Libertarianism's Folly: When 'Live and Let Live' Fails

American Thinker ^ | October 03, 2010 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

While there was a time when I might have described myself as a libertarian, those days are long gone. In fact, I don't even call myself a conservative anymore. Oh, don't get me wrong -- I agree with libertarians on many issues, and their governmental model is vastly preferable to what liberals have visited upon us. Yet there is a problem: However valid their vision of government may be, their vision of society renders it unattainable.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Now, I certainly agree with the first sentence, as it's merely a statement of the obvious. But then we have to ask, what constitutes "injurious"? And when determining this, do we completely ignore indirect injury? Then, if we do consider the latter, to what extent should it be the domain of government? (When pondering these matters, note that the Founding Fathers didn't reside on the modern libertarian page. They certainly would have, for instance, supported the idea of state and local governments outlawing pornography and would be appalled at what is now justified under the First Amendment.)

However you answer these questions, you should question Jefferson's second sentence. While it may make sense on the surface, it ignores that spiritual/philosophical foundation that affects morality. And what happens when a people become so morally corrupt that they elect a government that picks your pocket or breaks your leg?

Lest there be any misunderstandings, I don't propose that our central government establish religion. But I do have a problem with the implication that a person's most fundamental beliefs -- which influence action -- always do me "no injury," as this leads to a ho-hum attitude that lessens the will to uphold proper traditions and social codes. And if you doubt the power of belief, wait until a European nation turns predominantly Muslim and watch what ensues -- then get back to me.  

And today's libertarians have gone Jefferson one better. They ignore not merely religion's effect upon morality, but also morality's effect upon government, as they apply their ideology not merely to law, but also social codes. Indulging "moral libertarianism," they not only oppose anti-sodomy and anti-polygamy laws, but they also look askance at social stigmas that could discourage such sexual behaviors. Not only do they oppose obscenity laws, but they're wary of courageous condemnations of the obscene. Even that most intrepid libertarian, Glenn Beck, is guilty of this. When asked during an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor whether faux marriage was a threat to the nation in any way, he laughed and mockingly replied, "A threat to the country? No, I don't ... Will the gays come and get us?" I don't know, Glenn -- ask the Europeans and Canadians who criticized homosexuality and were punished under hate-speech law.  

Quite fittingly, right after Beck answered, he quoted the "It neither picks my pocket ... " part of the Jefferson quotation, espousing the libertarian idea that we really shouldn't care what others do as long as they don't hurt anyone else. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, however, this is much like having a fleet of ships and saying that you don't care how the vessels function as long as they don't crash into each other. Obviously, if they don't function properly, they may not be able to avoid crashing into each other. So libertarians may say, "Whatever works for you -- just don't work it into government," but what about when someone doesn't work properly? Thinking that personal moral disease won't infect the public sphere is like saying, "I don't care what a person does with his health -- carry tuberculosis if you want -- just don't infect me." 

And the proof is in the electoral pudding.  Did you ever observe what groups vote for whom and wonder why? Churchgoing Christians cast ballots overwhelmingly for traditionalist candidates, while atheists and agnostics support leftists by wide margins. In fact, consider this: Virtually every group involved in something those Neanderthal Christians call sinful or misguided votes for leftists. Goths? Check. Homosexuals? Check. Wiccans? Check. People peppered with tattoos and body piercings? Check. You don't find many vampirists, cross-dressers, or S&M types at Tea Party rallies.   

In light of this, do you really believe there is no correlation between worldview and political belief? In fact, is it realistic to say that there isn't likely causation here? And what can you predict about America's political future based on the fact that an increasing number of people are embracing these "non-traditional" behaviors and beliefs? The irony of Jefferson's statement is that whether our neighbor believes in twenty gods or no God, he will likely vote the same way (this is at least partially because paganism and atheism share a commonality with liberalism: the rejection of orthodox Christianity). And equally ironic is that he will elect people who do injury to the very Constitution Jefferson helped craft.      

So there is a truth here hiding in plain sight: If someone is not a moral being, how can he be expected to vote for moral government? Do you really think a vice-ridden person will be immoral in business, when raising children, and in most other things but then, magically somehow, have a moment of clarity at the polls? This is why John Adams warned, "Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue] ... "

Despite this, libertarians tend to bristle at bold moral pronouncements that would encourage private virtue. As was apparent when I penned this piece on the internet's corruptive effects, they fear that should such sentiments take firm hold, they will be legislated and forestall the libertarian utopia. But they have it precisely backwards. As Edmund Burke said:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites ... Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their fetters.

Thus, insofar as the libertarian governmental ideal is even possible, it is dependent upon the upholding of morality, upon the "controlling power" of social codes. For not only do they help shape moral compasses, thereby increasing governance "from within," insofar as that internal control is lacking, but the social pressure attending the codes serves to govern from without.  And insofar as this social control is lacking, governmental control fills the vacuum. As freedom from morality waxes, freedom from legality wanes.

Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left's victory in the battle for civilization. This is because, in libertarians' failure to fight for hearts and minds in the cultural realm, they cede it to leftists, who aren't shy about advancing their "values." And proof of this is in the social pudding. You see, if talk of establishing social codes and traditions sounds stifling, know that we haven't dispensed with such things -- that is impossible. Rather, the left has succeeded in replacing our traditional variety with something called "political correctness," which describes a set of codes powerful enough to control the jokes we make and words we use, get people hired or fired, and catapult a man to the presidency based partially on the color of his skin.

As for elections, political battles need to be fought, but they are the small picture. For if the culture is lost, what good is politics? People will vote in accordance with their worldview no matter what you do. Thus, he who shapes hearts and minds today wins political power tomorrow.    

The libertarian chant "I don't care what you do, just lemme alone" sounds very reasonable, indeed. But as hate-speech laws, forcing people to buy health insurance, and a thousand other nanny-state intrusions prove, when people become morally corrupt enough, they don't leave you alone. They tyrannize you. A prerequisite for anything resembling libertarian government is cast-iron morality in the people. And we should remember that, to echo Thomas Paine, "Virtue is not hereditary."

For this reason, neither is liberty. Scream "Live and let live!" loudly enough in the moral sphere, and in the hearts of men the Devil will live -- and the republic will die.

Contact Selwyn Duke

[justsaynomore]

Interesting discussion ping...

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Paladins Prayer]

Mr. Duke is no leftist Lurker, I can tell you that. I’ve been reading his stuff for a while and he’s hard to peg. But if I had to describe him I’d say he’s a bit like Joe Sobran. He’s ardently pro-life, anti-immigration (he even opposes legal immigration) and extremely traditional in terms of sexual mores. He’s also never boring, whether you agree with him or nor.

[Lurker]

Mr. Duke is no leftist Lurker,

He may claim not to be one, many leftists do. That doesn't make it so.

[Paladins Prayer]

If you’re going to say that, why don’t you cite even one leftist position he’s taken? Look, I’ve been reading the guy’s stuff for ages and I’ve never seen him advocate any leftist position. He even calls Obama an evil man.

He also is a great defender of the west. He’s written many articles about why even legal immigration must be ended. Heck, even libtard John Conyers quoted material from one of those articles on the House floor and criticized it.

A person who knows his work might criticize him for being too far right, but he’s no lefty.

[Lurker]

Churchgoing Christians cast ballots overwhelmingly for traditionalist candidates,

Deomonstrably false. Kennedy got well over half of the Catholic vote in MA. Pelosi in SF the same.

This guy's full of it.

[metmom]

ping

[Lurker]

And when determining this, do we completely ignore indirect injury?

Define "indirect" for me. He uses it in the context of how people wish to order their private sex lives. He isn't harmed by two guys claiming to be married, not even one little bit.

The same is true for the idiot who wants to live with more than one woman. It's none of his business as long as he doesn't have to pick up the tab.

Trouble is there's all sorts of tabs he wants people to pick up.

Lest there be any misunderstandings, I don't propose that our central government establish religion.

Oh sure you do Selwin. You just don't have the balls to come right out and say it.

[RipSawyer]

“I don’t believe that freedom of religion is totally absolute.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It cannot be, suppose I come to you and say that my God requires me to take your son as my slave and your daughter as my concubine and that you must pay me for the privilege of having me take them? Does any of that sound in the least familiar?

[Lauren BaRecall]

In what way(s) is he a closet leftist? I am interested in knowing especially because I met him once, quite coincidently, and had an extended conversation with him.

[Gondring]

Point to the Salem Witch Trials and I’ll point to the unmarked graves outside the Gulag.

Both prime examples of people believing they know better than someone else how he should run his life.

[Eagle Eye]

But do you believe in the Constitution?

[Charlespg]

yes

for your info the US was supposed to be a republic baseed on Judo Christian ethics and tolerance of other religions

nothing in the Bill of rights says we have to tolerate cults or other beliefs that clearly are a danger to public safety and freedom

[Tailgunner Joe]

I think it’s the right question, “How little government is good?”

It seems hard to get libertarians to actually answer this question. It's easy to say you want less government than we have now, but when a libertarian is asked how much government they DO want, they usually don't seem to know. They only know what they don't want, they have no plan for what to do if they ever got in charge. Just being for less government is not a philosophy. Tell me what you're for, not just what you're against.

[neverdem]

It's certainly appropriate that he doesn't call himself a conservative because he's obviously not.

Read the essay linked in the first paragraph or my quick summary in comment# 1. He sounds better than a conservative when conservatives are content to halt a further advance by the left. He sounds like a reactionary. He wants to reverse the advances the left has already made, e.g. hate crimes, political correctness, etc.

[Redmen4ever]

If you would, would you identify whom you think was the foremost libertarian of the 1960s or one of the foremost ones, in transforming the public schools from whatever they had previously been into places of secular and socialist indoctrination. I mentioned Milton Friedman, who was the foremost advocate of the privatization of schooling through vouchers of his day. The libertarian approach to schooling has been one of privatizing, not one of promoting one view, described as liberal, over another, described as conservative. Parents should, for their own children, make the choice of schooling, not the political majority.

[ansel12]

This is the portion of the leftist/libertarian agenda that they have so effectively advanced in our schools and throughout America in the last 50 years. Some of this is physically in the schools itself, the rest of it is in the curriculum, and cultural teaching of the schools.

Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

[Redmen4ever]

The Libertarian Party. And, they were influential in the culture, such as free sex and drugs?

Actually, I think the cause and effect goes the other way. As the ‘50s gave way to the ‘60s, the culture changed. I don’t know, some combination of the Greatest Generation moving through the life cycle, along with protests against the Vietnam War. Maybe the invention of the Pill. A lot of things were going on.

But, one of them wasn’t the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party came about during the 1970s. During the ‘60s, you had Bill Buckley who had some libertarian impulses, but was basically a conservative, and Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, who were Western-style conservatives.

There were some individual Libertarians who were influential back in those days. Milton Friedman was an unofficial advisor to Nixon. Alan Greenspan, who for a time was associated with Ayn Rand, was an official advisor to Nixon. The fellow who wrote Goldwater’s line “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue,” Karl Hess, was a libertarian. (But, he lifted that line from Cicero.)

So, even before the Libertarian Party, there were some influential Libertarians. But, no Libertarian Party, and nothing approaching a movement. When those things started to develop, you did have the emergence of the kind of Libertarian you’re talking about, whom Ayn Rand called “right-wing hippies.” Murray Rothbard, known within Libertarian circles as “Mr. Libertarian,” and a long-time associate of Ron Paul, called them “Leuftmenchen” or “air people,” for their lack of means of support. But, we’re talking of a subgroup of a group that was pretty small to begin with, no member of whom ever was individually influential.

To move the clock ahead a few decades, during the 1990s, there emerged a new consensus in the democratic world, the “neo-liberal,” or “conservative-liberal” view. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton reflected this view in the left-of-center parties. They kind of grabbed on to the economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. From the left-of-center view, this means that a market economy could support a secularized welfare state, Of course, today, with Barack Obama, we have the return of a radical left, multi-cultural and socialistic agenda.

I’m sorry but I don’t think we have yet to see the emergence of new, vigorous leadership in the center-right parties of the democratic world. Prime Minister Fujimori of Japan and President George W. Bush were promising, but were overcome by circumstances. Chancellor Merkel of Germany has been unimaginative and old school. Perhaps the most successful “market-liberals” have been the Polish Civic Party and the Swedish Moderate Party. But, their countries are on the small side.

In our country, “conservatives” constitute the majority, but that’s combining the libertarian- or economic-conservatives along with the social-conservatives and national security-conservatives. It’s a bit of a trick to keep all three of these balls in the air, and only certain leaders can do this on a sustained basis.

[ansel12]

I know the history of the party pretty well, I first ran into them in 1974, and fell in love for about 30 minutes, until I could penetrate their Mormon like aversion to get to the rest of their agenda.

“Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.”

[Eagle Eye]

for your info the US was supposed to be a republic baseed on Judo Christian ethics and tolerance of other religions

A constitutional republic, yes. But prove where the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution are based on anything Biblical. You can't.

nothing in the Bill of rights says we have to tolerate cults or other beliefs that clearly are a danger to public safety and freedom

Wow. So much wrong-headedness there that I'm amazed!

Can't you think of a few mainstream denominations that were once considered cults?

If one can make the case that islam isn't a religion but is a criminal organization then one would have a case for abolishing it.