Posted on 11/16/2013 8:19:41 PM PST by Q-ManRN
Today in America, we see two kinds of libertarianism, which we might call “Calhounian” and “Heinleinian.” Both kinds believe in freedom, but they are very different in their emphasis—and in their politics.
The names behind the adjectives are John C. Calhoun (1782-1850), of South Carolina, and Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988), of California.
[Calhoun] was also a proud slaveholding South Carolinian who rose in politics to be vice president of the United States. Indeed, Calhoun spent the last two decades of his life making the case for states’ rights over national unity
In particular, he was a passionate advocate of “nullification”—that is, the idea that any or all of the states could nullify a federal law...
Heinlein was also a scholar of sorts; he had learned engineering at the US Naval Academy, Class of 1929, and kept up with technology issues all his life. He was also on the right—not only a Republican, but a vociferous supporter of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. Yet by trade, Heinlein was a science-fiction writer; Virtually all of Heinlein’s works include not only a solid dose of science and scientific extrapolation, but also strongly individualist, anti-authoritarian, libertarian themes.
The Calhounians represent the old order. And it’s a good order, the order of the American Revolution, of patriot graves, of traditional family values.
The Heinleinians represent a new order. And it’s a good order, too, the order of progress and transformation. Indeed, the old order can't survive without at least one aspect of the new order: technology. We won World War Two, for example, not just with gallantry, but with better weapons. The A-Bomb alone saved millions of American lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Libertarian ping
Put me in the Heinlein column.
Heinlein was also a scholar of sorts; he had learned engineering at the US Naval Academy, Class of 1929, and kept up with technology issues all his life. He was also on the right—RAH was a socialist, a nudist and promoter of a nihilistic view of life.
Bizarre article. Libertarianism as neo-liberalism? Well hell, besides that 180 degree absolute opposite difference in claims of totalitarian enforcement authority, heck yeah, they're virtually identical!
Oh, that's covered by the quote above, that claims "only those on the fringe left dream, these days, of socialism or central planning"? Really? How about I blow that completely out of the water, to the moon, where we can watch it be vaporized into stardust and sprinkle down skittles and rainbows with one single word:
Obamacare.
Thomas Payne: "Government is at best a necessary evil, at worst, an intolerable one." We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's necessary, but we have lost sight of the fact that it's evil. There is no qualification in Payne's characterization that would allow any state to exercise a "right" which no state has: to buy, sell, and enslave other human beings.
I grok that
Bullshit.
Heinlein worked on the 1934 California gubernatorial campaign of socialist Upton Sinclair, whose End Poverty In California (EPIC) party sought drastic remedies to the Great Depression. Later, Heinlein ran for state office himself. This put him in the middle of big-state and even national politics. From http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/08/robert-a-heinlein-a-real-life-forrest-gump
Put me down as a Friedmanist.
... and put me down as a Reaganist.
He outgrew it. He later described armed robbers as “free-lance socialists.”
This guy doesn’t know doodly squat about Heinlein.
Did you know Laura Ingalls daughter Rose was one of the founders of Libertarianism? If you read the Little House books personal freedom and individualism runs through them in a very obvious way.
I noted it as a child especially in “The Long Winter” - there is a whole talk there by Pa about the American way of freedom - one of the best explanations I read as a child.
Pa was shaking his head. “We’re going to have a
hard winter,” he said, not liking the prospect.
“Why, how do you know?” Laura asked in surprise.
“The colder the winter will be, the thicker the
muskrats build the walls of their houses,” Pa told her...
“Pa, how can the muskrats know?” Laura asked.
“I don’t know how they know,” Pa said. “But they
do. God tells them, somehow, I suppose.”
“Then why doesn’t God tell us?” Laura wanted to
know.
“Because,” said Pa, “we’re not animals. We’re humans,
and, like it says in the Declaration of Independence,
God created us free. That means we got to
take care of ourselves.”
Laura said faintly, “I thought God takes care of us.”
“He does,” Pa said, “so far as we do what’s right.
And He gives us a conscience and brains to know
what’s right. But He leaves it to us to do as we please.
That’s the difference between us and everything else
in creation.”
“Can’t muskrats do what they please?” Laura
asked, amazed.
“No,” said Pa. “I don’t know why they can’t but
you can see they can’t. Look at that muskrat house.
Muskrats have to build that kind of house. They always
have and they always will. It’s plain they can’t
build any other kind. But folks build all kinds of
houses. A man can build any kind of house he can
think of. So if his house don’t keep out the weather,
that’s his look-out; he’s free and independent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane
This is a wonderful foundational book of the libertarian movement. Rose Wilder Lane was a true believer.
Heinlein in his YOUTH was a socialist, but altered those views as he matured. . . and grew wise. Just like Ronald Reagan. He was also a nudist, and an unrepentant proponent of an open lifestyle, but NEVER a proponent of nihilism or nihilistic life. He was virulently opposed to abortion and it comes through in his writing. He considered it suicidal for the species. His viewpoint was that marriage and society”s purpose was for the protection of and rearing of children. All else pales in light of that purpose. READ his works and his philosophy in his works and then claim he’s a socialist. He comes right out and condemns it.
Yes, he did. And Saul of Tarsis was the most ruthless of persecutors of Christians until he encountered a blinding light on the road to Damascus. . . and Ronald Reagan was a rabid, left wing Democrat until he also the light.
Converts are often the best teachers of the truth because they know the lies of the opponents best. . . because they've been disillusioned and now know the errors of their youth intimately. . . AND have REASONED their way out of that error!
I’m squarely in the Reaganite column. I’m giddy knowing that I am NOT a LIBertarian.
First, I agree that there isn’t ONE brand of libertarianism.
I myself point to the Founding Mothers of modern libertarianism: Ayn Rand (although she disdained the word), Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson.
Clearly, Ayn Rand emphasized reason, that what made man distinctly man was his ability to think. There is a correlation, here, with Heinlein-libertarianism in the article. To Rand, we should discipline our emotions so that we fall in love with what is good because we know it is right. Emotion, while potentially good, is volatile, and can result in bad as well as good.
Rose Wilder Lane, who inherited and continued the Little House on the Prairie series, balanced reason and emotion. Possibly, because of the love expressed in her books for rural and frontier life, she would be like a Calhoun-libertarian in the article. Furthermore, she embraced tradition and social institutions such as family, church and country; although not without question. For Lane, Liberty is something that we come to understand through a process of individual and social discovery, rather than figure out in the abstract relying only on reason.
Then we come to Isabel Paterson (who admittedly has not developed the following of either of the first two ladies). Hers was a more pragmatic approach, with a focus on the failures of the New Deal (and other fascist and totalitarian forms of economic policy in the world). So, I would say she represents the Milton Friedman type of libertarian.
Now, I would like to ask the question was John C. Calhoun a libertarian? (I have no problem with saying that Heinlein was.) Calhoun is best known as a proponent of the doctrine of nullification, and considered to be a forerunner of secession. Libertarians do believe in federalism, so that local government should perform the police function of the state, with the national government having only limited and enumerated powers. But, it is a big jump to go from this one position to saying Calhoun was a libertarian.
Calhoun (among others from South Carolina) advocated slavery as a positive good (not a necessary evil). Libertarians like Jefferson and Madison saw slavery as a necessary evil.
He (among others from South Carolina) opposed democracy and favored aristocracy. South Carolina restricted the franchise to those who owned 1,000 acres, when elsewhere the property qualification was 100 acres. Accordingly, only large plantation owners had the right to vote in that state. Libertarians like Jefferson and Madison, either argued for a modest property qualification for voting, or for no property qualification.
He was a war hawk and advocated the use of force to invade and “liberate” Canada. Jefferson and Madison initially attempted to steer a course of neutrality; but, eventually, the war hawks (most notably Calhoun and Henry Clay) prevailed. In the end, our position was that the war was a mistake.
Calhoun’s position on the tariff shifted. Initially, he was a protective tariff man, and later shifted to the libertarian position (i.e., became a free trade man).
Thus, from a libertarian perspective, John C. Calhoun is a mixed bag. Maybe 40 percent a libertarian, and 60 percent a statist.
Really? Facts are hard. RAH ran for office as a socialist.
No question that RAH started on the hard progressive left. They WWII happened and he lost his infatuation with big government.
He still got many of his assumptions wrong, but he was a great writer.
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.