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 ...
Thank you for your informative commentary. I like these articles like the one I posted because they stimulate these intelligent discussions.
We see the hazards of an emotional approach to issues embodied in modern liberal democrats. for example, appeals for Federal school lunch programs are driven by pleas to save starving children who are in danger of dying. And this despite the fact that death by starvation is obviously rare in America at present and poverty is handled at the local level.
Another example can be found in the liberal’s war on private firearm ownership driven by emotional appeals to stop school shootings. Here we see that a reasoned approach in the context of social institutions like schools is sorely needed to debunk the statist notion that the government can adequately protect every individual citizen.
I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with John C. Calhoun. What I do know is that the south was (and is) wary of the Federal government eclipsing states’ rights. It is often overlooked that the War Between The States centered on states’ rights, not just slavery. We need to remember that slavery and aristocracy had been an accepted for centuries prior in western societies. For many people at that time, those practices were an accepted fact of life; so, Calhoun may have simply been a product of his times.
Nevertheless, I agree with you the he is a mixed bag from a libertarian perspective based on the political positions that you mentioned. I think that all strains of libertarianism are united by a focus on maintaining responsible individual liberties in society.
I was also struck by these idealistic statements that socialism is fading away. Far too many people today are far too comfortable placing their faith in powerful, centralized governments. And you are right that Obamacare is a perfect example of that phenomenon.
I see modern liberalism/socialism as absolute authoritarian statism. Modern liberalism is the religion of socialists that places the government as a supposedly benevolent caretaker in the place of God. And liberals are zealous defenders of their faith in the powerful government.
No, I did not know that. Thank you for enlightening me and for the outstanding quote below as well as the link.
The author doesn't quite have it right on "Heinleinians". Abortion is wrong by a very libertarian argument - no one has the right to forcibly take an innocent life. That's always wrong.
I'd call myself a Heinleinian. I remember him most for some memorable quotes.
"An armed society is a polite society."
"TANSTAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
I didn't care for his story in Time Enough For Love, where the protaganist goes back in time to have sex with his mother (YUCK), but he wrote some great stories. Stranger In A Strange Land, for example.
Calhoun was 40% libertarian? The guy, as you said, thought owning humans as property was a positive good. What percentage libertarian was Stalin? 35%?
Cool! Thanks for that!
Let’s see, I disagree with the assertion that Calhoun was a libertarian, and you criticize me for that. Then you propose that Stalin could be rated only slightly more statist than Calhoun using my criteria.
As for myself, here is how I would rate Stalin and Calhoun, side by side:
1. The enslavement of humans - Calhoun zero, Stalin zero
2. Aggressive war - Calhoun zero, Stalin zero
3. Restricting the right to vote to only a few - Calhoun zero, Stalin zero
4. Free international trade - Calhoun twenty points, Stalin zero
5. Federalism - Calhoun twenty points, Stalin zero
Perhaps you think it is o.k. to enslave people by sending them to the Gulag and working them to death, so that Stalin should get some points on the issue of slavery.
Perhaps you think invading the Baltic states, Finland, Poland and the Transcaucasus states was o.k., so that Stalin should get some points on the issue of aggressive war.
Perhaps you think giving nobody the right to vote is o.k., so Stalin should get some point on the issue of voting rights.
Perhaps you think that cutting off international trade and investment is a good thing, so that Stalin should get some points on the issue of free trade.
And, perhaps you think that having an all-powerful central government is a good thing, so that Stalin should get some points on the issue of federalism.
If you disagree with these ratings, you might want to explain your thinking. How do you suppose Stalin gets 35 points?
RAH was a socialist, a nudist and promoter of a nihilistic view of life.
<><><><><
One of these things is not like the others.
Calhoun was not a libertarian in the current sense; but he was a very observant and influential political theoretician. His best work was “A Disquisition on Government.” It argues that the best governments require the largest consent within the branches and levels of government, and gives historical examples illustrating his concept of “concurrent majorities.” This means the requirement of wide agreement before the government can act. Nullification was seen as just one sort of limit on rule by overweening majorities. One of Calhoun’s examples was Poland, in which for a time laws had to be approved unanimously by the legislature, which (he asserted) led to Poland’s most prosperous times, and built a habit of compromise and toleration of minority views.
I regard Calhoun’s concurrent majority principle as extremely valuable. As he pointed out, it is (or was) embodied in the U. S. Constitution by the requirement that laws must be approved by more than one branch of the government; and by the division of powers which formerly separated federal and states’ rights. The states Calhoun saw as having a right to dissent from laws which they judged were unconstitutional. The only other alternatives would be tyranny or war, both of which we have experienced.
Nullification infuriates ideologues, for it seems so messy. But the alternatives are despotism, or bloodshed. Which is preferable?
If a state were to dissent from the outrageous and clearly indefensible Roe v. Wade decision, who would actually be harmed?
Concurrent majorities is an excellent and practical freedom principle.
Of course, we are way beyond the point in our history where rights are actually observed by reference to the Constitution. State rights have been abolished by judicial interpretation, and new (previously unimaginable and bizarre) “rights” are almost daily propounded by ideologically motived judges. This is part of the progressive collapse of our civilization, and shows no sign of abatement.
The ultimate act of nullification would be secession, but that did not work out for the South. Now almost everyone accepts the idea that no people should ever be able to leave a country, except in most other parts of the world.
Stopping the behemoth of dictatorial government is perhaps no longer possible for our society. People accept tyranny because the think that peace requires it. But note that there is no such thing as a peaceful dictatorship. Dictatorships may be quiet, but not peaceful.
And Ronald Reagan was a Left Wing Liberal during the same period.
People change. Read Robert Heinlein's later works and you will find he is anything BUT a socialist. IF anything he is an individualist with strong conservative leanings. Many of his novels extolled the power of the individual over the all powerful state. Sometime after his playing with socialism in the 30s, which a lot of people did, he had an epiphany about the true failures of Socialism. He woke up to it's failings. If you want an excellent treatise on Government, read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. . . which recapitulates the American Revolution. Time Enough for Love extolls the benefits of individualism and Capitalism in various sections. Stranger in a Strange Land give us a look at a Overpowering socialist government and the power of feel-good Religions taken to their logical extremes. Red Planet, and Beyond This Horizon demonstrate the benefits for an armed citizenry and the dangers of gun control. In Heinlein's universe, Space Exploration is a private enterprise project firmly rooted in profit oriented capitalism, not a government funded research based scientific expedition. Only his Destination Moon, written under Hollywood contract will find such governmental involvement. . . except in military related stories. He directly CRITICIZES socialistic government forms in many of his writings. . . and in some of his non-fiction works heavily criticizes the socialist Soviet Union.
Sorry, you are simply WRONG, because, like Ronald Wilson Reagan, Robert Anson Heinlein changed as he grew in wisdom.
Bump the thread. Rustbucket what are your thoughts and analysis on John, C. Calhoun have you done much reading on him and if so care to offer your views?
Sorry. I've been to his grave in Charleston on a trip to the city with some friends. But I've never studied Calhoun and don't have any books about him.
If only our good friend 4CJ were around I’d like to read his thoughts on Calhoun speaking of, 4CJ do ever knew were he went or what has become of him? I myself haven’t talked to him in over eight years, his last post was in 2009, the reason I ask is I have some questions to ask him on Sherman’s march, in Georgia. It’s for a second book idea that I may have if my first is a success, I would ask Nola Chuin but I think he’s still in what’s left of Liberty, Post. And quite frankly, that place is Indian territory.
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.