Perhaps I can step in and defend my libertarian brethren here. The above strikes me as either a very confused caricature of their views, or a misunderstanding of basic libertarian philosophy.
I'll take it point by point:
Well, if you're a libertarian, there's no reason to ban polygamy, is there?
HV, you're okay so far. The libertarians of my acquaintance would agree one hundred percent. The heart of modern libertarianism is this simple thesis: the actions of consenting, rational adults should be their own business, unless those actions result in harm to others. If three or more people of sound mind and mature years choose to enter into a polygamous arrangement (can't quite call it "marriage" myself), they ought to be free to do so.
What if a guy has seven wives and 36 children, living paycheck to paycheck, and then he dies and the state gets stuck with supporting the children?
This is where HV's ratiocination begins to appear a bit frayed around the edges, I'm afraid. He began with "polygamy" and instantly conflated the issue with that of "polygamous parents".
Most libertarians I know are sharp enough to immediately draw that distinction. There is a profound difference, legally and philosophically, between being a childless spouse and being a parenting spouse.
Another party enters the social arrangement with the conception of a child. That party is a human person with certain irreducible protectable rights, or so would say nearly any randomly selected libertarian.
It is easy, and fairly stupid, to pick the most dubiously extreme argument that the looniest imaginable libertarian theorist might come up with, and parody it. (Liberals do this to conservatives all the time, and it's not any more fair or sensible a tactic when they resort to it.)
The majority of real-world, non-theoretical libertarians recognize that the world does not consist entirely of consenting, rational adults. The primary and obvious exceptions are children. And most real-world libertarians are prepared to admit that there must be measures in place to ensure the well-being of children who are subjected to the decisions of the adults around them.
I do know libertarians who are perfectly prepared to allow Christian Science parents to deny their children medical care unto the point of lethality. I don't know very many such libertarians. Perhaps one percent of the LBTs with whom I am familiar. Not a representative sampling.
So let us consider the case of some fellow who wishes to practice polygamy. That's between him and his, er, polyspouses, says the libertarian. Whatever they want to do with and to one another, so long as it stays consenting-adults-only, is okay.
But let us suppose that benevolent state of affairs changes, and the gentleman and his (whatevers) proceed to bear more children than they are capable of providing for in the event of his death.
Okay, now that is the point at which the sphere of rational-consenting-adult-contractors impinges on that of small persons who are not adults, who are not consenting parties to the arrangement into which they are born, and who don't have the means to leave it or seek legal redress on their own.
That is regulatable conduct, says modern libertarianism (a judgement with which I am in agreement). The nonsignatories introduced into the household contract, namely the children, have rights which may easily be invaded or abrogated by the adults who sired them.
Note that the case of a monogamous couple who have more children than they are able to handle is logically similar.
The key issue here isn't polygamy. The issue is whether adults can or should make provision for children's well being (regardless of the type of household arrangement from which those children are produced).
And believe it or not, libertarians worry and talk a lot about that exact issue, and have thought it through pretty well.
I have discussed the subject of children's care repeatedly with libertarian friends, and their general position has been that children are a protectable special case.
Kids need feeding, clothing, doctoring, housing, schooling, and love. Love is unfortunately beyond anyone's purview to regulate, but the rest reduce to financial matters: grub, overalls, medicine, roofs and books are all purchaseable commodities in a market economy. The only question is making sure that the arrangements are made and the bills get paid.
One way to handle the matter would be to simply require a prospective parent to show that he (or she, or they, or what have you) has made contractual advance provision for the care of his young.
An example would be a life insurance policy, of a nominal value sufficient to see one child through to maturity and independence. That would be wrapped in a binding trust, which stipulated who would control the money, and direct the child's rearing, in the event that the parent were to predecease the child's age of independence.
Simple. Clean. Contractual. Implemented via free-market agencies. Nongovernmental except for the requirement that the contract exist. Very libertarian.
There are issues beyond the parent becoming a decedent that need to be seen to, but most reasonably foreseeable problems can be handled in the same style, with advance planning and prior financial commitments.
In the straw-man case described above, in which Mr. Polygamy decides that he wishes to have more children than he is able to make provision for, he would find himself restrained from doing so, until such time as he (or his whatevers) could show sufficient means.
That would not be a case of the state contravening libertarian dogma by interfering with consenting adults. It would be a case of the state protecting the interests of persons who don't qualify as consenting adults. Very different to a libertarian.
Mr. Polygamy may do whatever odd and silly things he and his cohabitants desire to, so long as that children don't enter in. Once children do so enter in, the rules change.
Please don't construe the above as an argument on my part that there are no grounds on which polygamy could or should be prohibited. It was not my intention to argue that tack.
And I think that rational arguments against polygamy from a social-conservative viewpoint can and should be constructed. But the above is just a sloppy rabbit punch at imaginary libertarian views on the matter, nothing more.
I mean, if you're a libertarian why would you give any charity to these people because of their "voluntary" decisions?
There are plenty of reasons for a libertarian to give charity to people, even if those people are in a mess because of having made decisions which that particular libertarian might disagree with.
Pity, for example. Feelings of shared humanity. Religious imperatives (yes, Victoria, there are devout libertarians.)
For that matter, someone might make charitable provision simply because they found the sight of children on the street to be aesthetically distasteful.
For that matter, a conservative has equally good grounds to do the same. Or a liberal. Anyone, actually. People's reasons for being charitable, or not, do not map with especial fidelity onto their political orientation.
A libertarian would argue that he or she should not be forced involuntarily to provide such charity, which is a different matter.
I won't take up that contention, but will content myself from pointing out that again, there's a confusing conflation of cases occurring here.
But if you don't want to help such people, then either the state has to do it or they starve in the street.
My false-dichotomy detector is sounding. It is not a choice between A or B; there are other obvious options, the most obvious of which is that minimally intrusive policy, consistent with libertarian doctrine, can prevent the situation from occurring in the first place. If no wrong exists, no remedy is required.
You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them. But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?
It's not my place to argue atheists' political and/or social views for them, but methinks that HV is being no more fair or accurate in his characterizations of their views than he has been with the libertarians.
I'll leave it to any atheists who might wander into the thread to rebut his presumptions.
Regards, MainStreet
Actually, I’m a former libertarian myself. I’ve read Rand’s entire “oeuvre”, if you can call it that; Nozick; Bastiat; Rothbard’s “Man, State and Economy”; Mises; Spooner and all kinds of other offerings from Laissez-Faire Books. I subscribe to Liberty Unbound. So, your characterization of my misunderstanding” of libertarian philosophy is incorrect. You could not know this a priori, but now you do. So, now to work.
“HV, you're okay so far. The libertarians of my acquaintance would agree one hundred percent. The heart of modern libertarianism is this simple thesis: the actions of consenting, rational adults should be their own business, unless those actions result in harm to others. If three or more people of sound mind and mature years choose to enter into a polygamous arrangement (can't quite call it "marriage" myself), they ought to be free to do so.”
I disagree, but then again that’s not why we’re having this discussion.
“This is where HV's ratiocination begins to appear a bit frayed around the edges, I'm afraid. He began with "polygamy" and instantly conflated the issue with that of "polygamous parents".”
Unfortunately, this is where you’ve blown the whole deal. You assumed that I was arguing against polygamy itself. While I believe polygamy is quite correctly illegal, that’s not the point. The broader point is whether or not our fellow citizens have the *right* to ban polygamy. In other words, does an individual possess an inherent “right” to engage in polygamous activity? Or, for that matter, any activity that is deemed corrosive to the social order? My answer is, emphatically, no. But let’s deal with the specific issue first then we’ll get to the broader point.
First of all, let me say that I’m not going to be insulting you in this reply. You described my first post as a “sloppy rabbit punch” and “fairly stupid”; while I agree that it’s not my best effort to date, it’s not productive to fling insults. Otherwise we should just debate on alt.flame. You seem highly intelligent and deserving respect. Hopefully you’ll extend the same courtesy to me.
Now let me clear out some of the brush that you’ve thrown up re: polygamy. Most of your reply has to do with what you would probably describe as ‘reasoned parameters’ for proper polygamous relationships. To wit:
“Most libertarians I know are sharp enough to immediately draw that distinction. There is a profound difference, legally and philosophically, between being a childless spouse and being a parenting spouse.”
“Another party enters the social arrangement with the conception of a child. That party is a human person with certain irreducible protectable rights, or so would say nearly any randomly selected libertarian.”
“The majority of real-world, non-theoretical libertarians recognize that the world does not consist entirely of consenting, rational adults. The primary and obvious exceptions are children. And most real-world libertarians are prepared to admit that there must be measures in place to ensure the well-being of children who are subjected to the decisions of the adults around them.”
And so on. Notice your verbiage: “most libertarians”; “…nearly any randomly selected libertarian”; “a majority of real-world, non-theoretical libertarians”. I don’t suppose you detect the irony of an idealist appealing to the argumentum ad populum. In other words, it’s true because most people believe it to be true. As a Christian, I believe in God as Creator. But I’m not a Young-Earth Creationist, i.e. seven days six thousand years ago. But sixty percent of Americans, according to polls, believe the earth was created within the last ten thousand years. Does that make it true? And you must realize that, as a libertarian, the argumentum ad populum always descends into the argumentum ad baculum—the argument from force. If you wish your particular view to prevail in the real world, someone has to enforce that view. So, this is a little amusing coming from a libertarian. Force, as I remember, isn’t held in too high esteem in your area of the intellectual briar patch.
But back to polygamy. Because all idealistic philosophies end in either absurdity or arbitrary decisions, I’ll go with absurdity because it’s more fun. Let’s trundle out Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This basically states that to know whether a particular activity is desirable, it must be applied to everyone and the results examined. So, let’s say that everyone wishes to engage in polygamy. But that’s the thing about polygamy—it’s a kind of zero-sum game. There aren’t enough women to go around. So, in this situation, let’s say that rich and powerful men each have three or four (attractive) wives, and poor schlubs have either the castoffs (if they’re lucky) or Rosie Palm and Her Five Sexy Sisters. If you don’t think that’s a prescription for social disorder—i.e. millions of men without women—then I don’t know what world you’re living in.
But an intellectual argument like this isn’t even necessary here. As a conservative—a true conservative, IMHO—I value order above liberty. In fact, liberty is impossible without order. In fact, people always prefer order to liberty, and if you don’t believe that, read the USA Patriot Act. To test public policy, or any issue, I as a conservative appeal to two things: Revealed Truth and history. I’ll use history here to drive the point home. Here’s a quote from you:
“I have discussed the subject of children's care repeatedly with libertarian friends, and their general position has been that children are a protectable special case.”
Well, hey I’m glad that’s settled. This is a typical idealist position: get a bunch of “smart” people together and work things out. You sound like a collectivist, or at least a Harvard professor. For libertarians this line of thinking, however, is particularly problematic. I’m sure you’ve made this statement at one point or another, or at least agree with it: “no one is smarter than the market”. And you’d be right. The entire collectivist enterprise is based on the idea that some people are smarter than the market. But this, as you and I know, is nonsense. No one can anticipate all the actions of millions of people engaged in any particular activity.
So, what’s the point? Idealists ask: “Should polygamy (or whatever) be banned?”; conservatives ask: “why is polygamy (or whatever) banned?” Do you think that you’re the first person in the history of mankind to confront these questions? In seven thousand years of recorded history—and beyond—do you really think that millions of ‘rational’ people just like you haven’t confronted this issue, over and over and over again? In thousands of different cultures? Some may have adopted polygamy, true. But where are the great polygamous societies? Why do so many successful societies ban it? Where it exists, why is it reserved for tyrants?
Again, you would almost certainly agree with the idea that “no one is smarter than the market”. Yet you and your libertarian acquaintances assume that you are smarter than seven thousand years of a “cultural market”. Smarter than billions of people, many of them far smarter than you or I, across seven millennia, with each succeeding generation weighing and sorting the previous one’s decisions over and over again. And guess what: after all that polygamy didn’t fare very well. That’s good enough for me.
You might reply: “No, but now we’re better, we know more, we’re smarter than those who came before us.” If history teaches us anything, it is to run for the hills whenever someone proclaims: “No, wait, it’ll be different this time!” This is where I and other conservatives part ways with you idealists. Man is not perfectible. Man is not by nature good. Man, by nature and Original Sin, is wicked, covetous, greedy, slanderous etc. We as humans are no better than we were when we were created; we may live better, but we aren’t any better in our basic moral makeup. It takes a lot of effort and Grace to stay “good”. It doesn’t just happen. History teaches that as well.
Let me take one more thing from the above quote: “children are a protectable (sic) special case”. BTW, “protectable” isn’t a word, but I digress. Because all idealistic philosophies end in either absurdity or arbitrary decision-making, it’s worth it to note your arbitrary decision re: children. Libertarianism has all kinds of “special cases”. As does collectivism. In fact, much of your defense of polygamy is “special cases” and appeals to majority belief among libertarians. Apparently you don’t see the contradiction in this. If libertarianism can give us an ideal world, why are there concurrences and dissents about what “liberty” and “freedom” entail? How can there be an ideal world if people disagree on its fundaments? How will these disagreements be solved? Usually, it’s with firearms. But again, I digress.
The rest of your disquisition involves explaining the wonders of polygamy and, typically for idealists, applying some kind of slide-rule-esque boundaries on behaviors for polygamists. Here’s a typical idealist conclusion:
“Simple. Clean. Contractual. Implemented via free-market agencies. Non-governmental except for the requirement that the contract exist. Very libertarian.”
History is filled with “simple” and “clean” solutions dreamed up by bright people. I think you are bright, and your response to me was very able. But people aren’t clean and neat and tidy. They’re messy, very messy. And often violent, and covetous, and all other kinds of awful things. That’s why the judgment of history has priority over man’s (limited) reason in my book. History has spoken on polygamy. We should follow history’s counsel.
And we should follow history’s counsel on all kinds of things that libertarians want: homosexual marriage, free drug use, abortion, and so on. They’ve all been bounced long ago. It’s only when we forget history that we get into trouble.
So what rights do we have? One. The right to live. God created me and everyone else, so I belong to Him and not anything else. Because I can’t know what value God puts on me or anyone else, I just have to assume the best: we’re all equal, no matter what our physical makeup. I can’t take your right to live away (kill you) because I didn’t give it to you. All the other “rights” in the Bill of Rights are meant to secure life and equality, and to stop tyrants from destroying God’s Creation—us. So, the Founders looked to history and found that when the people don’t have guns, there is tyranny. When people can’t freely criticize the government, there is tyranny. When governments can lock people up for no reason or threaten them with torture or confiscate their property willy-nilly there is tyranny. The First Amendment is meant to secure our only right—to live and be equal—by making sure the government is held to account. It’s not meant to make sure that Hustler magazine can be published. So, pornography can be banned, but unfortunately the New York Times can’t. If it was the case that in societies where everyone wore blue hats on Sunday there was tyranny, over and over again, you can be sure that blue-hat wearing on Sundays would have been banned by the Founders. You can also be sure that modern idealists would be railing against the practice and asserting that “We’re better now! We can handle the blue hats!”. And so on.
I think that’s enough for today. The reason that a lot of libertarians hold Christian conservatives in disdain is that very few can make a cogent case for conservatism. Hopefully this will illustrate to you that there is one.
Cheers, nice debating with you…HV.