Lady Vox may be a nasty dragon, but I wouldn't go *that* far...
Posted on 09/02/2002 4:56:15 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
While most of the responses to last week's column on conservatism and libertarianism were favorable, there was also repetition of a few specific criticisms which, due to their general fogginess of logic, demand address.
First, libertarianism is not anarchy. If it was anarchy, or a total lack of governmental order, one would simply call it that. There would be no such thing as libertarians, only anarchists. The fact that the two parties identify themselves separately and are easily distinguished should serve as the first clue that perhaps libertarians are not, in fact, anarchists.
Second, to be libertarian is not necessarily to be a libertine. A libertine is a hedonist, a devotee of personal pleasure, whereas a libertarian is one who defends the libertine and his lifestyle against the heavy hand of government. This does not mean the two should ever be equated, as libertarians will just as readily defend the evangelical pro-life protester, the Jewish intellectual, the pagan pothead or the Catholic cigarette smoker.
However, it is the third criticism in which I am most interested, which is that a society run by a Libertarian government cannot possibly function as conceived. What puzzles me is the implied demand for the Libertarian Party to be judged by a standard which is never, ever applied to either the Democratic or the Republican parties.
Political ideologies represent the manifestation of intellectual ideals. Shall we not then examine the intellectual ideals of our two major parties? Democrats like to blather interminably about democracy, which presumably represents their ideal. But despite some whining about the Electoral College after the last presidential election, no Democrat ever talks seriously about using the power of eminently available technology to wholly replace the three branches of federal government with what would be the perfectly realized Will of the People.
Of course, it is not true democracy that interests Democrats as much as the expansion of central power at the expense of the states and the individual. In either case, one seldom hears critiques based on either of the party's ideologies, eponymous or hidden.
Republican ideology is based on republicanism, which conceives a government in which the sovereign authority is granted by the people, and which rules according to law. This ideal is rather closer to our constitutional form of government, but has not been in force in this country since 1865, which is when the first Republican president elected to use military force to end what was a legal and distinctly constitutional secession. Say what you will of slavery, but the South still surrendered at the point of a gun.
Indeed, Republicans in office show no more regard for the law than their Democratic counterparts, who at least have the theoretical excuse of being ideologically opposed to the notion of limited government. The Republican party, for all its small-government posturing, seems to more accurately represent the ideal of maintaining the status quo and using the power of central government on behalf of more traditional interests. And since history shows that the one thing that cannot ever be maintained is the status quo, here, too, the Republican ideals fall short.
Therefore, if you would judge the hypothetical failings of Libertarian ideology, how much more must you condemn the manifest flaws of the Democratic and Republican ideals?
The truth is, neither I nor any other Libertarian can say precisely what is the true and proper size of government that would maximize individual freedom and liberty. What I can say with complete assurance is that it is much smaller than the massively corrupt institutions that plague us at the local, state and federal levels.
By the way, I'll go so far as to assert that God, in addition to being a monarchist, also has strongly libertarian leanings. How else can you describe an all-powerful king who goes so far as to let his creation choose whether to obey him or not? Liberty is all about the individual freedom to choose, and those who try to deny it are not on the side of the angels no matter what they might think.
No, I'm not "pro-choice" in the sense of pro-abortion terminology – quite the opposite. This stays well within the framework of Libertarian logic because there are, quite obviously, at least two parties involved, possibly even three. The fact that one is incapable of consent only makes the Libertarian anti-abortion argument that much more clear.
Well, maybe if these guys would discuss something other than legalizing pot at any of their rallies then, given a century or two, the stereotype they've forged for themselves might fade away!
I was a libertarian once, but I got sick of the de-facto priority assigned to legalizing pot.
No, I'm not "pro-choice" in the sense of pro-abortion terminology – quite the opposite. This stays well within the framework of Libertarian logic because there are, quite obviously, at least two parties involved, possibly even three. The fact that one is incapable of consent only makes the Libertarian anti-abortion argument that much more clear.
YES!! I have considered myself a voice in the Libertarian wilderness for years on this issue. Finally, someone makes the case. Christian spirituality is completely congruous with the Libertarian positions of absolute freedom outside of violating another's rights. Thanks for the post, John!
In its best and most full sense, liberty is about allowing men in a society to implement that set of laws that is most conducive to freedom and prosperity.
Allowing men to be laws unto themselves may be the most libertarian approach, but it is also the most Hobbesian. It is anarchy or tribalism by any other name.
That society in which the citizens are allowed free access to implement and change laws by participating in government is the best of all and most exalts the rationality of the Creator.
Practically, and in most cases, that's really all it boils down to: legalizing pot. The enormous potential of the human soul is distilled down to one meager nugget of "getting high."
In any event, as is true with all laws, citizens are not absolutely compelled to obey the drug laws. They are entirely free to disobey (and certainly all dopers do).
What the laws do is create a risk of substantial costs and unpleasant consequences if a citizen is caught disobeying the drug laws. Many citizens weigh the costs and freely choose not to risk getting caught. Others freely choose to indulge, are caught, and are persuaded by the unpleasant consequences not to take further risks. In all cases free will is preserved.
It is entirely proper for society to impose these risks of punishment in light of the very real and enormous external costs that drug abuse imposes on other citizens. Contrary to the pro-doper delusion, drug abusers do not live in hermetic seclusion from other citizens. Their idiot self-obsessed behavior inflicts costly damages throughout society that the taxpayer is left to pay for.
Finally, the libertarian who offered up this half-baked anarchist lasagna either has no understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition and laws or is disingenuously ignoring them. The Old Testament comprises chapter after chapter of very clear laws with very severe penalties attached. Most libertarians--especially atheist libertarians--would never tolerate the laws of the Old Testament.
The New Testament demands even more perfect and comprehensive obedience, not by rote submission to the letter of the law, but from the very heart and soul in complete submission to the will of God. It is hardly an invitation to live one's life as one pleases.
The model of perfect behavior and obedience, Jesus Christ, did not lead a libertarian life railing against the Roman authorities. There were libertarian-leaning rabblerousers that followed him around demanding that he denounce the Roman authorities and that he even lead an insurrection against the Romans. Jesus steadfastly refused their entreaties, castigated them on more than one occasion, and commanded them to "render unto Caesar" the obedience due Caesar. At his trial Jesus was accused of sponsoring an insurrection but the reigning Roman authority, Pilate, judged him not merely not guilty but completely innocent of that offense.
Libertarians who fall for the sophistry of equating Christianity with secular libertarianism are guilty of mixing church and state to a degree that would outrage their athiest libertarian comrades. They have confused the perfectly obedient (to secular AND spiritual authority) Jeus Christ with the libertarian zealot Barabbas.
Licentiousness is not liberty--not in the secular sphere, and certainly not in the spiritual sphere.
Conservatives understand libertarianism better than the neo-anarchist Libertarians do.
...so they keep trying to tell us, anyway.
Lady Vox may be a nasty dragon, but I wouldn't go *that* far...
Till you look under the hood.
Hitler had his, he said.
Stalin had his, he said.
Cuirry has his, he says.
Liberals and Libertarians hate that.
Oh, puh-leaze... And like a number of other habitual vilifiers (*cough*liberals*cough*), you simply accuse people who have different opinions of being lying cultists rather than dealing with their positions in a more mature manner.
I can't wait for FreeRepublic to have a killfile feature...
What libertarians are weary of is the people who determine
the optimum set of laws based on their religion and
for the 'good of everyone else.'
"That society in which the citizens are allowed free access to implement
and change laws by participating in government is the
best of all and most exalts the rationality of the Creator." -- Kevin Curry
Liberals and Libertarians hate that.
What does participatory democracy have
to do with the rationality of your mythology?
Was Jesus a registered voter?
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.