What Libertarianism Isn't

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | December 22nd 2001 | Edward Feser

[rob777]

The author seems to be well versed in the historical background of the libertarian movement. I am another who leans towards Frank Meyer's fusionism. (A traditionalist cultural/moral vision coupled with a libertarian political expression)

[Neets]

Here's one for you toots...waiting for you to opine!!!!

[Mahone]

If I had to sum up the common moral vision of libertarians and conservatives, I would say it is a commitment to the idea of the the dignity of man.

And this is precisely where the difference lies, a conservative who comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview believes that mankind is born spiritually dead in sin and that the laws of civilized societies are necessary to contain that sinful nature. That is diametrically opposed to the libertarian view of the "dignity" of man which is much closer to liberalism that sees man as being perfectable.

[x]

Great article. Surprisingly good for lewrockwell.com, and kinder to Jonah than he deserves.

The problem is that you can't patent or copyright an idea. In an age of liberal dominance, the radical suburban kids of the Sixties took the left to places that Wilsonians, Wobblies and Stalinists didn't go, and may not have dreamed of. Today, in a more conservative or free market era, a later generation of suburban kids will take the prevailing ideologies and use them to get what they want or express their rebellion.

Where you come from in intellectual history may be as important as where you are trying to go. Libertarian ideas arising in an era of "character-building" scarcity are bound to develop differently from those which take root in an age of affluence, self-expression and "autonomy." That relationship between circumstances and ideas is one reason why lewrockwell's interpretations of history so often fall flat: the same concept or value will not have the same consequences in every age.

But withal, a good and necessary blast against Postrel and the odious Gillespie. Thanks for this.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Very good article

Libertarianize the GOP

[OWK]

Great post.

[MadameAxe]

Good one. Thanks.

[Buckeroo]

As a Libertarian, I want to over-throw the two party system that has constrained America about our Constitution.

[gulliver]

Libertarianism = (conservatism - bs) + (liberalism - bs) + lunacy.

Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible but no simpler." Libertarians (at least the few self-appointed elite loudmouths like Virginia Postrel) make a vice out of the virtue of liberty. They oversimplify liberty in the same grossly dumb way some Republicans oversimplify free markets and some Democrats oversimplify social justice.

Proof: Consider the size of the Libertarian Party. QED.

[rob777]

"And this is precisely where the difference lies, a conservative who comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview believes that mankind is born spiritually dead in sin and that the laws of civilized societies are necessary to contain that sinful nature. That is diametrically opposed to the libertarian view of the "dignity" of man which is much closer to liberalism that sees man as being perfectable."



The Judeo/Christian worldview is much more profound than you give it credit for. It simultaneously recognizes that man is both created in the image of God and thus, has a divine dignity, and posesses a sinful nature. Liberalism has an image of upholding the dignity of man, but this is only superficially so. They view man in a general, collective sense with no consideration of the actual "individual" human. Their worldview is deterministic and sees the individual as a cog in a social machine. It is society that they see as perfectiable, NOT the individual. The Christian worldview sees the individual soul, with it personal relationship to God, as far more important than some social construct. As for human perfection, "with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible".

One final point: The libertarian worldview DOES recognize the sinfull part of human nature. That is why it is under no illusions that centralized political power in a society would be used to "contain that sinful nature". History has proven that centralized political power is more likely to be a vehicle for the expression of that sinful nature, rather than its restraint. There is only ONE full proof way to restrain sinful nature and that is a personal, one on one relationship with God. The state, at most, can only play the role of preventing that sinful nature from expressing itself in the form of engaging in force or fraud against our fellow citizens. To expect the state to play a role any further than this is to engage in the kind of idolotrous hubris that is the halmark of modern liberalism and its cult of state worship.

[tpaine]

2. ---- The natural rights argument, which emphasizes the idea that individuals have inviolable rights to life, liberty, and property that it is morally wrong for anyone, including the state, to violate even for allegedly good reasons (such as taxation for the sake of helping the needy). This approach has been favored by libertarian philosophers from John Locke to Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard, and also has an intuitive appeal to the "libertarian in the street" who resents the suggestion that the government has any business telling him what to do in his personal life, or with his money or personal property .

The natural rights argument (argument 2,):

If I have an absolute right to my property and to my own body, it follows that the government cannot stop me, say, from fornicating or using drugs – thus says the libertarian, and thus the appearance of tension between libertarianism and conservatism. But as (almost) all libertarians know, the tension is only apparent, and only to those not used to making rather obvious distinctions (journalists, political hacks, television personalities who've just discovered the word "libertarian," etc.). Libertarianism entails that the state must not impose traditional scruples through force of law; it does not entail that that such scruples are not valid.

What is not legally binding on us may nevertheless be morally binding on us.

Some libertarians may, of course, dislike and disagree with traditional moral rules; but others might believe strongly in them, even though they would not advocate imposing them on others through the power of the state, and they do not cease being libertarians for that.

-------------------------------------------

The author lost me somewhere in his, imo, overly complex defense of argument 3, - particularily when he had already made a perfectly logical defence of 2, as I underlined.

[Erasmus]

And, in the same vein, consider how much God loves the Red Chinese, having made so many of them.

[Christian_Egalitarian]

Libertarianism = Objectivism = Psuedointellectualized Liberalism

[Erasmus]

This article is definite bookmark material.

I do want to comment on the following minor point, because to me it doesn't make sense as written and may lead to confusion or difficulty in getting the author's later points:

This, at least, is the inference one naturally draws from their tendency to bifurcate between (on the one hand) those who want to impose, through force of law, their moral views on others, and (on the other hand) those, like themselves, who refuse to offer the faintest criticism of anything and everything done between “consenting adults” – as if there were no third position, viz. that of those who reject the use of state power to enforce traditional morality, but are nevertheless critical of those who flaunt it.

I think the author intended the word "flout" instead of "flaunt."

[Hemlock]

And this is precisely where the difference lies, a conservative who comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview believes that mankind is born spiritually dead in sin and that the laws of civilized societies are necessary to contain that sinful nature. That is diametrically opposed to the libertarian view of the "dignity" of man which is much closer to liberalism that sees man as being perfectible.

While it's true that many libertarians do not have a Judeo-Christian worldview, the libertarian political philosophy does not believe that man is self-perfectible, which is what I think you really mean by "perfectible." But neither is man perfectible by means of the state, and most informed libertarians would, in stark contrast to your claim, remind you that it is the very "sinful nature" of man which makes a concentration of power so dangerous. A typical libertarian would hold that the amount of force necessary to protect individuals from direct threats to their persons and possessions should be held and exercised by the state, whereas conservatives generally go a step further and attempt to impose their social norms on a culture.

[Roscoe]

Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible but no simpler."

Good quote.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Libertarianism = Objectivism = Psuedointellectualized Liberalism

Just because you make it statement does not make it true.
Please prove your equation or it shall rightly be ignored.

[VinnyTex]

.

[rob777]

"Libertarianism = Objectivism = Psuedointellectualized Liberalism"



Libertarianism predated Objectivism, in fact, it is a label that Ayn Rand rejected. When she first came to America, a large number of libertarians were Christian.

[tpaine]

Psuedointellectual = Christian_Egalitarian