Libertarianism: The Oxymoronic Faith

Newsmax ^ | Nov 22, 2005 | Steve Farrell

[JTN]

I'm for banning all of those things, and for legally forcing everyone to convert to my religion as well. At least, I pray for the coming of Messiah, who will do just that. On the other hand, I don't want Teddy the Swimmer to enforce a single religion, because the big oaf will pick the wrong one (namely, not mine). Since I don't trust governments to legislate the right morality--namely, mine--I would generally rather that they stay out of that business entirely.

Are you a fan of C.S. Lewis?

I do not like the pretensions of Government - the grounds on which it demands my obedience - to be pitched too high. I don't like the medicine-man's magical pretensions nor the Bourbon's Divine Right. This is not solely becuase I disbelieve in magic and in Bossuet's Politique. I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands "Thus saith the Lord", it lies, and lies dangerously.

From his essay "Willing Slaves of the Welfare State".

TO MRS EDWARD A. ALLEN: from The Kilns

1 February 1958

I quite agree with the Archbishop that no sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? - a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-servers, whose opinion on a moral problem in one's life we shd attach very little value to. Of course many acts which are sins against God are also injuries to our fellow-citizens, and must on that account, but only on that account, be made crimes. But of all the sins in the world I shd have thought homosexuality was the one that least concerns the State. We hear too much of the State. Government is at its best a necessary evil. Let's keep it in its place.

From The Letters of C.S. Lewis, pg. 473

[fizziwig]

"Therefore the elimination of the BATF, EPA, HHS, DEA, FDA, etc would be a great move"

You have singled out these agencies because, I assume, you believe they serve no useful or beneficial purpose to society. Maybe so, depending on your worldview

Are there any big agencies that you approve of...say the FAA, or the DMV, or?

What I am trying to get at is that we all have our own idea of what is too much government and even among "libertarians" there will be disagreement as to how much is too much.

I know virtually every libertarian I have had lunch with is glad the restaurant we ate at was inspected by local authorities and given an A rating....and glad their bank account is insured...and home passed code...and on and on...

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The state has gone too far in trying to legislate morality. Prohibition was one prime example. I grew up in Georgia, and we once had Sunday closing blue laws that forced nearly every business to close on Sunday. Israel has a huge problem with its religious laws.
I don't say that Government must purge itself of religion, but it should allow freedom of choice.

[fizziwig]

Great find on the CS Lewis letters...thanks, and they are compatible with the theme (as I understood it) of his biography..."Surprised by Joy."

[Sam the Sham]

Try employing a little common sense.

A safety net (and ALL human societies need one) can be either your family or the state. One or the other. Is there a third ?

[NJ_gent]

"In other words...what level of government is acceptable to libertarians?"

Let's ask President Ronald Reagan about that, seeing as he saw conservatism as a misnomer for libertarianism:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path." - President Ronald Reagan 1975 (Full interview)

So I guess what I'm waiting for now is for the anti-libertarianism crowd to tell us all about how President Reagan was a dope-smoking, anti-religion, moronic(inference from post 5), anarchist.

[fizziwig]

"I don't say that Government must purge itself of religion, but it should allow freedom of choice."

Does that extend to gay marriage or other alternative marriages, in your opinion?

[billbears]

I know virtually every libertarian I have had lunch with is glad the restaurant we ate at was inspected by local authorities and given an A rating....and glad their bank account is insured...and home passed code...and on and on...

I wouldn't happy on any of those issues. The free market would force the restaurant to have acceptable standards or they would lose business. The banking system's insurance is a part of the New Deal legislation. All of it needs to go yesterday. As for homes passing code? See the first example. If a builder doesn't build to standards acceptable within the market, he will soon go out of business and of course with more than a handful of civil lawsuits against him.

That being said on any of these issues, if the legislatures of the separate and sovereign states so choose to pass legislation dealing with these concerns, that is their right per the 10th Amendment

[JTN]

Yeah, I remember a quote that RONALD REAAN made in an interview w/ Reason magazine (& a libertarian one as a matter of fact), where he said that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism...or something close to that.

Inside Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

I remember Newsmax had on sale a book some time ago of Ronald Reagan's writings where he said something to the effect that he supported the re-legalization of marijuana.

I can't find the original story right off, but here's the follow-up.

#1 Reagan's Marijuana Comments Cause Stir

When NewsMax reported that Ronald Reagan did not oppose legalizing marijuana, we were surprised by the buzz the story created.

Why the surprise? Reagan had a strong libertarian streak. He opposed such things as mandatory seat belt laws and requirements that motorcyclists wear helmets.

We know Reagan was one of the first to challenge the Nanny State.

Last week NewsMax publicized comments Ronald Reagan made in one of his radio broadcasts before he became president. (Reagan gave about 1,000 radio commentaries just before he became president.) After decades, the tapes have recently been released.

In August 1979, Reagan dedicated one program to marijuana. While he warned of the many health risks, he did say, "If adults want to take such chances [using marijuana], that is their business."

Soon after NewsMax ran the story we received a call from NORML, the Washington-based group that wants to legalize the drug.

NORML had created controversy when it took out huge billboards of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, quoting their admission they both smoked pot.

Bloomberg and Giuliani weren't chuckling and asked NORML to pull the ads.

One person who was chuckling was Michael Reagan, the popular radio host and son of President Reagan.

Mike saw the NewsMax story and said, "Of course Dad was for legalization."

"He wasn't crazy," Reagan added, laughing, "He didn't want his kids in jail!"

Of course, Ronald and Nancy Reagan's four kids came of age during the turbulent '60s and '70s. For the most part, the Reagan kids' lifestyles were not as straight-laced as their parents.

[Seamoth]

While your father's reply is humorous, I'd have to give a serious answer... the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that the libertarian has a more realistic view of human nature.

Most anarchists are actually communist and are quite willing to use government to establish their utopia until such time humans are self-governing. In classical/idealistic Marxism, there's no government or central ruling authority, the people give and care freely out of their own hearts.

So, when you see anarchists on TV or in print, think "Communists on steroids". Quite paradoxical, isn't it? (It does explain why leftists align so closely with them, though!)

[JTN]

Looks like I was in the middle of googling and posting when you put up your comment.

[billbears]

I grew up in Georgia, and we once had Sunday closing blue laws that forced nearly every business to close on Sunday

As did we here in North Carolina. While I may disagree with such laws (although I don't necessarily I remember those quiet Sunday afternoons), these are powers reserved to the state legislatures by the US Constitution. If the state legislature chooses to overturn that law however that is their right as well

[fizziwig]

"So I guess what I'm waiting for now is for the anti-libertarianism crowd to tell us all about how President Reagan was a dope-smoking, anti-religion, moronic(inference from post 5), anarchist."

Reagan's statement was very general and easily defensible for just about any Republican today....depending on how much government they believe is necessary.

And Reagan never, that I am aware, advocated the legalization of all drugs or prostitution. So his idea of libertarianism was likely much more inclined toward government than the "dope smoking anti religious anarchist freaks..etc"

[Revolting cat!]

[fizziwig]

"federal power should be limited to "war, peace, negociation, & foreign commerce"....& NOTHING else. The states can do the rest."

This idea was forumlated before the modern technology we have today, which complicates matters across states. For instance, should aircraft and airlines by regulated by State agencies that have different regs from state to state? That could get real messy and dangerous.