Posted on 05/19/2002 2:48:24 PM PDT by aconservaguy
I hope this hasn't been posted already...
Libertarianism and Libertinism? Frank S. Meyer National Review, 1969 Principles and Heresies
The development of contemporary American conservatism has been marked, on the theoretical level, by a continuing tension between a traditionalist emphasis and a libertarian emphasis. Over the years I have argued that these positions are in fact not incompatible opposites, but complementary poles of a tension and balance which, both in theory and practice, define American conservatism as it has come into being at midcentury. If anything, I have stressed the libertarian emphasis because I have felt that unmodified traditionalism, stressing virtue and order in disregard of the ontological and social status of the freedom of the individual person, tended dangerously to towards an authoritarianism wrong in itself and alien to the spirit of American conservatism. Recently, however, there have been ominous signs that the danger of a disbalance just as alien to conservatism is arising not from traditionalist quarters, but from an untrammeled libertarianism, which tends as directly to anarchy and nihilism as unchecked traditionalism tends to authoritarianism. This libertarianism can be seen at its most extreme in such dropouts from the Right as Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess and their handful of followers. While their position has become indistinguishable from that of SDS, there are increasing signs of a more widespread, if more moderate, development in this direction, primarily among the young, but by no means restricted to them. The essential rationale of this position is so far removed from the rationale of libertarian conservatism, and so completely ignores the proper foundations of liberty in the actual circumstances of the human condition, that, like the position of the anarchist wing of the SDS, its proper denomination is not libertarianism but libertinism.
A true libertarianism is derived from metaphysical roots in the very constitution of being, and places its defense of freedom as a political end in the context of moral responsibility for the pursuit of virtue and the underlying social necessity for the preservation of order. The libertine impulse that masquerades as libertarian, on the other hand, disregards all moral responsibility, ranges itself against the minimum needs of social order, and raises the freedom of the individual person (regarded as the unbridled expression of every desire, intellectual or emotional) to the status of an absolute end.
Libertine ideologes
The underlying issue between conservative libertarianism and libertine libertarianism is at bottom a totally opposed view of the nature of destiny of men. The libertines—like those other products of the modern world, ritualistic liberals, socialists, Communists, fascists—are ideologues first and last. That is, they reject reality as it has been studied, grasped, understood, and acted upon in five thousand years or so of civilized history, and pose an abstract construction as the basis of action. They would replace God's creation of this multifarious, complex world in which we live, and substitute for it their own creation, simple, neat and inhuman—as inhuman as the blueprints of the bulldozing engineer.
The place of freedom in the spiritual economy of men is a high one indeed, but it is specific and not absolute. By its very nature, it cannot be an end of men's existence. Its meaning is essentially freedom from coercion, but that, important as it is, cannot be an end. It is empty of goal or norm. Its function is to relieve men of external coercion so that theY may freely seek their good.
It is for this reason that libertarian conservatives champion freedom as the end of the political order's politics, which is, at its core, the disposition of force in society, will, if not directed towards this end, create massive distortions and obstacles in men's search for their good. But that said, an equally important question remains. Free, how are men to use their freedom? The libertine answers that they should do what they want. Sometimes, in the line of the philosophers of the French Revolution, he arbitrarily posits the universal benevolence of human beings. He presumes that if everyone does whatever he wants, everything will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. But whether so optimistically qualified or not, his answer ignores the hard facts of history. For it is only in civilization that men have begun to rise towards their potentiality; and civilization is a fragile growth, constantly menaced by the dark forces that suck man back towards his brutal beginnings.
Reason and Tradition
The essence of civilization, however, is tradition: no single generation of men can of itself discover the proper ends of human existence. At its best, as understood by contemporary American conservatism, the traditionalist view accepts political freedom, accepts the role of reason and innovation and criticism; but it insists, if civilization is to be preserved, that reason operate within tradition and that political freedom is only effectively achieved when the bulwarks of civilizational order are preserved.
Libertine libertarianism would shatter those bulwarks. In its opposition to the maintenance of defenses against Communism, its puerile sympathy with the rampaging mobs of campus and ghetto, its contempt for the humdrum wisdom of the great producing majority, it is directed towards the destruction of the civilizational order which is the only real foundation of a real world for the freedom it espouses. The first victim of the mobs let loose by the weakening of civilizational restraint will be, as it has always been, freedom—for anyone, anywhere.
And there are loads of FR posters that fit in the same category. Their willful ignorance of libertarian principles (demonstrated by trotting out the same tired canards about libertarians) never ceases to amaze me.
So from what I read here at FR. Libertarians = Moral liberals. Libertarians = Whack jobs that make us feel we need tin-foil hats to stay with.
I do believe they have a few issues conservatives would agree with such as a smaller Gov., taking a look at some cases of property seized during drug seizures and so on. But they are so out there, that their more normal issues are overshadowed by their lust to legalize all drugs.
This is just my opinion and therefore just because that is what I have concluded doesn’t put the issue in stone for everybody on FR. But most conservatives would think Libertarians were just a stoner branch of politics.
I suppose a few of them would if they were intellectually lazy, since people like you keep posting it over and over again. The fact that it's not true doesn't seem to bother you folks at all. But when the facts don't support you, I suppose ad hominem arguments are all you have left.
The libertarian believes in the principle that no one should use force or fraud against another, that individuals may only use force against another individual in self-defense against the use of force, and that the government may only use force to punish those who have used force or fraud wrongly. For libertarians, this principle is the beginning and end of their political theory. Everything else is seen through this lens, and every question is decided by where it falls on this map.
Conservatives believe that the force or fraud principle is a good first step in evaluating a situation but that it is not the "be all and end all" of the discussion. Instead, conservatives see that government may take action to benefit the country as a whole in some circumstances even though that action involves use of public resources that some people did not give voluntarily for the purpose intended. My favorite example of this kind of action was Thomas Jefferson's decision to purchase Louisiana. (See From TJ to ADM for more of my thoughts on this issue.) Conservatives also believe that there are moral absolutes that are right to codify in law and that can be legislated without falling down some slippery slope into totalitarianism. In this sense, conservatives believe that "self-government" means that we as a nation of individuals can pass some reasonable limits without destroying our freedom while libertarians believe that "self-government" means that government cannot pass any limits on behavior beyond the force or fraud principle. The most recent example of this conflict may be the arguments over whether the Supreme Court was right to strike down a law against virtual child pornography. (See Don't Protect This Trash for a longer explanation.)
Both sides seem to see themselves as the true defenders of the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't call for open borders or free trade, and in these areas, modern libertarians are certainly in conflict with the Constitution. Some libertarians argue that because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and doesn't say that the government may outlaw drugs, then laws against drugs at any level are a violation of the Constitution. This argument is silly because the Constitution doesn't specifically say that we can outlaw murder, rape, robbery, or most other crimes. Different conservatives have different opinions on both open borders and free trade because conservatism doesn't see the world through one strict principle. Conservatives are willing to take more liberty with federal power in matters like The Louisiana Purchase, the draft, etc.. In some cases, conservatives do go beyond the bounds of what the framers intended.
The government has grown so large that libertarians and conservatives have many positions in common. This situation has caused many people to see them as different parts of the same ideology. In reality, they are not the same. It would be nice if libertarians and conservatives would confine their differences to civil disagreement on issues, but that is often not the case and particularly not the case online. Conservatives tend to apply the "dope-smoking pervert" label too quickly but often in response to libertarian overuse of the "nazi, forcing your religion" label. On the positive side, many libertarian office-holders end up finding a good balance between the dictates of their principles and the practical reality of serving in office. However, I cannot agree with their perspective enough to join the LP or call myself more than a borderline libertarian.
WFTR
Bill
I think you are a disciple of humpty dumpty: words mean what you want them to mean. Clearly anarchists are not libertarians by any stretch of the imagination. Proposing policies you don't like or trust moves any political party exactly zero distance along the anarchy scale.
You don't like drugs, and think them deliterious--I don't like church sermons, and think them deliterious. That's why our forefathers wisely gave us a constitutionally limited republic, and a set of severe guidelines guaranteeing wide human freedoms, and thereby restricting goverment as much as possible to providing retributive justice for tort harm--a goverment function libertarians are more likely to carry out that the rest of the political zoo, since that's their only legitimate agenda for government.
Once I read Libertarians posting here at FR I lost respect for them as a party. I used to think they were perhaps a super-conservative. After reading, I found them to be major liberals who believe in small government.
It was the other way around for me. I had little regard for the value of libertarianism prior to coming to FR, having dismissed it long ago.
Seeing their character and principled stands in the pursuit of Clinton corruption gave me new and strong respect.
The uniform athiesim that I saw in the 70s in their ranks was also happily dispelled here. While disagreeing with many points of theirs, I have still found much common ground and hope for a future uniquely founded on our shared history in this nation.
I maintain that the doorway to constitutional restoration is wide enough for conservatives and libertarians to walk through arm-in-arm if we maintain focus as to what awaits on the other side. Only when focusing on one or the other of the door Jambs, are we likely to get off centered purpose and run into that jamb rather than walk through together.
You could improve the quality of the discussion simply by education yourself insome basic facts instead of posting baseless opinions. There is no way that a party that demands limited government and a return to the Constitution as one that advocates no government at all.
Quite some time ago, I read a post by a Conservative that made so much sense that I thought it was from a libertarian (joking). He was highly in favor of minding one's own business, not caring to regulate his neighbor as long as his neighbor respected their fences, and really resented the reach of government at all levels into our pockets.
I came to FR 4 years ago (nearly 5) as a Conservative Republican. The more postings I read of self-proclaimed Conservatives that demanded more laws, more government, more control, the less I could identify with Conservatives on FR. Between that and the impeachment betrayal, I changed registration.
There are a few self-styled conservatives on FR that really distort the truth and the facts on issues like the WoD. Differences of opinion are one thing; name calling and innuendo are another. Yet I rarely, if ever, have seen any non-libertarian take these guys to task. My inference is that the rank and file agree with the words, and simply allow these vocal few to do the talking.
Sounds like your definition of "liberal" is at odds with mine and most every one else's. I believe most folks would agree that part of what it means to be a liberal is to support big government.
If you're trying to get to the drug legalization issue, just come out and say so. (I know it's one of your hot buttons.) But if that's your beef with libertarians, then explain why Gary Johnson (Republican governor of New Mexico), William F. Buckley, George Shultz (Secretary of State and chairman of President Ronald Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board), plus many others that would call themselves conservative nevertheless substantially agree with libertarians on the drug issue. And explain why many bleeding heart liberals (Ted Kennedy for example) fully support the War on Drugs because they believe it is the government's business to tell people how to take care of themselves.
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.