Posted on 10/03/2010 6:22:52 PM PDT by 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.)
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.
Point well taken.
I think Libertarianism is hard to define in a practical sense. In this thread, it’s being defined too close to Anarchy. I certainly don’t agree with the premise of this thread that Libertarians are indifferent to the founding principles. Today I and other conservatives are rediscovering their Libertarian leanings and that’s a good thing I think.
As an interesting anecdotal follow up, some food for thought, consider the fallout from rallies attended by liberals versus those held by conservatives. Specifically, consider the amount of trash left behind by the respective groups. One group clearly shows a “need” to be controlled that points to a tragic inability to handle the responsibilities that come with liberty. They vote accordingly.
This sounds an awful lot like original sin, and quite collectivist.
I don't believe for a minute that I, personally, deserve a large, tyrannical, intrusive federal government.
The point you're trying to make seems to be that libertarians are at fault because they don't support heavily legislating vice and lifestyle, and that that has led to an immoral populace, which has given us an immoral government.
I don't think this argument has merit. It's like blaming people who don't support laws against adultery for the fact that people commit adultery.
I sense that it is precisely the diffuse definition of libertarianism that you mentioned that hampers discussion of the subject. You and I may be talking about different things.
Because it's a popular sentiment right now. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, a movement CINO's and RINO's were trashing just a year ago. They couldn't beat the movement, now they're trying to hijack it.
Do Objectivists believe the government shouldn’t impose morality on people?
Objectivists believe the government can no more impose morality on people as it can impose gravity on people. If the government would simply protect us in our rights, then reality imposes morality on us. The bottom line is: If you don’t work, you starve.
Ah, but what if we define “morality” is a way that is self-sacrificial? That is, what if the reason for you to work isn’t to enable you to live well, but to enable others to live well. Well, that;s what modern-day government is in the business of doing. Taking from some and giving to others. You need government to turn things around from reality in order to pervert objective morality.
For a religious person, it is easy to see how the world is so organized that if we each pursue our self-interest while respecting the equal rights of others, that everything will work our well. This is because a religious person believes in a providential God. Hence, a religious person can easily accept that self-interest and social harmony can and should go hand in hand. That relying on God’s providential design, rather than on government, is a test of faith for which God stands ready to reward us for relying on him. The self-interest part, the social interest part and the obedience to God part all come together for a religious person.
But, what about an atheist? Does the atheist see the big picture or even care? And, can an atheist ever be trusted when nobody is looking? Well, here os what I’ll say, there are atheists who do see the big picture and are in awe of it. But, in my opinion, not many. And, I don’t think you can really trust anybody, religious or atheist.
The Libertarian party is the best practical definition, of libertarianism in action.
You bring up the right point I think. Conservatives have gotten comfortable with a powerful Executive at the head of government mostly due to Bush’s determination, over Congresses’ objection, to win the Iraq war. Now that we have a president just as determined to remake this country, we are rediscovering our libertarian tendencies. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I think it’s the right question, “How little government is good?”
So what about the sactioning of gay marriage, regardless of the indirect harm it will inflict on society at large, that won't be immediately evident?
We are not rediscovering our libertarian tendencies.
We are conservatives fighting back, if you tried to sell that libertarian “gay marriage”/pornography nonsense to the early Americans, you would have been lynched
I'm perfectly content with letting the states figure that out for themselves, and having a federal government that strictly adheres to the limits in the Constitution.
I live in a low-tax, low-service state that has a legislature that only meets every two years, but one that also has silly blue laws and creationists on school boards. I can take that trade off, and I'm willing to let Nevada, Vermont, or Florida figure out how they want to run things on their own.
First of all, government legislates things into law. Secondly, I don't know of one government official who hasn't stolen some citizen's rights right out in the open or assaulted the Constitution. They won't legislate stealing and assault because they're guilty of both.
I don't think lifestyle should be legislated except where another human being is impacted, as per Jefferson and "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Quite the contrary: I'll choose whether to wear a seatbelt, thank you. I don't need a nanny government legislating this and quite frankly I resent it.
On the other hand, any debate about the consequences of decadence, and whether they have broader teleological (i.e. where we are going big-picturewise) implications is academic. We all know we are in the mess we're in, with $13+ trillion debt, ObamaCare, etc. I see this collective accountability view as perfectly in-line with both sacred and secular history. Old Testament Israel strayed, they were chastised. Repeatedly. Other nations were raised up, become proud, fell. Rome. Mesopotamia. It's a matter of historical fact, and most citizens were affected, with a few mercifully spared.
Personally, I do think it is ultimately Divine Sovereignty that causes this, but would rather others reach this conclusion on their own by studying history. I do not see, based on my limited understanding of history, how we as citizens of the United States of America would be exempt from that historical (and I believe, theological) paradigm.
To take your example: You may not personally support adultery, but you and I are still accountable for it insofar as we are members of a society in which this vice is rampant, and therefore subject to collective judgment that follows as a consequence. To the degree we oppose adultery and discourage it, I believe we will be spared a measure of the ensuing misery from the judgment.
I do believe, with all my heart, that John Adams was right about the suitability of our Constitution.
I agree that the “libertarian “gay marriage”/pornography nonsense” is just that, nonsense. I just don’t see why we should hold Libertarians responsible for Obama and the Democrats. It’s quite a stretch.
I didn’t understand that, who is holding the libertarians responsible for Obama and the democrats?
I see that someone already beat me to it, but I’ll post two paragraphs from the article from which he pulled his chart:
Churchgoing closely tied to voting patterns
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
. . . Voters who say they go to church every week usually vote for Republicans. Those who go to church less often or not at all tend to vote Democratic.
Forget the gender gap. The “religion gap” is bigger, more powerful and growing. The divide isn’t between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles. Instead, on one side are those of many faiths who go to services, well, religiously: Catholics who attend Mass without fail, evangelical Christians and mainline Protestants who show up for church rain or shine, some Orthodox Jews. On the other side are those who attend religious services only occasionally or never.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
Mariner, how could you not know this basic fact about voting patterns? You don’t seem to have very good discernment.
The original article?
“Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.”
But I, personally, have always voted for the candidate that is closest to a Constitutional philosophy, and will continue to do so. So this idea that somehow all Americans are equally at fault I think is silly.
I think the idea of something like a law against adultery is just another feather in the cap of the philosophy that somehow, government can cure all. If we just had enough laws and regulation, everyone would live like the Cleavers. I reject such an idea as philosophically and demonstrably wrong.
Adams note about the Constitution and religion seems germane in context of when and who is was written to, but the Constitution makes no mention of any specific religion, and prohibits a religious test for its leaders and religious compulsion by the government. I think that as far as the federal government is concerned, the matter ends there.
That sentence is true, and it is saying a lot more than just about Obama, or the Democrat party, or even the United States, read it again.
“Ultimately, the tragic consequence of the libertarian mentality is that it guarantees the left’s victory in the battle for civilization.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.