Robert H. Bork critiques Libertarianism

Robert H. Bork

[Eagle Eye]

It's up to the people to select a just leader.

That, IMO, is one of the greatest cancers to our country. Congressional representatives are not our leaders, they are our representatives as are senators.

The President is to preside over the government, not lead us. To amny people are looking for leadership in the wrong places and there are too many people willing to accomodate them.

We do NOT elect leaders! We should be electing people to conduct business of the government, but not leaders.

[annalex]

In Defense of Liberty: Libertarianism and the Public Square I argue for ban on pornography or other messages offensive to the community standard on the public square, -- but not for censorship of books or film. My argument is based on individual rights and is therefore a libertarian argument, although it disagrees with today's prevalent libertarian thinking.

Bork fails to make an important distinction between solicited messages (solicited by buying a book or entering a movie theater), and unsolicited ones, that project from store windows, billboards or public acts. The externality argument of his is spurious. If I literally pollute the environment with a toxin, I am causing proximate harm, which under unjust pollution laws I may have a chance to externalize. If I sell pornography to a free moral agent who then commits a sex crime then the moral agent is causing the proximate harm and I didn't externalize anything. (That is leaving aside the argument that pornography serves as a useful and non-violence release for potential criminals). Only if the pornographic message is unsolicited does the moral equation change.

[freeeee]

Libertarianism is needed as the basis for controlling/limiting the Federal government?.Pure Libertarianism shouldn't be applied on lower levels of government though. Communities (city, county, and state) should have much more latitude. If one community gets tyrannical, there are 49 other states, and thousands of other cities.

I could live with that. We'd set up shop away from you, and you'd be rid of us. If we screwed up, it would be of our own doing, and you could use us as a bad example. If we succeeded, more would imitate us. This has been called "Laboratories of Democracy".

The Constitution was designed with that intent. Too bad that's no longer the framework of our government. Federalism of the founders design was lost with the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[Eagle Eye]

Used for any other purpose, it still kills and destroys

Steals, too, don't forget that!

Hmmmm...this reminds me of a Bible verse that say that the thief only comes to steal, kill and destroy...

[tacticalogic]

At the state and local levels there seems to be a clash between libertarian purists and local rule. Libertarians often appear to forget that libertarian ideals are obviously not shared by a large segment of the community. Libertarianism also assumes personal responsibility and individual strength as well as enough moral fiber to not harm or fraud another.

I'm sure there is, but purists of any stripe are going to clash with everone else not of that stripe. But I think nearly every libertarian you will encounter here will support the concept laid out by the founders of "laboratories of democracy" and what support of that concept implies.

[parsifal]

"If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and "rights" cannot win every time"

Oooh, I like this. Fits in with my minwage arguments. I gots to go Bork texaggie and general_re and badrotorooter and ....parsy.

[dead]

Minus reality libertarians/ism is fun--harmless!
Reality is relentless/final---
better to keep into the equation and not play word-mind games---artificial intelligence/fantasy!

Minus coherence crypticness/isms are gobble-dee-gook—poppycock!
Comprehensibility is logical/understandable---
better to keep into the context and not play mystical-rhetorical shuffleboard---mindless cryptojargon/gibberish!

[spunkets]

Bork does not use reason. He makes unsubstantiated claims and colorful appeals to emotion, just as the liberals do. Valid rights are right to life and the right to sovereignty of will. The right to life covers abortion. The right to sovereignty of will precludes anyone from interfering with an individuals decisions, as long as they don't coerce others, or otherwise interfere with property rights.

Bork holds and advocates the community can justify interference with the decisions of others on the following grounds, 1)the community has accepted his view of acceptable behavior, or 2)The community meets rule #1 and votes to acknowledge it, or votes to reject it and they are over ruled by one so wise as Lord Bork. Notice #2 is legislating from the bench if it is deemed necessary to institute a particular decree.

Bork is an authoritarian tyrant and that is the single reason so much effort went into keeping him from sitting at the USSC. If Bork's long winded claims, that allowing folks to make there own decisions had any basis in reality; Bork himself would be porn star from exposure during the vast amount of time he spent considering the subject matter of what he despises.

[OWK]

They do not recognize "the idea of restraints on individuals by communities " as legitimate.

Not so.

Had you said "They do not recognize the idea of restraints on THE RIGHTS of individuals by communities " as legitimate.".. You would have been correct.

[parsifal]

"I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!" "

And the same type of aglommerable, misgloperated, gloptitorial hepondistic, oh heck, whatever Bork called them type people say stuff like "But if you raise their wages to $8/hour, why not raise it to $100....parsy.

[annalex]

Pure Libertarianism shouldn't be applied on lower levels of government

I agree with your sentiment, but the environment of small and diverse voluntary communities with restrictive local laws is not a contradiction with libertarianism, because they approximate a society of universal consent. Most libertarians would agree that a religious community such as a monastery is just as libertarian as a hippie commune, because both are entered freely and departed freely.

[freeeee]

"Hello. I'm a multi-lingual interpreter, sent by the Royal Princess to interpret for f.Christian"

[Eagle Eye]

But I think nearly every libertarian you will encounter here will support the concept laid out by the founders of "laboratories of democracy" and what support of that concept implies.

I think that this runs both ways. On the one hand I support local governance. On the other, I even more strongly support individual freedom. If my community were to decide that home brewed beer was illegal, I'd either have to move or quit, or face the consequences. But at no time would I claim that an individual doesn't have the right to make and consume their own beverages even if the majority doesn't agree. There's the rub.

[Mensch]

Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:

Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.

[EBUCK]

Exactly! I couldn't have said it better.
Free will must reign supreme in a free society!

EBUCK

[ArrogantBustard]

You've a point there. (I just mistyped that as "pint". I think I'll go have one... It's been that kind of week) Bringing out the Brown Shirts in the fifth post just seemed a bit over the top, to me. He explained himself reasonably well, though.

AB

[spunkets]

"Oooh, I like this. Fits in with my minwage arguments."

Yes, it does. Out collecting authoritarian rubbish today?

[f.Christian]

There probably is a tradeoff...

the longer the freefall--denial of reality---more fun--spin-flip time...

oh-oh--

the bigger the splatt---crash!

[Snuffington]

Sarah Brady says the same thing about guns.

So does John Lott.

[tacticalogic]

I think that this runs both ways. On the one hand I support local governance. On the other, I even more strongly support individual freedom. If my community were to decide that home brewed beer was illegal, I'd either have to move or quit, or face the consequences. But at no time would I claim that an individual doesn't have the right to make and consume their own beverages even if the majority doesn't agree. There's the rub.

True enough, but at the local level, you at least have the option of referendum and direct vote on the issues.