Lunch With a Libertarian (my title)

AT THE FEE CONVENTION
by Bill Bonner

"What was it like in prison?" I asked my friend, a woman who had just spent 8 years behind bars at a federal penitentiary.

"Well, I don't want to pretend to be a martyr for the cause of liberty," she began. "It could have been a lot worse. It's funny, but you adapt. Or you go crazy.

"For some of those women - there were a lot of foreigners from Africa and Asia - it was the best life they ever had. We had three meals a day. It was clean. Nobody beat us.

"But for the poor women with children...it was almost unbearable. These women had never really done anything wrong. They never stole anything. They never hurt anybody. And here they were, locked up...and didn't get to see their children very often.

"And then, when the children did come to visit...the scenes in the visiting room were heartbreaking..."

Moses, coming down from the mountain, brought with him stone tablets inscribed with God's Ten Commandments. Even before the advent of the decimal system, the Lord Himself seems to have gone metric. Ten rules were enough for the ruler of all the universe.

Even that seemed like too many to Jesus of Nazareth. Standing on the mountain, he told listeners that there were only two that really mattered.

But even 10 were not enough for America's elected hacks and pooh-bahs. In the years following the founding of the republic, they have added approximately 25,479 "Thou Shall Nots" to Moses' list. Most of the women at the federal penitentiary in San Francisco may have broken God's rules from time to time. But it was usually one of the other 25,479 that got them in trouble with the law.

In today's letter, dear reader, fear not. We will not wail and whine, again, about the loss of freedom in America. Today, just to be contrary, we regret the loss of something else. For while Americans seem to have surrendered their liberty without a fight, they still permit themselves great liberties.

"You have to find a morality that is right for you," said Harry Browne in his speech. "Who knows what you really want? Who knows what you really feel? Nobody knows what you want better than you do. So, you and only you can decide what is right for you."

"But Harry," I asked over lunch. "Suppose someone decides that what is right for him is to murder you?" "Well, he would just be shortsighted," came the reply from the hyper-rationalist. "If he really thought things through he would realize that murdering me would not be a good idea...for him. Because, if he lived in a society where people could murder one another, his own life would be at risk."

"But what if he didn't care? People come up with some pretty strange ideas..."

"It doesn't matter," said Harry. "Either you decide what's right for you...or someone else does."

Later, in his speech, Harry elaborated: "Many people think they should do what is best for their spouse, or their parents, or their children," continued the Libertarian Party candidate for President, "but this is just a trap that steals away your freedom. I call it the 'Unselfishness Trap.' You feel as though you ought to put someone's interests ahead of your own.

"But think about it a minute. Think of happiness as a big, red ball. If you were unselfish, you would want to give this ball to someone. But if he were unselfish, he would want to give it away too. Who would want to accept it? In order for this to work you'd have to give the ball to someone who was selfish enough to accept it."

It seemed to this listener that Harry had fallen into his own trap. Who could possibly define happiness or unselfishness in such simple-minded terms? Besides, couldn't the recipient of the red ball take it - just to make the giver happy? Wouldn't the selfish person, accepting the ball of happiness, be the least selfish of all?

The English language gives us words to describe things. Rarely is there a word without a thought or an idea behind it. "Unselfishness" tells us something about the way people sometimes act...distinguishing a certain kind of behavior from another kind. Not that the word can't be used for lying and false accusations! Still, it isn't going away, no matter what Harry thinks.

"I had an experience once that showed me how pointless 'unselfishness' really is," Harry continued. "When I was a young man, I moved into an apartment. The landlady, trying to be nice, brought me a piece of cake.

"But I didn't like the cake. Now, I had to get rid of it. And I didn't want to offend her by telling her that I didn't like it. But if I lied and told her that I enjoyed her cake...she might give me another one.

"As you can imagine, getting rid of the cake and giving back the cake dish took up time that could have been used for doing something I really wanted to do..."

Harry will have a hard time connecting with voters with this kind of thinking. Like so much libertarian thinking, it is logical, intelligent...and absurd. But libertarian thinking was very much the fashion at the FEE convention. Like the rest of middle America, the conventioneers applauded the American myths - freedom and democracy - and enjoyed feeling superior to the rest of the world.

"If it were not for America, there not would be freedom in the world," said one speaker whom I will not embarrass by disclosing his name. "Thank God, we've been able to keep America from becoming another European socialist society."

"Europe is in danger of becoming a theme park," said Charles Murray, picking up the idea. Meanwhile, outside the convention hall, great hulking hordes of tourists dressed in tee-shirts, shorts and running shoes trundled the pavement as they made their way from one fantasy to another. Deciding what was right for them, they had pondered where they would take their next vacation... would they visit the Eiffel Tower, or the Great Pyramid? So at ease are they with America's place in the world and their own financial prospects that they allowed themselves a vacation in Vegas...on credit.

And why not? Who knows, maybe they will win at the slot machines? And what does it matter? They know what they really want - the gaudier, tackier, more vulgar and more garish, the better. But hey, this is Vegas!

Libertarians are encouraged to think for themselves, and then follow their own rational self-interest. They may not be able to enjoy genuine freedom in America, 2002, but at least they can figure out what they really want out of life...and get it...when they free themselves from the restraints of conventional morality and the dictionary. But believing in nothing save their own ability to figure things out - like the rest of America, they will believe anything...even that they could vote their way towards a free society.

"But Bill," Harry challenged me. "Either you decide for yourself...or someone decides for you."

Our luncheon ended before I had a chance to reply. "It is not who that matters, Harry," I should have said, "it is what. Whether you put an innocent person in jail because you think it is a good idea...or because someone else tells you it is a good idea...it is still wrong."

But the end of the evening came quickly. There was no time for rejoinders.

"What have you gotten out of all this?" I should have asked the woman at my table - the woman with the criminal record.

"What do you mean, 'all this...?'"

"I mean libertarianism..."

"Five to ten..." she might have replied.

Your hyena editor...

Bill Bonner

P.S. "How can you live in France," asked a friend, getting in the mood of the FEE get-together. "It's a socialist country!"

"Well, it may be a socialist country...but I can drive down the road at 100 mph and nobody tries to stop me. My daughter and I can order a drink in a restaurant and nobody asks to see her I.D. I can smoke a cigarette without standing out in the cold...

"If I don't like it in Paris, I can go to Germany, Italy or Spain...nobody even asks to look at my passport...

"But that's not really why I live there. Life is either tragedy or comedy. In America, it pains me to see the things that go on. I take it personally. But in France, it is all comedy. 'What will they do next?' I ask myself, smiling."

As a libertarian, I do not agree with either statement. I especially think the second one is rather silly. Any coherent philosophy has to deal with people (if you want to use the term loosely) that have no morals and behave essentially like animals. The basis of libertarianism is freedom to do what you like, as long as you do not indulge in force or fraud. There is a clear core of a moral code that comes out of that, and it obviously prohibits actions like murder, which is the ultimate use of force. If someone is "uncivilized" and incapable of realizing that murder is wrong, that individual must nevertheless learn to live within such a moral code, or suffer the consequences.

However, we hope that in civilized society, such individuals are the exception. I would say that genuinely civilized persons have to find in themselves what they consider to be their moral code, and why they believe in it. This goes beyond the simple code that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc. For example, if your girlfriend asks you if a dress makes her look fat, do you tell the truth? Or more to the point, if your country decides to fight a war that you believe is justified, do you fight with it? If it decides to fight a way you do not believe is justfied, do you fight with it? Do you acquiese? Do you oppose it? These are complex moral questions, and they must be answered by each individual.

It is extremely difficult for society to enforce a moral code with too much detail in it. That's how we get things like a War on Drugs. That's why I believe conscription is unwise (and immoral).

This idea that we all have to think through our own moral code may be what Harry is trying to say in the first statement, but if so, it doesn't come out that way. And that idea does not invalidate the idea that an obvious core moral code against force and fraud should be universal.

For many, the basis for their moral code comes from religion, but it doesn't have to. There are other bases for moral codes.

To get a healthy dose of libertarianism with a much more moral basis, you can read Robert Heinlein, or Charles Murray, or a variety of other "pragmatic" libertarians. This dialog from Harry sounds more like the "idealistic" libertarian position, which I often don't agree with. For example, many of the idealistic libertarians are extreme isolationists, some to the point of being de facto pacifists. Idealistic libertarianism also tends to blur into anarchism.

I was a bit surprised to see these statements attributed to Harry, and I wonder if they are correctly quoted. I have heard him speak a number of times, and had one private conversation with him, and never heard him talk this way. I always heard a "pragmatic" streak in his arguments. Were there additional remarks that would have clarified these positions as sounding less off-the-wall? Perhaps he will respond to this article himself at some point.

Of course we are all responsible for our own moral choices. Good grief, what other alternative makes sense?

Remember the Nuremberg trials -- it doesn't matter what anyone else told you to do, expected you to do, what the law required you to do. You ALONE are responsible for your actions.

A Libertarian society (or any other for that matter) is not formed around the concept of trying to trick murderes into not murdering by presenting some moral guidelines that internally render them passive. Rather, society is organized around the principle of ENFORCING mutual defense against acts of initiation of aggression.

If I am a peaceful person, and someone decides to attack me, it matters NOT AT ALL what morality he is using to justify it -- Islamic, Fundamentalist Christian, Satanist, EarthFirster. My response and my neighbor's helpful responses are still justified -- put down the attack with a strong self-defense.

So Browne is saying, live life as you will, pick the morality that suits you. It doesn't matter. Because if you grab the sword, you will be put down with same. Take the hint.

"But for the poor women with children...it was almost unbearable. These women had never really done anything wrong. They never stole anything. They never hurt anybody. And here they were, locked up...and didn't get to see their children very often.

"And then, when the children did come to visit...the scenes in the visiting room were heartbreaking..."

I'm assuming we're refering to drug use/conviction.

Later:"Either you decide what's right for you...or someone else does."

That these people who used drugs wound up in prison is a clear example of this.

I tend to think of myself as a libertarian as well, but regarding drug use in a society that clearly has stiff penalties against it- the rational thing to do is not use drugs if you don't want to go to prison. I like the intellectual argument that I should be able to put whatever substance I want into my body, but I have to weigh up the consequences. Do I value a joint more than my personal liberty? Well, no. And if being able to get high did mean a great deal to me, the rational thing to do would be to move to the Netherlands. It does me little good to complain about how it ought to be. I still have to deal with how it is.

I understand the rules by which my society operates. Can I claim that some or many of those rules are unfair or unjust? Sure. But can I claim that the system for changing the rules in this country is unfair ie the democratic process, appeal through court system etc? No. It is a fair system, even if it is difficult to enact change. The system still works, in principle, by appealing to my fellow citizen's rational faculty through discourse, debate and the publishing of ideas. If enough of them agree with me, we can change a law or right something in the system that is unjust. I can't really claim that I don't have ample opportunity to do that. If my argument carries enough weight and I present it cleverly enough, I can still have a hand in my fate. And if all else fails- nobody is going to prevent me from moving to better climes. This isn't exactly unfair.

A libertarian society can still turn out to be a religious one- even a fundamentally religious one- so long as there's consent on everyone's part at its inception and there's no coercion to remain in the society afterwards.

For example, lets say we started a community or even a nation state based upon libertarian principles. Everyone is a landowner (and properly all the land within this community's recognized borders is privately owned) and everyone is a consenting adult (I know this is hypothetical)- but they all sit down one day and mutually agree that "we hereby ban stupid people, long haired people and atheists". That's perfectly ok because it's a form of contract.

The problem would come with children born within those borders who did not agree with that charter and immigrants who likewise had no say in its creation. But do people have a fundamental right to be able to buy land anywhere? Does a child who grows up in such a system have the right to demand that this charter that everyone agreed upon be abolished or revoted upon? I say he's got a right to demand it- but if he get's outvoted 99-1, from where thus does he derive his right to say that they should accomodate him?

The rational thing for him to do would be to either A)move somewhere else or B) endure his situation until he has gathered enough votes to overthrow the rules. It would not be rational for him to grow his hair long out of spite or exercise of his perceived rights, especially if the penalty for this action was some form of incarceration. I say he has a moral obligation to move his physical person somewhere more to his liking and until he does so he has a moral obligation to follow the societal standards his community has adopted.

Now obviously, my hypothetical is not a good model, but I only drew a brief sketch because of self imposed limitations. I could have gone on to add that the people when they drew up their charter also agreed upon some basic rights that would be respected, regardless of situation, and the creation of an official formula for change. This would be more or less what we had in 1789. Not every person ratified the Constitution- but every member State did. Had we waited for every single person to ratify it we'd still be waiting.

So to sum it up, I see our country as one that had a fair, equitable and just beginning. We can all sit around complain about this or that court decision from the 19th century or what this or that congress should've done- but the process itself was just and fair even if the outcome always wasn't and even if the culminative effect after over two centuries has been an erosion of personal liberty. I cannot claim that there exists no recompense for my grievances. I can still vote, speak freely, rally my fellow citizens to a cause or just plain leave. I have a fair system and equitable choices at my disposal. So I still bear the responsibility for my actions if they are against the accepted and established community standards of this nation.

I am rational and like Harry says- it's up to me. Incidently, I don't live in the US- but that is purely circumstance- not protest.

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.