Libertarian ping
Put me in the Heinlein column.
Heinlein was also a scholar of sorts; he had learned engineering at the US Naval Academy, Class of 1929, and kept up with technology issues all his life. He was also on the right—RAH was a socialist, a nudist and promoter of a nihilistic view of life.
Bizarre article. Libertarianism as neo-liberalism? Well hell, besides that 180 degree absolute opposite difference in claims of totalitarian enforcement authority, heck yeah, they're virtually identical!
Oh, that's covered by the quote above, that claims "only those on the fringe left dream, these days, of socialism or central planning"? Really? How about I blow that completely out of the water, to the moon, where we can watch it be vaporized into stardust and sprinkle down skittles and rainbows with one single word:
Obamacare.
Thomas Payne: "Government is at best a necessary evil, at worst, an intolerable one." We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's necessary, but we have lost sight of the fact that it's evil. There is no qualification in Payne's characterization that would allow any state to exercise a "right" which no state has: to buy, sell, and enslave other human beings.
Put me down as a Friedmanist.
This guy doesn’t know doodly squat about Heinlein.
Did you know Laura Ingalls daughter Rose was one of the founders of Libertarianism? If you read the Little House books personal freedom and individualism runs through them in a very obvious way.
I noted it as a child especially in “The Long Winter” - there is a whole talk there by Pa about the American way of freedom - one of the best explanations I read as a child.
Pa was shaking his head. “We’re going to have a
hard winter,” he said, not liking the prospect.
“Why, how do you know?” Laura asked in surprise.
“The colder the winter will be, the thicker the
muskrats build the walls of their houses,” Pa told her...
“Pa, how can the muskrats know?” Laura asked.
“I don’t know how they know,” Pa said. “But they
do. God tells them, somehow, I suppose.”
“Then why doesn’t God tell us?” Laura wanted to
know.
“Because,” said Pa, “we’re not animals. We’re humans,
and, like it says in the Declaration of Independence,
God created us free. That means we got to
take care of ourselves.”
Laura said faintly, “I thought God takes care of us.”
“He does,” Pa said, “so far as we do what’s right.
And He gives us a conscience and brains to know
what’s right. But He leaves it to us to do as we please.
That’s the difference between us and everything else
in creation.”
“Can’t muskrats do what they please?” Laura
asked, amazed.
“No,” said Pa. “I don’t know why they can’t but
you can see they can’t. Look at that muskrat house.
Muskrats have to build that kind of house. They always
have and they always will. It’s plain they can’t
build any other kind. But folks build all kinds of
houses. A man can build any kind of house he can
think of. So if his house don’t keep out the weather,
that’s his look-out; he’s free and independent.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane
First, I agree that there isn’t ONE brand of libertarianism.
I myself point to the Founding Mothers of modern libertarianism: Ayn Rand (although she disdained the word), Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson.
Clearly, Ayn Rand emphasized reason, that what made man distinctly man was his ability to think. There is a correlation, here, with Heinlein-libertarianism in the article. To Rand, we should discipline our emotions so that we fall in love with what is good because we know it is right. Emotion, while potentially good, is volatile, and can result in bad as well as good.
Rose Wilder Lane, who inherited and continued the Little House on the Prairie series, balanced reason and emotion. Possibly, because of the love expressed in her books for rural and frontier life, she would be like a Calhoun-libertarian in the article. Furthermore, she embraced tradition and social institutions such as family, church and country; although not without question. For Lane, Liberty is something that we come to understand through a process of individual and social discovery, rather than figure out in the abstract relying only on reason.
Then we come to Isabel Paterson (who admittedly has not developed the following of either of the first two ladies). Hers was a more pragmatic approach, with a focus on the failures of the New Deal (and other fascist and totalitarian forms of economic policy in the world). So, I would say she represents the Milton Friedman type of libertarian.
Now, I would like to ask the question was John C. Calhoun a libertarian? (I have no problem with saying that Heinlein was.) Calhoun is best known as a proponent of the doctrine of nullification, and considered to be a forerunner of secession. Libertarians do believe in federalism, so that local government should perform the police function of the state, with the national government having only limited and enumerated powers. But, it is a big jump to go from this one position to saying Calhoun was a libertarian.
Calhoun (among others from South Carolina) advocated slavery as a positive good (not a necessary evil). Libertarians like Jefferson and Madison saw slavery as a necessary evil.
He (among others from South Carolina) opposed democracy and favored aristocracy. South Carolina restricted the franchise to those who owned 1,000 acres, when elsewhere the property qualification was 100 acres. Accordingly, only large plantation owners had the right to vote in that state. Libertarians like Jefferson and Madison, either argued for a modest property qualification for voting, or for no property qualification.
He was a war hawk and advocated the use of force to invade and “liberate” Canada. Jefferson and Madison initially attempted to steer a course of neutrality; but, eventually, the war hawks (most notably Calhoun and Henry Clay) prevailed. In the end, our position was that the war was a mistake.
Calhoun’s position on the tariff shifted. Initially, he was a protective tariff man, and later shifted to the libertarian position (i.e., became a free trade man).
Thus, from a libertarian perspective, John C. Calhoun is a mixed bag. Maybe 40 percent a libertarian, and 60 percent a statist.
The author doesn't quite have it right on "Heinleinians". Abortion is wrong by a very libertarian argument - no one has the right to forcibly take an innocent life. That's always wrong.
I'd call myself a Heinleinian. I remember him most for some memorable quotes.
"An armed society is a polite society."
"TANSTAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
I didn't care for his story in Time Enough For Love, where the protaganist goes back in time to have sex with his mother (YUCK), but he wrote some great stories. Stranger In A Strange Land, for example.
Calhoun was not a libertarian in the current sense; but he was a very observant and influential political theoretician. His best work was “A Disquisition on Government.” It argues that the best governments require the largest consent within the branches and levels of government, and gives historical examples illustrating his concept of “concurrent majorities.” This means the requirement of wide agreement before the government can act. Nullification was seen as just one sort of limit on rule by overweening majorities. One of Calhoun’s examples was Poland, in which for a time laws had to be approved unanimously by the legislature, which (he asserted) led to Poland’s most prosperous times, and built a habit of compromise and toleration of minority views.
I regard Calhoun’s concurrent majority principle as extremely valuable. As he pointed out, it is (or was) embodied in the U. S. Constitution by the requirement that laws must be approved by more than one branch of the government; and by the division of powers which formerly separated federal and states’ rights. The states Calhoun saw as having a right to dissent from laws which they judged were unconstitutional. The only other alternatives would be tyranny or war, both of which we have experienced.
Nullification infuriates ideologues, for it seems so messy. But the alternatives are despotism, or bloodshed. Which is preferable?
If a state were to dissent from the outrageous and clearly indefensible Roe v. Wade decision, who would actually be harmed?
Concurrent majorities is an excellent and practical freedom principle.
Of course, we are way beyond the point in our history where rights are actually observed by reference to the Constitution. State rights have been abolished by judicial interpretation, and new (previously unimaginable and bizarre) “rights” are almost daily propounded by ideologically motived judges. This is part of the progressive collapse of our civilization, and shows no sign of abatement.
The ultimate act of nullification would be secession, but that did not work out for the South. Now almost everyone accepts the idea that no people should ever be able to leave a country, except in most other parts of the world.
Stopping the behemoth of dictatorial government is perhaps no longer possible for our society. People accept tyranny because the think that peace requires it. But note that there is no such thing as a peaceful dictatorship. Dictatorships may be quiet, but not peaceful.
Bump the thread. Rustbucket what are your thoughts and analysis on John, C. Calhoun have you done much reading on him and if so care to offer your views?