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

[FreeKeys]

I know I am over-simplifying, but Abe Lincoln said - "Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought.."

And THAT, in my opinion, is the convenient justification of a tyrant who wishes to do the dictating of what one "ought." Neither Hitler nor Stalin could have come up with a better rationalization for their despotism.

[ansel12]

SOME have no problem with the leftist/socialist habit of wanting to run the lives of others.

Cute, the way you played that, leftists/libertarians tear apart the social and cultural fabric of our nation since the 1960s, as conservatives try to preserve our culture and traditions, and we are the bad guys.

It is your side that is advancing the leftist goals.

[FreeKeys]

The idea that amorality leads to Liberty is incredibly foolish on the part of Libertarians

I know MANY libertarians and ALL of them despise amorality. In fact, some of them are extremely strict followers of the Objectivist ethics and can be quite obnoxious in their enthusiasm in pointing out that public policy always reflects ethics and morality in one way or another, and that if your ethics are in conflict with reality, you're in danger of setting up a dictatorship, etc., etc., etc. and on and on and on... Tedious? Yes, Amoral? Absolutely not.

Now MY personal objection to libertarianism is that many libertarians' attitude of "live and let live" extends to foreign policy. Some of them even think that nutcases should be allowed to develop nukes. I couldn't be more adamantly opposed to such nonsense.

[huldah1776]

It is not that simple. You see, I think it has to do with the command to love others as ourselves. If someone would warn me about hurting myself, the choice is now mine to ignore the warning. But what if no one warned me and I would have stopped?

Ezekiel 3:18-21 God says, “When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’; and you do not warn him or speak out to
warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.

“Yet if you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself.

“Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he shall die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.

“However, if you have warned (him) the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.”

[padre35]

Quote Objectivism all they might, the fact of the matter is the basis is amoralism, their complaint is “Govt should not impose Morality on the people”

Okay then what do they then suppose is the consequence of having a Amoral Governance? How can expect that vacuum to be filled be some remote State that is more than happy to “live and let live”?

Delusional thinking on the part of idealists has led to more graves than any Judeo Christian based Government ever has.

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

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

This writer has exposed the worst trait of some conservatives. SOME have no problem with the leftist/socialist habit of wanting to run the lives of others. Their only difference is that they think THEY should be the ones in charge.

One problem with this sort of argument is that those who make it often consider things like, say, banning child pornography to be part of "the leftist/socialist habit of wanting to run the lives of others."

As far as actually wanting to "run the lives of others" on things that aren't actually harming someone else, I've seen little to none of that coming from conservatives, despite the typically buffoonish libertarian imaginations about that.

But then again, I also know libertarians who think drunk driving shouldn't be illegal.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Objectivism

Objectivism is for people too dumb to understand Locke, and too afraid to understand Burke.

[padre35]

As well as a Religious Belief in a Creator and mankind as the product of Creation leads naturally to Liberty as the State cannot supplant a Creator’s Individual Creation.

Without a mankind that is individually endowed then mankind becomes mere numbers on a page, abstractions to the State, why wouldn’t they then make policies that suits their Purpose with no thought that doing so would be wrong?

And that is the fundamental ideal behind Abortion, as ghastly as that concept is, the State knows very well that Abortions are a net plus for the State when they happen in minority neighborhoods..

Ask an “Objectionist” sometime “why” children in the womb are not covered under ZAP and step back and watch the babbling inanity that pours forth as they try to explain their ill conceived philosophy on that matter.

[Lauren BaRecall]

Despite libertarians’ attestations that they love freedom, we can see by their actions that they would rather cede the republic to the left than be caught voting for a “social conservative.”

Another excellent offering by Selwin Duke.

[Lauren BaRecall]

First off, the authors name is ‘Selwin’.

http://selwynduke.com/

Second problem, he thinks he’s smarter than Jefferson.

The second problem is that you think you're smarter than Selwyn Duke.

[GunRunner]

This article is borderline nonsensical, however this line pretty much gave it away:

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

This little qualifier gives away the intentions here, but it seems that the author is just another in a long line of those like Beck and Joe Farah who are trying to morph the anti-government sentiment of the Tea Party into a quasi-evangelical religious revival.

Obama and his allies are literally dismantling the country and the economy before our very eyes, but Selwyn Duke is griping about libertarians because they don't support federal speech codes.

Talk about taking your eye off the ball.

I think the anti-government revolution that is sweeping the country will literally evaporate if the people who want to turn it into a religious movement have their way.

[Lauren BaRecall]

And that is something Libertarians never seem to grasp, the basis of Freedom is not indifference, it is a healthy sense of proper and improper based on unyielding Principles that force engagement, not on simple “I do not know and do not care”.

You can see this operate in the followers of Ayn Rand. Neither she, nor her followers, grasps the concept of Natural Law, and the associated true nature of man.

[Charlespg]

Outlawing islam sets a very bad precedent, imo.

And if islam only had 50.000 members.A cult is still a cult no matter how many followers it has.
and I don't believe that freedom of religion is totally absolute.

[Mariner]

"Churchgoing Christians cast ballots overwhelmingly for traditionalist candidates, "

BS. It's 50-50 at best.

Church-going Christians MAY even be predominantly left...remember, this includes Lutherans and Catholics.

[GunRunner]

Agreed.

Don't forget Methodists. They're pretty liberal too.

The Methodist church I went to in high school actually had Harry Blackmun as a guest speaker.

I can't tell you how many conservative Christians tried to get me to read "The Purpose Driven Life". I didn't read it, didn't care to, and knew that I made the right choice not to when I saw the fat-faced pastor who wrote it say the prayer at Obama's inauguration.

I trust libertarians 100 times over someone who classifies themself as "Christian" to vote for the true constitutionalist in a given race.

[Lexinom]

I don't think they do. I think the author is pointing out the fact that certain basic tenets, regardless of specific creeds, are necessary. Rip out the foundation from under the house, the house soon crumbles.

IOW belief in a Creator, referenced in our Declaration of Independence, cannot be divorced from the freedoms we enjoy. Anecdotally you can see what happens when it is in the failed utopias of the last century.

No one I know is talking about imposing anything, but rather accepting the prerequisites to our freedoms. Nothing beyond what the founders envisioned, this article, merely a rebuttal to the notion that we could have become a free and happy people in a moral vacuum. That's all.

[Lauren BaRecall]

The true constitutionalist will always be a moral individual who will support the principles of “social conservatism.” It can be no other way because the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Natural Law.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

So Obama and the Democrats is the fault of the Libertarians?

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

So explain to me the difference between a Conservative a Libertarian and an Anarchist.

[Redmen4ever]

Did left/libertarians implement their ideas in American culture and schools during the 1960s?

I don’t know who you have decided spoke for libertarianism during the 1960s. Most people would say, intellectually, Milton Friedman was the leading spokesman during that time. In the political arena, I suppose Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan represented a western-style of conservatism that reflected libertarian impulses.

Friedman, of course, advocated privatization of schools through vouchers. This coincided with the Catholic view at that time. Republicans generally and Protestants didn’t want any part of privatization at that time. They continued to advocate public schools.

Well, the political and cultural left also favored public schools. Only, the political and cultural left wanted public schools in order to force their agenda down the throat of children. This, of course, reflects the war of values that will continue forever if the government is going to decide what is taught in schools, rather than parents. And, one group’s idea of Sharia Law - or the marriage of Church and State - will conflict with another group’s. Elections are about which group will get to force their idea of what is right and what is wrong onto the other group.

Today, since the cultural and political left has completely taken over the public schools, conservative Protestants have mostly joined with Catholics and libertarians in advocating privatization of schools.

The “live and let live” philosophy of libertarianism is strategic. As long as the government doesn’t tax the productive and give to the unproductive, then those who will proper will be those who adopt value conducive to human flourishing. That which is right and good does not need to be propped up by government. The government needs only to be a terror to evil, Beyond this, government should praise those who do good. I think most libertarians would accept the wisdom of the government using non-coercive means to promote do-gooding in society. And, most conservative but non-orthodox religious people accept a limited role for government.