A brief quote from this summary is as follows:
Kirk sees libertarians as radical doctrinaires, contemptuous of tradition, culture and faith. Of society’s old traditions and prescriptions they would retain only private property. Libertarians also seek an abstract liberty that has never existed. Contrary to the unlimited liberty theory of economics, the American economy is complex and requires government to enforce contracts and so forth. Government, then, is an economic necessity. Complete freedom from government of any kind would result in complete chaos.Our Constitution was conceived and written by an aristocratic body who “sought a more perfect union.” They knew, like Dostoevsky, that “unlimited freedom ends with unlimited despotism.” Kirk sees libertarians arguments as humorless, intolerant, self-righteous, badly schooled and dull. A specific quote is:
”..The libertarians are rejected because they are metaphysically mad.Lunacy repels and political lunacy especially. I do not mean they are dangerous; nay, they are repellant merely. They do not endanger our country and our civilization, because they are few, and seem likely to become fewer…
What Kirk means by “metaphysically mad” is that libertarians refuse to consider any question not answerable by direct observation or science; no religion, no prime mover, nothing of a spiritual nature. As such they are “mad” ignoring common human emotions and experience.
Is it any wonder believers reject libertarianism? Is it any mystery why Ron Paul does not sell to the masses?
Ron Paul is a RINO but in a different way. He’s actually a Libertarian; he ran as such and didn’t rule out that he’d do it again. He waffled and said something about not having the resources. He’s not to be trusted. People who’d support him are looking for a Conservative Jimmy Carter. They are living a dream of returning to the days of 1930s isolationism, even if Ron Paul calls it noninterference or some other such gobbledygook claptrap. The man is very naive and willing to get in bed with some very odd ducks. By not disavowing them he collects their support. See www.outlawjournalism.com for instance. Plus, the skinheads, Nazis, Holocaust deniers, the 9/11 truthers, the Isolationists, Buchananites, Birchers, and a variety of other nuts and scoundrels all flock to this clown.
They hit me back with some line about reverence for the document. They were Agnostic it appears.
I pointed out the Bill of Rights and the fact we are endowed, by the Creator, with certain inalienable rights, and the Constitution is there to defend same. He fired back that it works just as well without the "by our Creator" statement, that we are just simply endowed with inalienable rights. Of course I pointed out that it was written as I presented.
The whole of the American experience, all the documents and laws cannot be separated from the divine, yet there are many who have replaced God with a document, worshiping the law. Most are libertarians as far as I can tell.
I have no problem respecting the Constitution, indeed it is the law of a blessed land, but it is God, then Family, then Country. God expects me to protect what he has given me, namely my wife and soon to be child. I do that now by supporting our efforts in a modern nuclear age world
Separating the divine from the constructs of our Republic and it's laws is like Frosted Flakes without the sugar coating.
It leave you with nothing but Flakes...
In this case, the kind that spout the arguments Kirk mentions in you excerpt...