's not the boss of me!
Actually, in a civilized state, someone has to be the boss. It's up to the people to select a just leader.
I thought we were talking about giving the government powers to ban and destroy objectionable material, and to use violence, or threat of violence, to enforce its will; aka censorship.
Am I mistaken?
I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!"
You've not noticed mission creep, incrementalism, or the slippery slope effect anywhere in our government?
Once the precedent is set of putting the First Amendment up to a popular vote, what exactly would protect unpopular speech?
Like what, for example? Unless you consider "failure" to be a restraint, when your goods, services, or ideas can't compete successfully - Marxism being a prime example.
Both possess protection under the 1st Amendment's free speech clause. The Bible enjoys additional protection under the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion clause.
Reality is relentless/final---
better to keep into the equation and not play word-mind games---artificial intelligence/fantasy!
EBUCK
Societal and cultural values should be avoided whenever possible in federal law. If you want laws that reflect the values of your society and culture, then pass them at the state and local level. When people start talking about needing something legislated at the federal level, they think they're going to get federal laws that reflect the values of the culture and society where they live. What they end up with instead are local laws that reflect the values of the culture and society inside the beltway.
Libertarians live and die on a platform of principles. If those principles are broken, even for what may appear to be very valid and sound reasons, then they really aren't priciples at all. Many of the worst laws today began as valid and sound exceptions to liberty and somehow, over time, morph into something that was originally totally unintended. The idea of unintended consequences is precisely what makes me a L(l)ibertarian. It may seem cold and heartless, but over time weaknesses are ALWAYS exploited.
Or is he actually taking the long and quiet way to saying that porn should be banned and criminalized? If so, where is the line? Obviously nekkid babies in the tup or on a bearskin shouldn't be illegal, nor should Victoria Secret catalogues. On the other side, is there any redeeming social value to exlicit films and pictures of hte most deviant acts known to man (and animal)? Who decides what is and isn't? Would fiction be included?
At what point do we arrest and jail people for nothing more than looking at dirty pictures and reading raunchy material?
Who can justify prosecuting someone because they "might" commit an illegal act because they possess pornography?
Decadence cannot be arrested by GOVERNMENT action; state action 'conserves' decadence.
If one replaces an 'evil' with a greater 'evil', where is the social gain?
Really, a soi-disant 'conservative' ought not to be so filled with hubris that he imagines that 'the right sort of people in charge' would fundamentally change a single particle of our societal distress.
If you want something killed or destroyed, government's an excellent tool.
Used for any other purpose, it still kills and destroys. I thought American conservatives knew that.
That era in history is a prime learning example for mankind. At least something positive came of it - a hard lesson learned.
Should we forget such a costly lesson because Godwin said so?
Censors should remember the roots of their ideology, who shared it, and what became of them. And I'm happy to help them.
Not to say it isn't so, but I am not personally aware of any increased popularity or accessibility of porno / violence (at least within the last few years) can anyone offer any empirical evidence to back this claim?
I agree. I used to think Bork was great, but I now tend to think he is dangerous. This paragraph sounds like something on the "drug warriors" here would write:
The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.'
And this is wrong? Bork is essentially saying that NO ONE has a right to view what someone else deems "bad".
But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories.
This is just scare tacticts. "I will be affected by those who are affected by the effects of movies, magazines or TV shows I don't like". Yeh sure. You are as affected as you allow yourself. Again, he claims he has a right to have people view only what he wants. Scary stuff.
As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .
That's stupid. You can move to where there is no smog, AND you can turn off the tv.
There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.
Oh, here goes "for the children". Their parents can do nothing about it? Where have we heard this before? I have heard parents claim that they can't stop their kids from going to cancun on sprin break. This is pathetic.
BUMP!
AB
If pictures of Nazis burning books bothers you, I'll see if I can find a picture of the Soviets burning them instead.
Or the Chinese,
Or the Vietnamese,
Or the Cambodians,
Or the Cubans.....
Unfortuately, many individuals (and libertarian critics) use the label as a shield for scandlous behavior and slothful lifestyles.
I can understand the desire to rid a community of certain vices. Those who support these ideas tend to believe that everyone or most that do what ever is being banned will do something to harm the community. They refuse to hold the individual responsible for their criminal actions, preferring to ban the means rather than the act. It is no different in principle than gun control advocates banning guns to stop crime.
Back in the 70's in my Army days, alcohol was banned in the barracks until a newly assigned First Sergeant made new rules: one bottle per person or one case per person, he who screws up gets in trouble, not everyone else. Yes, some people screwed up, but they were held accountable.
Booze in and of itself is neither good or bad. Leave those who use it responsibly alone and deal appropriately with those that abuse it.
Of course, my challenge is to persuade others that freedom means that people run their own lives and only lose priveledges or rights when they screw up, not because they "might".
I'll try to not use such a poignant example next time. My point wasn't that all censors are Nazis. It was to highlight externalities, an issue in the article, of censorship. Those externalities manifest themselves regardless of who practices censorship, be it us or the Germans.
The reason I used that photo was I've been where that burning occurred, so it was the first one to come to mind.
Needless to say, I don't put a whole lot of faith in the opinions of Bork.
That, IMO, is one of the greatest cancers to our country. Congressional representatives are not our leaders, they are our representatives as are senators.
The President is to preside over the government, not lead us. To amny people are looking for leadership in the wrong places and there are too many people willing to accomodate them.
We do NOT elect leaders! We should be electing people to conduct business of the government, but not leaders.
Bork fails to make an important distinction between solicited messages (solicited by buying a book or entering a movie theater), and unsolicited ones, that project from store windows, billboards or public acts. The externality argument of his is spurious. If I literally pollute the environment with a toxin, I am causing proximate harm, which under unjust pollution laws I may have a chance to externalize. If I sell pornography to a free moral agent who then commits a sex crime then the moral agent is causing the proximate harm and I didn't externalize anything. (That is leaving aside the argument that pornography serves as a useful and non-violence release for potential criminals). Only if the pornographic message is unsolicited does the moral equation change.
I could live with that. We'd set up shop away from you, and you'd be rid of us. If we screwed up, it would be of our own doing, and you could use us as a bad example. If we succeeded, more would imitate us. This has been called "Laboratories of Democracy".
The Constitution was designed with that intent. Too bad that's no longer the framework of our government. Federalism of the founders design was lost with the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Steals, too, don't forget that!
Hmmmm...this reminds me of a Bible verse that say that the thief only comes to steal, kill and destroy...
I'm sure there is, but purists of any stripe are going to clash with everone else not of that stripe. But I think nearly every libertarian you will encounter here will support the concept laid out by the founders of "laboratories of democracy" and what support of that concept implies.
Oooh, I like this. Fits in with my minwage arguments. I gots to go Bork texaggie and general_re and badrotorooter and ....parsy.
Minus reality libertarians/ism is fun--harmless!
Reality is relentless/final---
better to keep into the equation and not play word-mind games---artificial intelligence/fantasy!
Minus coherence crypticness/isms are gobble-dee-gook—poppycock!
Comprehensibility is logical/understandable---
better to keep into the context and not play mystical-rhetorical shuffleboard---mindless cryptojargon/gibberish!
Bork holds and advocates the community can justify interference with the decisions of others on the following grounds, 1)the community has accepted his view of acceptable behavior, or 2)The community meets rule #1 and votes to acknowledge it, or votes to reject it and they are over ruled by one so wise as Lord Bork. Notice #2 is legislating from the bench if it is deemed necessary to institute a particular decree.
Bork is an authoritarian tyrant and that is the single reason so much effort went into keeping him from sitting at the USSC. If Bork's long winded claims, that allowing folks to make there own decisions had any basis in reality; Bork himself would be porn star from exposure during the vast amount of time he spent considering the subject matter of what he despises.
Not so.
Had you said "They do not recognize the idea of restraints on THE RIGHTS of individuals by communities " as legitimate.".. You would have been correct.
And the same type of aglommerable, misgloperated, gloptitorial hepondistic, oh heck, whatever Bork called them type people say stuff like "But if you raise their wages to $8/hour, why not raise it to $100....parsy.
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.