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

[Lexinom]

A conservative desires to conserve the ideals that form the bedrock of our society and which are prerequisite to our freedom.

A libertarian wants small government - good - but fails to consider of the connection between basic core beliefs, such as those held in common by the founders (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Catholic, Deist, etc.) and the viability of the society built thereupon.

I'm not certain how anarchists are a part of this discussion, but I suppose one could make a case that anarchy is the most extreme form of libertarianism.

[ansel12]

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

Yes they did, their destruction of our culture has been more advanced in the last 50 years than ever before.

The left/libertarians were fighting all that American social conservatism , and their victories have been immense.

[Redmen4ever]

With regard to freedom, F.A. Hayek, something of an agnostic, said that freedom only became possible in the world with the emergence of the monotheistic religions.

In the former, pagan religions, the gods were capricious, not subject to law. But, the one true God is both the God of Law and the God of Liberty. His Law frees us.

His Law, reflected in the Ten Commandments, puts forth the basic laws that any society must obey in order to flourish.

Now, does this mean that only a religious person - and, specifically, one who adheres to the Ten Commandments or its equivalent - can be moral, or that the majority of a society must be religious in this sense to be free, virtuous and prosperous?

With regard to individuals, no, all men and women of good will can be moral. Hence, the Angel heralded the coming of the Messiah by addressing all men of good will.

With regard to societies, as a practical matter, yes, the majority needs to be religious and adhere to the Ten Commandments. And, in a democracy, we should support political candidates who promote religion and who exemplify this in their own lives. It’s one thing for an intellectual such as Hayek to claim to be some kind of an agnostic; but, it’s another thing for a high-ranking public official.

Now, I think you can see the trivialization of religion in the cultural left. In the shifting winds of politics, the enemy of freedom is now shifting from atheistic communism to a strange form of post-Christian, “multi-cultural” religion.

[GunRunner]

IOW belief in a Creator, referenced in our Declaration of Independence, cannot be divorced from the freedoms we enjoy.

Even though the Constitution prohibits any religious test for public office, let's pretend for a moment that it doesn't.

The current President, all nine Supreme Court justices, and 534 out of 535 members of Congress all confess to believing in a Creator. Did belief in a Creator keep them from digging the country into a hole?

If you want to talk about the role of religious philosophy in the founding of the country, then there's no problem with that. But I see no evidence that our current out of control federal government will be tamed if more Americans just start going to church more often.

[itsahoot]

Ping for home

[Captain Kirk]

most intrepid libertarian, Glenn Beck,

This guy was never much of a libertarian if he thinks that about an unlibertarian statist like Beck, who supports perpetual war in Afghanistan and Iran, praises the drug war, and supported TARP is a "libertarian." Based on that whopper, his strawmen arguments can be safely ignored

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Thank you.

“A libertarian wants small government - good - but fails to consider of the connection between basic core beliefs, such as those held in common by the founders (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Catholic, Deist, etc.) and the viability of the society built thereupon. “

I don’t think that’s true. It reads like and assertion, a straw man. Probably the most famous Libertarian today is Beck and he’s led a revival in concern for our founding principles.

[ansel12]

"Churchgoing Christians cast ballots overwhelmingly for traditionalist candidates, "

[Lexinom]

Conversely, you could make the case, as the author has, that it is in fact the decadence of the people who put them in office in the first place that has put forth the mess in which we find ourselves. Face it: We're pretty decadent and banal compared to the people who lived at the time of our nation's founding. We have no right to complain.

People create these false either/or dichotomies: Either it is man's doing or God's. I submit that it is both: the former on the micro level, the latter in the big picture. We are getting what we as a people deserve, because all said and done, everyone of those capacities you mentioned, in varying degree of directness, represents us.

I'll ask you a question: Why should the Creator bless us if we as a people spit in His eye?

[Captain Kirk]

Nonsense. Beck is not a libertarian. For example, like his neocon heroine Palin, he supports the drug war and perpetual war in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq.

[Captain Kirk]

Oh....I forgot to mention that Beck supported TARP when the chips were down. Some “libertarian!”

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Very good.

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. - Ronald Reagan

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Okay then, “Self Described” Libertarian.

[Lexinom]

Look, a number of my own views are libertarian. Seat belt laws, smoking bans, the EPA. I do think it obvious, however, that a basic common presuppositional framework is necessary as a bedrock for building any society, that it is simply not possible to start from "nothing" if for no other reason than the founders of society x's own built-in biases, which we all carry.

In our case, we have built a society in which it is safe to openly profess atheism even though the very foundation that even makes that possible is theistic. This was clearly, to my mind, the spirit of the Jefferson quote.

If I am reading you right, you are challenging my assertion that libertarianism tries to start from nothing, ostensibly to facilitate the greatest amount of liberty. I would love to be proven wrong on this. My bone with libertarianism is not with citizens' rights to believe whatever they wish, but rather with what I perceive as its notion to undermine the foundational latticework, itself not completely neutral, that makes this freedom possible in the first place.

[TheThinker]

The morons on the left say that you can't legislate morality. Then why do we arrest people for stealing or assault?

I think that to a degree, one must legislate morality.

I think we have to get ahead of Islam and pass laws against the ruinous aspects of Sharia and buttress or at least enforce those laws that already run counter to Sharia.

Murder, for one, is the grandaddy offense that must be taken more seriously, particularly of one's own children, to discourage honor killings.

[ansel12]

Reagan was no libertarian, that little friendly quote is from an interview in 1975 with a libertarian magazine, and as the interview goes on you will notice that the interviewer keeps steering Reagan away from his national defense, and his social conservative positions, and back to the conservative, economic policies of Reagan’s, so as not to show the huge gulf between Reagan’s conservatism, and libertarians.

Libertarians didn’t call themselves “low tax, liberals” for nothing when they were running against Reagan in 1980.

[ansel12]

Seat belt laws, smoking bans, the EPA

Conservatives fought all those, you don't need to adopt the word libertarian to describe conservatives, that is part of their fifth column goal that they are contaminating conservatism with.

[mlo]

"The morons on the left say that you can't legislate morality. Then why do we arrest people for stealing or assault?"

Since nobody is saying you can't legislate against stealing or assault then it's pretty obvious that's not what they mean by legistlating morality, isn't it?

When people say you can't, or shouldn't, legislate morality, they are talking about legislating private choices. About trying to enforce your own view of proper conduct that has nothing to do with harming anyone else. Theft and assault have nothing to do with that.

[ansel12]

Do you embrace the platform of the libertarian party?

[Lexinom]

I think that to a degree, one must legislate morality.

And that degree you mentioned, is probably "in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites."