Marxism of the Right (A paleoconservative pot pontificates on libertarian kettles)

The American Conservative ^ | March 14, 2005 | Robert Locke

[quidnunc]

Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.

There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties — I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism — enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

-snip-

[jackbob]

Thanks for proving my point.

Nice play on Triumph of the Will. It appears to be your favorite movie.

[P_A_I]

This is one of the best sites on principles I've run across:
Declaration of Constitutional Principles
Address:http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm
It is very slow reading at first, but when the author gets down to specifics, - good stuff:

"Principles Specific to the Constitution for the United States":

91

_____________________________________


"-- The power to 'regulate' commerce includes the powers to license those enterprises which engage in such exchanges, and to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling, transport, and routing of goods and services, but not prohibition of the content or terms of such exchanges.
It includes the power to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, but not criminal penalties, such as the deprivation of life or liberty. -- "




This sounds constitutional but, by itself, definitely not libertarian.

Libertarians oppose most, if not all, government licensing. It varies with the libertarian - among those who see a need for a minimal government.

And of course to the anarchist libertarians, all government constitutions fail the acid test of libertariansim, since they violate the non-initiation of force rule.
100

---

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

-- But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

-- It is not necessary to -approve- of such laws, but there can be no question that "We the People" have the valid Constitutional power to legislate on such matters.

If you live in America & refuse to support the principles of our Constitution, then you cannot truly call yourself an rational libertarian, imho.

Get it?

[P_A_I]

See #102.. Try to critique my actual words & concepts, as written, -- if you can.

If you can't, please find someone else to pester.

[jackbob]

Libertarians oppose most, if not all, government licensing. It varies with the libertarian - among those who see a need for a minimal government.

I do not agree. At least as far as the "licensing" put forth in the selected quote you were replying to. I've not seen any variance among minimal government libertarians on denouncing all such licensing. All of them as far as I've seen are opposed to any form of commercial licensing. A seeming exceptions may be found with regard to handling quantities of items capable of mass human destruction, but that would fall under a unique category.

Over all, all libertarians treat occupational and commercial licensing laws the same as they do zoning laws. That is, that both need to be eliminated.

As far as anarchist libertarians go, though highly influential with in the LP and the movement, they alway cop out on the really hard questions.

[jackbob]

Now that's funny. An invitation to critique and if I can't, "find some one else to pester." Well if I couldn't, I'd be off pestering someone else. Sorry, I can, but I won't. And I'm still here, not to critique, but to disagree. .

"We the People" have the valid Constitutional power to legislate on such matters.

If such matters are to regulate commerce, license enterprises engaged in trade between states, or to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling of such trade; and to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, then my answer is dependent on what is meant by "valid."

If "valid" implies a Constitutional power to do such by "We the People," then I agree. If "valid" implies a moral right, I disagree. The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a moral right.

If you advocate that government does have such a moral right, then I'm right, you are not a libertarian.

[secretagent]

"The power to 'regulate' commerce includes the powers to license those enterprises which engage in such exchanges, and to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling, transport, and routing of goods and services, but not prohibition of the content or terms of such exchanges. It includes the power to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, but not criminal penalties, such as the deprivation of life or liberty. -- "

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

Government licensing, in general, violates the libertarian rule of non-initiation of force. The government itself threatens to first use force against someone for carrying out perfectly peaceful activities.

Here the Constitution and libertarianism conflict, with libertarianism standing independent of and going beyond the Constitution in articulating the proper rights of sovereign individuals.

But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

Libertarians don't accept "the principles of our Constitution" as superior to libertarian principles, but as at best subordinate principles or parallel principles. Or in this case, apparently, as incompatible principles.

[jackbob]

The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a moral right.

Correction to my last reply to you. The above sentence should read:

The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government has such a moral right.

or

The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a right.

[P_A_I]

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

-- But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

-- It is not necessary to approve of such laws, but there can be no question that "We the People" have the valid Constitutional power to legislate on such matters.

If you live in America & refuse to support the principles of our Constitution, then you cannot truly call yourself an rational libertarian, imho.
Get it?
102

If such matters are to regulate commerce, license enterprises engaged in trade between states, or to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling of such trade; and to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, then my answer is dependent on what is meant by "valid."

Most of us accept the standard English definition.

If "valid" implies a Constitutional power to do such by "We the People," then I agree.
If "valid" implies a moral right, I disagree.

Nothing in our Constitution gives government 'moral rights' powers.

The libertarian position has been for at least the past 50 years, that no government should have such a moral right.

So who's arguing? Rational libertarians should agree, just as I noted at #102.

If you advocate that government does have such a moral right, then I'm right, you are not a libertarian.

As usual, you're wrong, and your silly straw man attempt to bash me has fallen apart. --
-- Whatta pitiful display of pique.

[Edmund Burke]

The founding fathers were radicals; they weren't conservatives. Conservatives stayed loyal to the king.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Libertarianism is also a quasi religious cult i.e. Holy Books with Rand's revelations, miracles, an Apocalypse complete with a saved elect, the fallen woman that loved much. It even has present day disciples! Really rather interesting as one could expand the theme almost endlessly.

[secretagent]

Libertarianism is also a quasi religious cult i.e. Holy Books with Rand's revelations, miracles, an Apocalypse complete with a saved elect, the fallen woman that loved much.

Perhaps you confuse Objectivists with libertarians.

Rand and other Objectivists have rejected libertarianism.

[P_A_I]

"The power to 'regulate' commerce includes the powers to license those enterprises which engage in such exchanges, and to prescribe the form, size, quality, measure, labeling, scheduling, transport, and routing of goods and services, but not prohibition of the content or terms of such exchanges. It includes the power to impose civil penalties for violation of such regulations, such as fines or loss of licenses, but not criminal penalties, such as the deprivation of life or liberty. -- "

_____________________________________

Licensing is indeed a bad idea, in general, as it can, [and has] lead to restraints on a mans ability to trade, and actual "deprivation of life or liberty", as the excerpt says.

Government licensing, in general, violates the libertarian rule of non-initiation of force. The government itself threatens to first use force against someone for carrying out perfectly peaceful activities.
Here the Constitution and libertarianism conflict, with libertarianism standing independent of and going beyond the Constitution in articulating the proper rights of sovereign individuals.

We are free to try to change the Constitution on the 'Commerce' power. -- But I see our best chance at real change is to challenge it as Montana intends.
States have the power to force the issue over excessive fed powers. But good luck on getting a State to relinquish its power to license.

_____________________________________

But -- My point all along has been to emphasize that rational American libertarians agree with the principles of our Constitution, and that ALL laws made in strict accordance with those principles are valid.

Libertarians don't accept "the principles of our Constitution" as superior to libertarian principles, but as at best subordinate principles or parallel principles.

If you live in America & refuse to support the principles of our Constitution, then you cannot truly call yourself an rational libertarian, imho.

We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.
We are free to live elsewhere if we do not.

[P_A_I]

AEMILIUS PAULUS:
Libertarianism is also a quasi religious cult i.e. Holy Books with Rand's revelations, miracles, an Apocalypse complete with a saved elect, the fallen woman that loved much.

___________________________________


Perhaps you confuse Objectivists with libertarians.
Rand and other Objectivists have rejected libertarianism.
111 posted on 03/12/2005 6:58:31 PM PST by secretagent

---

There is no confusion, it's just run of the mill bashing.

[jackbob]

Using the word "rational" in a manner that implies an opposite view is irrational in an exchange of differences not specifically having to do with rationality, is an indirect form of an ad hominem argument or what is often called The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy , and is thereby irrational in its use and by its user. Now if rationality is the subject of the discussion, then an argument must be presented to demonstrate its appropriate application.

Every time you have used the word you demonstrated your own lack of rational thinking, and reduce the intellectual level of discussion to childish name calling.

Come on, anyone who provides a link to that excellent web page on the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" has got to be able to rise above such squalor.

As for the rest of your reply, to much redundancy, of that which there is no disagreement, incorrectly implying disagreement and where there is a disagreement to much argumentum ad nauseam. Then suddenly you have a conclusion pop out of know where, not supported by any argument (ie explanation) by you in the text. What's left is na, I'm right and you are wrong. UH UH, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG. Nope, I know better therefor I'm right. YEA, SURE, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS ME. Oh yea, well my idea is ... ... ...

[P_A_I]

Declaration of Constitutional Principles
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1361981/posts

[jackbob]

I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written. Needless to say, I had a few disagreements with it. But out of fairness to it, I don't recall ever reading anything longer than 4 or 5 paragraphs that I didn't find disagreement. At any rate, its clear unambiguous presentation of constitutional principles and law, in such a short presentation will have a most positive impact. I want to see this document get wide dissemination and reading. Its well worth the read.

[jackbob]

I finished reading the the "Declaration of Constitutional Principles" yesterday, and found it to be extraordinarily concise, profoundly accurate, and very well written. Needless to say, I had a few disagreements with it. But out of fairness to it, I don't recall ever reading anything longer than 4 or 5 paragraphs that I didn't find disagreement. At any rate, its clear unambiguous presentation of constitutional principles and law, in such a short presentation will have a most positive impact. I want to see this document get wide dissemination and reading. Its well worth the read.

[P_A_I]

Feel free to join in:


Declaration of Constitutional Principles
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1361981/posts

[secretagent]

We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.

Most Americans don't swear to support the Constitution, so I don't understand you here. Obligated how?

We are free to live elsewhere if we do not.

We have the freedom to live here and not support the "principles of the Constitution", or to have even heard of them.

[P_A_I]

We are all obligated to support our Constitution as the "Law of the Land" as per Article VI.
P_A_I


______________________________________



Most Americans don't swear to support the Constitution, so I don't understand you here. Obligated how?

We have the freedom to live here and not support the "principles of the Constitution", or to have even heard of them.
119 secret agent


______________________________________


Heres how Jon Roland explains it:


"--- Upon establishment of the [Constitutional] social contract, the natural right of what in the state of nature would be self defense is transformed into the duty to defend the state and the constitution, including oneself as a member of the state.

Defense of the state and the constitution includes defense against threats of all kinds, including invasion or attack, insurrection, criminal acts, natural or manmade disasters, or public ignorance or apathy.

The duty to defend the state and the constitution entails the right to acquire the means and the skills to exercise that duty, including the skills of the soldier, the policeman, and the fire and rescue worker, to be organized to act alone or in concert with others to exercise those skills to meet any threat that may arise, and the power to exercise those skills and use those means, alone or in concert with others, with or without official direction or participation.

In a republic, all citizens are soldiers, policemen, and fire and rescue workers, with the default rank of private.
Delegation of official powers to agents of government is the conferring of higher rank to those persons, and persons of lesser rank are subject to the lawful orders of persons of higher rank when persons of higher rank are present and exercising their authority legally and effectively.
If not, their rank ceases and highest rank devolves on the person present who most effectively represents that authority, whatever his previous status. A citizen with the default rank of private also outranks any person who is acting in violation of law, for the rank of lawbreakers is lower than that of private, whatever their previous status.

A citizen not only has the duty to obey the law, but to help enforce it, within his ability, and to do what he can to prepare himself and others to do so.

In a constitutional republic, the constitution is the supreme law, superior to all other public acts, whether by officials or private citizens. Any statute, regulation, executive order, or court ruling which is inconsistent with that supreme law and not derived from it is unconstitutional and null and void from inception. --- "


Declaration of Constitutional Principles
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1361981/posts