The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

I have no argument with the Declaration's rather brilliant assertion that the people have a divine right to be free. That concept is what separates Americans from all others, where the right to be free is considered to be a grant from the government rather than a right that they are born with. When we give up the idea that our freedom is not something we enjoy soley through the generosity of our rulers, we give up much of the basis for our special brand of freedom.

I think all of the founders understood that pure democracy and freedom aren't compatible.

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation."

No, I don't think so, people, with some exceptions, will be productive, to varying degrees… the need to survive cannot be denied. It's only when the state becomes involved… that entire segments of the population become unproductive and inactive.

I tend to agree, in large part, with your analysis. However, there are certain exceptions, one being the abuse of recreational hallucinogens and narcotic drugs. Those citizens who would indulge in this self-destructive behavior divert productive resources, not even considering the state-run “welfare” system. Typically, absent government intervention, family members divert resources and what would otherwise be productive behavior to supporting the offender even if there is no government hand-out. Of course, this perspective ignores the productivity that is not be contributed by the individual abusing said drugs. A large enough population segment involved in such an activity and the society loses its viability.

However, from a purely libertarian perspective, the government has no business interfering with an individual’s liberty to “self-destruct” or his or her family’s efforts to support such. On a small population percentage basis, the argument holds water, albeit somewhat “heartless” water. (Perhaps, indeed, the government has no business in matters of “heart.”) Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the population percentage would remain so small as to not be a problem to the overall survival of the society. Therefore, one of pesky practical pitfalls potentially requiring government intervention potentially comes into play, again.

The same goes for procreation, I've noticed a pretty strong drive for that exists in most of us.

Let me call to your attention that neither Europe nor the US has a minimum population replacement birth rate of 2.1 births per native female (although the US is close). Consequently, absent immigration, your postulate fails in societal survival terms. Once more, it would seem that those rules of a self-sustaining society would require some sort of government intervention into what pure libertarians would argue is a purely individual liberty sphere.

I lean pretty strongly to libertarian views, but prefer to call myself a classical liberal, since I'm generally a believer that the codification of some traditional rules of conduct are justified. Many of them, like the idea that marriage is between man and woman are there for good reason.

You and I do not seem to far apart in terms of political philosophy. However, I call myself a “practical libertarian” vice a classical liberal. Perhaps, the only major difference, if there is one, would be the degree to which government must be involved in the “traditional rules of conduct.”

I have never said that I consider the "war on drugs" (WOD) a success. Rather, what I have said is that a societal value must be established and maintained that discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs.

You think our prohibitive 'war' is a "societal value", -- whatta load of empty rhetoric.
Sure, the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

You are extremely mistaken in your perception of what I think. Again, please note that I have never said any such thing.

Please 'note' what you wrote above. You want to play games with rhetoric, - expect it to be interpreted rhetorically.

As a matter of clarity for you, let me point out that one can no more make "war" on drugs (inanimate objects) than one can make war on "terror" (the tactic of attacking non-military targets and individuals in an attempt to break an enemy's will). The so-called "war on drugs" is a misnomer invented as a public relations ploy to refer to a combination of police actions, diplomatic initiatives, publicity campaigns, and other activities intended to reduce citizen use and abuse of substances which make them, not just non-productive, but resource drains on society. This so-called "war on drugs" is not a "societal value." Rather, it is the embodiment of an action to support an underlying societal value. Has this exposition clarified the issue for you?

How weird. Do you really think your BS "exposition" clarified anything?

Admit it, -- the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

Perhaps, you could cite the portion of the US Constitution that specifically prohibits Congress from restricting/regulating the interstate and intra-country trade in recreational hallucinogens and narcotics. Conceivably, you were thinking of the Tenth Amendment?

You got it kiddo. -- No level of government in the USA has ever been delegated a 'power to prohibit'.. Prohibitions deprive us of our rights to life, liberty or property because they violate due process of law. [see the 14th]

However, surely you must know that the "Commerce Clause" gives Congress certain regulatory powers that the Tenth Amendment does not abrogate.

The power to regulate commerce "among the several States" does not include the power to prohibit it..

Additionally, nothing in the US Constitution, of which I am aware, prohibits state governments from regulating and/or restricting such drug use.

The police power to reasonably regulate drugs, booze, guns, etc, -- does not include the power to prohibit them.

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto "encouragement," rather than "discouragement" of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

The initial criminalization of recreational drug use was a de facto, unconstitutional "discouragement" of productive government activity.

While I certainly agree that the … initial criminalization of recreational drug use… was a de facto… "discouragement", I must disagree that it was either, unconstitutional, or a discouragement of productive government activity. Rather, such criminalization was discouragement of societal resource draining behavior. The relative success of the discouragement is certainly debatable. However, this discouragement's bases, in both, law and philosophy, is not uncertain at all.

There is no constitutional "base" to prohibit 'dangerous' items like booze, guns & drugs, no matter how flowery your rhetoric becomes. Get a grip.

"Let me call to your attention that neither Europe nor the US has a minimum population replacement birth rate of 2.1 births per native female (although the US is close)."

I admit that you've got a point there. I'm not sure that means our nation would eventually die without immigration, but I'm interested in your analysis of the reasons for that replacement value. FWIW, my wife and I raised 2 kids. We'd have had more though, had it not been a risk to her health.

OTOH, most of our immigrants these days are Latin, which should mean the birth rate could go up.

A reality that sometimes occurs to me, and also did to our founding fathers, is the possibility that this experiment in liberty may not end up successfully. It is hard to argue that our liberty has not and is not eroding. But my point is more towards such things as you mentioned, self destructive behavior, etc. It's obvious enough that if Americans do not behave "virtuously," as the founding fathers put it, that our freedom will never last. I guess I'm saying that if we get to the point that the state must direct things like productivity and procreation, our freedom is already lost. 'Course there are plenty of other examples.

I'm OK with the tem practical libertarian, I'm just used to the classical liberal one. Also, I truly enjoy driving modern "liberals" crazy with it.

You want to play games with rhetoric, - expect it to be interpreted rhetorically.

It appears you are not interested in a civilized exchange or informative debate.

…How weird. Do you really think your BS "exposition" clarified anything?

Apparently, your intellectual prowess is exceeded only by your command of vocabulary.

Admit it, -- the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

See the previous comment…

You got it kiddo. -- No level of government in the USA has ever been delegated a 'power to prohibit'.. Prohibitions deprive us of our rights to life, liberty or property because they violate due process of law. [see the 14th]

Either you do not understand that the power to legislate or adjudicate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait… see the previous comment…

The power to regulate commerce "among the several States" does not include the power to prohibit it..

Either you do not understand that the power to regulate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait…see the previous comment…

The police power to reasonably regulate drugs, booze, guns, etc, -- does not include the power to prohibit them.

Either you do not understand that the power to regulate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait…see the previous comment…

There is no constitutional "base" to prohibit 'dangerous' items like booze, guns & drugs, no matter how flowery your rhetoric becomes. Get a grip.

Either you do not understand that the power to regulate, legislate or adjudicate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait…see the previous comment…

I trust that the previous response has been insulting enough to satisfy your juvenile sensibilities. Consequently, unless you wish to engage in reasoned discourse, I suggest a cessation of this exchange.

…but I'm interested in your analysis of the reasons for that replacement value.

I presume you mean the lack of replacement… The 2.1 figure instead of 2.0 is an adjustment to compensate for infant mortality and/or later infertility.

My analysis for the failure of native born females to achieve that minimum rate is rooted in two things:

1. The advent of the birth control pill and subsequent rise of modern feminism.

2. The advent of legalized, non-stigmatized, relatively cheap and easily obtainable abortions.

Relative to item 1 above, the birth control pill freed women from the inevitable consequence of promiscuous sex (pregnancy). With that freedom women were no longer bound to the inevitable and potentially unpredictable duties of motherhood. Consequently, women were no longer dependent upon a male for financial support and assistance in caring for the young. Therefore, the logic continued, that women should not longer be restricted by any other social restraint.

Modern feminism challenging many, if not all, social restraints based upon sex, arose on the tide of the sexual revolution stemming from the birth control pill. Since females could, in theory, control their fertility and the timing of children, they could engage in careers that were previously shut to them because of requirements of continuity or cumulative experience, i.e., the requirements that unplanned pregnancy and child bearing/rearing interrupted. For a number of women the lure of career forestalled their biological urge to reproduce until too late for child birth lowering the birth rate.

However, relative to item 2 above, not every woman availed themselves of the pill prior to engaging in sexual activity and, even for those who did, it is not 100% reliable. Consequently, when the Supreme Court invented the right to an abortion the “perfect storm” existed for stifling the native citizen birth rate.

To tie this little dissertation into our discussion on libertarianism and the “required interference” of a government into matters of personal liberty, we must examine the impacts of traditional values and the role that government has in promoting those. However, that is another discussion.

It's obvious enough that if Americans do not behave "virtuously," as the founding fathers put it, that our freedom will never last.

See the quote by John Adams about suitability of the American form of government for a certain type of people and its lack of such for those not possessing certain qualities.

unless you wish to engage in reasoned discourse,

What's 'reasoned' about your discourse insisting that our governments have a "power to prohibit"?
-- Or that libertarians must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior?

You claimed earlier to be a "practical libertarian". -- Whereas everything you advocate is straight from the communitarian, 'majority rules' playbook.

Feel free to continue posting their rhetoric, -- as I will feel free to point out the flaws in your anti-constitutional position.

To tie this little dissertation into our discussion on libertarianism and the "required interference" of a government into matters of personal liberty, we must examine the impacts of traditional values and the role that government has in promoting those.

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote socalled "traditional values".

Nothing in the Constitution can be cited to support this communitarian position.

Which branch of government [at what level] would be empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values"? -- The very idea of trusting any elected official/or branch with such power is a ludicrous dream.

What's 'reasoned' about your discourse insisting that our governments have a "power to prohibit"?

Ok, we’ll try this one more time.

US Constitution, Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This section of the Constitution “prohibits” states from denying recognition of the judicial proceedings of other states. Congress is charged with prescribing “the manner” of ensuring enforcement and the executive under a different section is charged with enforcement. Does this example sufficiently satisfy you that government has the “power to prohibit?”

-- Or that libertarians must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior?

The liberty to engage in treason is certainly a societally destructive behavior. Would you not agree?

US Constitution, Article III

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Do you contend that libertarians should not support limiting the destructive behavior of treason when engaged in by fellow citizens?

Whereas everything you advocate is straight from the communitarian, 'majority rules' playbook.

Sorry, I have never heard of a communitarian play book. Perhaps, you could be specific as to the location of this reference.

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote socalled "traditional values".

Nothing in the Constitution can be cited to support this communitarian position.

US Constitution, Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are not establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare “traditional values?” Is establishing a constitution which specifies executive, legislative and judicial branches to carry out the traditional values, so specified, supporting them?

Which branch of government [at what level] would be empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values"? -- The very idea of trusting any elected official/or branch with such power is a ludicrous dream.

US Constitution, Article I

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to…

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

Does this answer your question on which branch of government is empowered to decide what are to be “traditional values?”

To tie this little dissertation into our discussion on libertarianism and the "required interference" of a government into matters of personal liberty, we must examine the impacts of traditional values and the role that government has in promoting those.

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote socalled "traditional values".
Nothing in the Constitution can be cited to support this communitarian position.

Ok, we'll try this one more time.

US Constitution, Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This section of the Constitution "prohibits" states from denying recognition of the judicial proceedings of other states.

Yep, its one of many powers prohibited to the States by the Constitution, - just as the 10th says.

Congress is charged with prescribing "the manner" of ensuring enforcement and the executive under a different section is charged with enforcement.
Does this example sufficiently satisfy you that government has the "power to prohibit?"

The Constitution prohibits those powers, not Congress or "the government". -- You really should study the document a bit more. And a thesaurus, - prescribe doesn't mean prohibit.

-- You claim that libertarians must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior?

The liberty to engage in treason is certainly a societally destructive behavior.

Wordplay; - no one is at 'liberty' to commit criminal acts. Treason is a crime of war.

Would you not agree?

US Constitution, Article III Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Do you contend that libertarians should not support limiting the destructive behavior of treason when engaged in by fellow citizens?

Why would a libertarian oppose punishment for a criminal warlike act?

Why do you equate punishing treason with writing & enforcing prohibitive 'laws', laws that violate due process?

Do you see a citizen who 'illegally' owns a machine gun as somehow treasonous?

I did mean the lack of replacement, yes. I think you are right in blaming it on availability of birth control and feminism...though I don't doubt that there may be other causes as well.

I would be inclined to think that government has a responsibility to encourage the traditional American values of individual freedoms and our Constitution, along with its responsibility to preserve those things. Of course it turns out that it can't be trusted to do either, it would be the master rather than the servant.

Yes, the John Adams quote is the one I'm thinking of, though I believe some of the others said similar things.

Our various level of governments have no delegated powers to promote socalled "traditional values".
Nothing in the Constitution can be cited to support this communitarian position.

US Constitution, Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are not establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare "traditional values?"

They were pretty radical [libertarian] values in the context of their day. I doubt any other traditional government had such values at the time.

Is establishing a constitution which specifies executive, legislative and judicial branches to carry out the traditional values, so specified, supporting them?

There again, our Constitutions structure was a radical [libertarian] departure from any previous attempt at self government.

Which branch of government [at what level] would be empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values"? -- The very idea of trusting any elected official/or branch with such power is a ludicrous dream.

US Constitution, Article I Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to…
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

Does this answer your question on which branch of government is empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values?"

No.

Try again.

establishing justice,

They were pretty radical [libertarian] values in the context of their day. I doubt any other traditional government had such values at the time.

Let’s see… establishing justice… I seem to recall something about “an eye for eye” in a document thousands of years older than the US Constitution as a concept of justice. Maybe there was something about that concept of justice addressed in English Common Law or perhaps the Magna Carta or the Mayflower Compact or… Naw… that couldn’t make establishing justice a traditional value, could it?

Careful, your towering intellect is in operation, again.

Is establishing a constitution which specifies executive, legislative and judicial branches to carry out the traditional values, so specified, supporting them?

There again, our Constitutions structure was a radical [libertarian] departure from any previous attempt at self government.

Let’s see… there was democracy invented in Greece a few thousand years earlier, a republic invented in Rome a couple of thousand years earlier, a republic in England about a century earlier, English common law, the Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, the British Parliament, the Articles of Confederation, the writings of John Locke, the governments and charters of the various colonies prior to the revolution… Yep, according to the “towering intellect,” the US Constitution couldn’t have had a basis in any of those things.

Does this?" [The Congress shall have power to… To make all laws …] answer your question on which branch of government is empowered to decide what are to be "traditional values?"

No.

Try again.

There’s that towering intellect in operation, again… And I didn’t even mention the judicial branch’s power to interpret and apply the law or the executive’s discretion in how and when it enforces those laws. Those activities certainly aren’t based in “traditional values,” are they?

The Constitution prohibits those powers, not Congress or "the government".

… no one is at 'liberty' to commit criminal acts.

In deed, and who is it that determines exactly what is a criminal act? It couldn’t be Congress or the various state legislatures, (government) could it? Naw, a crime is a violation of a legal prohibition, and, according to the “towering intellect,” government can’t “prohibit” anything.

-- You really should study the document a bit more. and history…

If the shoe fits,…

I would be inclined to think that government has a responsibility to encourage the traditional American values of individual freedoms and our Constitution, along with its responsibility to preserve those things.

I agree. However, the rub comes in how such can be accomplished.

The real answer is in education of the individual citizen IMHO. Unfortunately, there are no safeguards ensuring that our education system teaches traditional American values of individual freedoms, our Constitution, or the history of how those things came to be, let alone the price paid in blood and treasure to obtain and defend them.

As a matter of fact, there are those working within the education system (obviously, not everyone in the education system) who, it seems, are actively trying to subvert teaching American values, our Constitution, or real history. These individuals and groups are concerned with teaching “self esteem,” something that is earned not taught. These same people want to teach “gay rights,” a concept non-existent in our Constitution or any other governmental tradition. They want to re-write history to suit their agenda rather than those inconvenient things called facts.

Of course it turns out that it [government] can't be trusted to do either, it would be the master rather than the servant.

Again, you are correct. Government, it seems, is a necessary evil. However, it is one that must be constantly guarded by vigilant citizens willing and able to judiciously use the power of the ballot, the courts and any other legal means to keep it in check. Our population, it appears from the voting percentages, its lack of critical thought capacity and the success of rabidly partisan, corrupt, power mongers, has come close to falling asleep in its duty to guard the “tree of liberty.”

"Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism".

Monopolies are rarely formed without the collusion of Government. Regulating markets to prevent monopolies actually allows for monopolies to be formed.

Monopolies are rarely formed without the collusion of Government. Regulating markets to prevent monopolies actually allows for monopolies to be formed.

Interesting opinion. How do rate the Sherman Anti-trust Act?

If I had to rate the Sherman Antitrust act, which was created not to regulate monopolies but to break trusts, trusts which were created to get around prior government regulation of free markets, then I would rate it a 3.

Monopolies are rarely formed without the collusion of Government.

Perhaps, you could expound upon JP Morgan, J. Paul Gettys, Vanderbilt, and a host of others called “robber barons.” Is it your contention that all of those individuals and/or their organizations could not have, and did not, reach monopoly, or near monopoly status, except through the intervention/collusion of government?

While you’re at it, illustrate on the practical differences among cartels, trusts, and monopolies from the perspective of the small entrepreneur and consumer.

Regulating markets to prevent monopolies actually allows for monopolies to be formed.

Given that the government currently regulates US markets to supposedly prevent the formation of monopolies, how many monopolies have been formed as a result?

Are not establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare “traditional values?” Is establishing a constitution which specifies executive, legislative and judicial branches to carry out the traditional values, so specified, supporting them?

How are these tradintional values, when we were the first in history to promulgate them?

The VALUE was freedom, period, with as limited a Govt as could be conceived, to stay OUT of the people's way in their own pursuit of happiness, and be as burdenless as possible.

Check those excellent links I posted earlier.

What we now have is nearly 180 degrees from it.