I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.

The Flada Blog ^ | May 23, 2007 | Ed Snyder

[Equality 7-2521]

I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.

by Ed Snyder May 23rd, 2007

My brother has told me several times that, as a libertarian, I should be far more sympathetic to the ideas of liberalism than to those of conservatism. I believe his rationale is that libertarians generally agree with liberals about more issues than they do with conservatives. Of course, I’ve never debated that point because I agree with it. It’s just that some of the conservative issues always seemed to rank higher on my “personal issues” list than those of liberals. After almost 7 years of a so-called neocon in the Executive and 12 years of conservatives controlling Congress, my opinions have changed.

It’s not that I don’t still find conservative issues regarding liberty more important, it’s just that I don’t find very many real conservatives holding office. The whole feigned outrage with the most conservative member of Congress after the last debate drives this home. It brings the lying hypocrisy of the neocons right out into the light for the whole world to see. It shows their “big tent” to be a reverse TARDIS–that is, it looks much bigger on the outside than it really is on the inside. Read the rest of this entry »

[Daveinyork]

Libertarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive. Socialism can lead to libertinism, which is actually the opposite of libertarianism, because socialism can shift the consequences of one’s actions to others.

If the government would get out of the way, we would not have a semi-socialist society.

The main problem with libertarians, as opposed to libertarianism, (with which I am in general agreement) is that they have no clue as to how to handle real threats to our freedom in the real world.

[jack_napier]

"If we take God's Law out of the argument, then there will never be any agreement. And no nation of free men. That is why we are a nation under God, which is something the Liberal Left and their Libertarian friends, do not accept. Both philosophies are based upon humanism and both, in their godless way, pave the way for the disrespect for the rule of law and the denial of human freedom. A society that does not respect the rule of law uses arbitrary decisions of rulers based upon whatever factors they believe are important to their decision at the time. This leads to unjust and inconsistent decisions that override free will and the freedom of the citizen.

There is a *masssive* problem with this; who decides what the correct interpretation of God's Law is? That's why we have so many Christian denominations. Even scripture which appears to be plain in meaning is debated. Why else would we have gay bishops?
Furthermore, even though we are a nation under God, not everyone in this nation belongs to God. There are godless atheists, pagans and others. They will not accept God's law, because afterall, it is foolishness to them (this is in scripture). When you impose God's law on them, their selfish heart will fight it and thus by proxy you. You build resentment. Coming from an argument of a nation under God, imposing God's law on the godless will drive them to resentment. Better to let them go in their ways and perhaps return as the Prodigal Son than to keep them close but in chains.

[jack_napier]

That's not altogether bad. However, the "infantile and narcissistic" part comes in when you fail to recognize that other people are often affected by those actions as well, and as such they have a right to complain when it does, and to attempt to prevent those actions from affecting them in the first place. Here in the real world, we realize that there is a balance between individual and community interests.

But where do we draw that line? When is a complaint and an attempt to prevent action reasonable, and when is it not? Of course, I agree that it is foolishness to take the need for arbirary decisions as a justification for taking the extreme viewwpoint. It's also equally foolish to assume that everyone who self-describes as libertarian takes such an extreme viewpoint. As a final comment, any man who doesn't approach the invokation of 'community interest' with great caution tempts the spectre of socialism.

[r9etb]

But where do we draw that line?

For purposes of this discussion, it's enough to recognize that there is a line that can be drawn.

When is a complaint and an attempt to prevent action reasonable, and when is it not?

Precisely where it gets drawn is, of course, the hard part, since the decision would most often be based on particular circumstances.

The problem with the libertarian approach is summed up in the typical libertarian retort, "if you don't like it, you can move."

The assumption underlying this is that no complaint is reasonable unless direct "coercion" (however defined) is involved. This leaves unanswered the question of what comprises "coercion," but from my discussions with libertarians at FR, it seems largely to be limited to instances or threats of physical harm.

But there are other forms of "harm" than merely physical ones. Any imposition of unwelcome costs is a form of coercion. A policy of "if you don't like it, you can move" is a de facto admission that an unwelcome cost is being imposed. The remaining question is whether the imposed cost is reasonable, or at least not overly burdensome, despite being unwelcome.

And so we come again to the question of individual vs. community interests. The question of whether or not a complaint is reasonable, ultimately boils down to a question of whether or not my actions impose unreasonable costs on others. Alternatively, the question might boil down to judging whether my actions, though they may impose costs on some, will confer greater benefits on others.

The point here, though, is that we're talking about my actions, which are voluntary on my part, and the costs I impose by taking such actions, and which are not necessarily voluntarily accepted by those on whom I impose them.

This brings us, finally, to my own primary reason for dismissing libertarians. Voluntary action cannot be separated from the idea of self-restraint, and here is where the libertarian position on things like drugs and prostitution is a useful marker.

Responsible people tend to moderate their activities out of respect for others. For example, I generally wouldn't fire up the old chainsaw at 0300, precisely because the neighbors are asleep and I don't want to bother them.

But suppose I cannot control myself, or I cater to those who cannot. Why is it up to my neighbors to "move if they don't like it?" Why should my lack of self-control be allowed to impose costs on others? The end effect of "move if your don't like it," is a society whose rules of conduct are defined by the most deviant among us.

Part of liberty is being able to define the conditions under which I live. The libertarian point of view refuses me the right to do so, unless I behave badly -- in which case others have no right to complain. That's not "liberty," it's insanity.

[jack_napier]

"This leaves unanswered the question of what comprises "coercion," but from my discussions with libertarians at FR, it seems largely to be limited to instances or threats of physical harm.

Well, I would think that seems an unusually narrow characterization; coercion can take the form of verbal, financial, etc. But bear in mind that I am not defending the most extreme of libertarians.

But there are other forms of "harm" than merely physical ones. Any imposition of unwelcome costs is a form of coercion. A policy of "if you don't like it, you can move" is a de facto admission that an unwelcome cost is being imposed. The remaining question is whether the imposed cost is reasonable, or at least not overly burdensome, despite being unwelcome.

And this shoots to the major point a libertarian will raise to you; that any society naturally sees situations in which conflicts of interest arise, and that there will be a loser.

And so we come again to the question of individual vs. community interests. The question of whether or not a complaint is reasonable, ultimately boils down to a question of whether or not my actions impose unreasonable costs on others. Alternatively, the question might boil down to judging whether my actions, though they may impose costs on some, will confer greater benefits on others.

Who decides what is unreasonable? The government? This teeters greatly towards the Marxist idea of "The rich/priviledged will not miss what they have, because they have so much." Afterall, you talk about the benefit of the many over the benefit of the one; if a man has 10 million dollars, we can bring GREAT benefit by housing the homeless with 9 million of those dollars that we take.

This brings us, finally, to my own primary reason for dismissing libertarians. Voluntary action cannot be separated from the idea of self-restraint, and here is where the libertarian position on things like drugs and prostitution is a useful marker.
The problem comes with who decides how much restraint is enough? The prevailing will of the people? If the will of the people that prevails is more permissive than you desire, does that make it wrong? The essential problem here is not that the governing body should demand self-restraint at times; it is that it is a demand that is so dangerous that it should be limited to where it is absolutely necessary. Where there is an area of doubt or contention that relies on the judgement of human beings, I err on the other side.

Part of liberty is being able to define the conditions under which I live. The libertarian point of view refuses me the right to do so, unless I behave badly -- in which case others have no right to complain. That's not "liberty," it's insanity.
This is especially ironic to me, because you are justifying the right of the communal interest to dictate to an individual those very conditions.

[r9etb]

But bear in mind that I am not defending the most extreme of libertarians.

How very convenient. That said, the frequency with which one sees statements like, "if you don't like it, you can leave" would tend to indicate that this is part of "mainstream" libertarian thought, so we needn't worry about your unwillingness to deal with the extremists.

And this shoots to the major point a libertarian will raise to you; that any society naturally sees situations in which conflicts of interest arise, and that there will be a loser.

True enough -- and the means by which the conflict is resolved are what's at issue here. And that's precisely why the typical retort, "if you don't like it, you can move" (or its sibling, "nobody has a right to not be offended") becomes an important component of the argument.

Under those rules, your ONLY alternatives are to put up with my choices, or leave -- in other words, you have no choice but to accept the costs that my actions impose upon you. There is only one "loser" in that scenario, and it's never the person whose actions impose the costs.

I suspect you'd relegate this result to the "extreme" side of libertarianism -- and if so, you have conceded that sometimes my voluntary actions can be curtailed, because the costs they impose upon you are too high.

Who decides what is unreasonable? The government?

Yes, sometimes. As a conservative, I prefer that this redress be kept to a minimum, but sometimes it is appropriate for the government to take action. But regardless of who decides, the point is that somebody has to decide -- and one would certainly hope that the criteria for deciding are both non-arbitrary and enforceable; which says, really, that it's a government decision even if you don't call it that.

This teeters greatly towards the Marxist idea of "The rich/priviledged will not miss what they have, because they have so much."

And by the same token, the opposite view "teeters greatly toward" ushering a Mogadishu-style anarchy into your neighborhood. Which is really to say, "teeters greatly" is an alarmist rather than rational term. All it does is presuppose that any and all human actions take place on the razor's edge of tyranny and anarchy -- which in real life they almost never do.

The problem comes with who decides how much restraint is enough? The prevailing will of the people? If the will of the people that prevails is more permissive than you desire, does that make it wrong?

Yes, the prevailing will of the people. That's the reality of life among other people -- a fact which libertarian theory never seems to grasp. The only safeguard against extremes in either direction is as Mr. Adams said all those years ago:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

Libertarianism without prior moral foundation leads to anarchy. Government action without prior moral foundation leads to tyranny.

Ironically, the libertarian ideal of "self-ownership" has the effect of undermining the religious and moral foundations of which Mr. Adams spoke. Libertarianism is its own worst enemy.

[jack_napier]

How very convenient? Are you suggesting that anyone who defends an ideological view point should in fact take up the aegis for the whole spectrum of it? But then again, you've pretty much stated that you see few differences between "libertarians" and Libertarians, so such is to be expected. I think your assertion is wrong, although I'm prepared to submit to statistics if you can provide some from an objective source. "There is only one "loser" in that scenario, and it's never the person whose actions impose the costs.'

This is, IMO, a gross black & whiting of the issue. It suggests helplessness, or the idea that a community cannot influence it's members without the force of law. There are plenty of examples of situations where legal yet undesirable behavior is reversed because of public disdain exampled in boycotting, demonstration, or just downright dirty looks.

Libertarianism without prior moral foundation leads to anarchy. Government action without prior moral foundation leads to tyranny.

Considering that society, in general, is immoral it seems like we're just screwed.

[r9etb]

How very convenient? Are you suggesting that anyone who defends an ideological view point should in fact take up the aegis for the whole spectrum of it?

No -- I was suggesting that you might be invoking "extreme libertarians" in order to avoid discussion of "hard but mainstream" points of libertarian theory.

you've pretty much stated that you see few differences between "libertarians" and Libertarians

Are you perhaps suggesting that libertarianism is not a fixed ideology, but rather anything you happen to say it is? Or would one be correct in assuming that you share many of the same ideals as laid out by the Libertarian Party?

This is, IMO, a gross black & whiting of the issue. It suggests helplessness, or the idea that a community cannot influence it's members without the force of law.

Conversely, the idea that "influence without force of law" is always sufficient is laughable.

Considering that society, in general, is immoral it seems like we're just screwed.

Probably so ... that's the verdict of history, in any event.

[jack_napier]

Are you perhaps suggesting that libertarianism is not a fixed ideology, but rather anything you happen to say it is? Or would one be correct in assuming that you share many of the same ideals as laid out by the Libertarian Party?

To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, he's a conservative, not a Republican.
Like in other countries where they have multi-party systems, you may have multiple 'conservative' parties, but one is considered more conservative than the other (IE in France, Sarkozy vs Le Pen).

[jonrick46]

So you do not believe in the Ten Commandments?

[jonrick46]

John Jay, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison declared:

No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion…. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance…this great experiment will then surely be doomed.

At least life in the horse and buggy did come up with some good thinking on some of the important things in life.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Do that, and you get to meet Gladys

Can I get to meet her? Can I huh, can I? I'll bring her home by 10pm! LOL

[Dead Corpse]

Was kind of hoping someone would get the Sin City reference. ;-)

[jack_napier]

Do I not believe in the Ten Commandments? I’m unsure what you mean. God says Do Not Covet, but covetousness is a sin born in the human heart, where the eye of the law cannot see. Furthermore did not Jesus come because we could not follow these? If you bring up the Commandments in terms of a government, please be more specific.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

fod, who asked YOU for your psychological analysis?

I was enjoying the conversation until someone started calling me a moron, twice! And now I'm being called a whiner. How do you expect to have a conversation with someone when you keep flinging names at that person?

And in case you haven't noticed, this is a CONSERVATIVE site, not a Libertarian site, not a Liberal site. A Conservative site. Since you don't like our Conservative ideals, you shouldn't even be on this site - go find a Libertarian or a Liberal site.

Enough with the insults already.

[Dead Corpse]

You come on this thread slandering libertarians with your second hand misinformation and expect what? A round of applause?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Where did I slander Libertarians? And who cares anyway? This is a Conservative site.

[fod]

No matter how you slice it, I live by very conservative ideals...Not the ideals of the neo-con, or quasi-con or RINO that populate this place. If republicans did more than pay lip service to liberty, I would still be one. I'm all about responsibility and self determination.

You may of mistaken me for something else because I am very tolerant of others and their ways, as long as they return the favor.We have to be and the Thomas Sowell quote I offered you earlier in the thread (which you ignored)summed it up very well.

It is the whiners who pressure lawgivers to tidy up their neighbors yards that give me fits. It is the tendency for government to gain ground and for liberty to lose ground. I am just a guy who has decided to join a admittedly small minority and dig in my heels and say no more to folk like you who think government is the solution and the answer to social ills is just to have more of it. Good grief man, look at what the progressive era has brought, and its great society sequels, and every one of those programs, from welfare, gun control, income tax, public schools et.al. All of these are socialist programs. Some are devisive and some YOU admit to embracing. Arguing to prohibit something you do not like, only open the doors for someone else to prohibit something they do not like about you and your life.

I read thru this thread again and you come off like many liberals I know, offering up up feelings and innuendo, with a lack of facts and with a disconcerting lack of reason.

A wise man once said that liberty means responsibility and that is why they dread it...

now read every thing I said again, ignore it, and just tell me to go away.

[fod]

fod, who asked YOU for your psychological analysis?

you are in a public forum, deal with it

I was enjoying the conversation until someone started calling me a moron, twice! And now I'm being called a whiner. How do you expect to have a conversation with someone when you keep flinging names at that person?

Sorry, you were not debating of conversing, you were expressing your feelings

And in case you haven't noticed, this is a CONSERVATIVE site, not a Libertarian site, not a Liberal site. A Conservative site.

Uh, friend, have you bothered to look around? Why is an RLC contingent hosted/ tolerated here. I am not card carrying member of the RLC, but I am active with them.

Since you don't like our Conservative ideals, you shouldn't even be on this site - go find a Libertarian or a Liberal site.

First off, you do not control access here, and I have been a long standing member here and I have never been warned or asked to stop my actions by the gracious host here, and I still donate on occassion.

I do participate in libertarian forums, but that is like preachin to the choir, and the few times I have gone to liberal websites, you would be amazed at the reception I get when I speak of small governmant and responsibility of the individual. I have a thick skin and I have seen and lived pretty widely, but the hatred and vitriol that is spewed at libertarians at some of these sites make some of the more rabid anti-libertarins here at FR seem simply kind, gentle and downright quaint.

you are coming off like a intolerant liberal again--with the equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears, teling me to go away...lalalalalalalaly

Enough with the insults already.

Sorry there Friend, be nice, be good and set a good example!

[Dead Corpse]

And there are libertarians here who are very conservative. More some in some cases than those professing their ties to the GOP here.