Posted on 03/07/2005 1:08:36 PM PST by 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-
secretagent wrote:
Libertarians have the vision of every sovereign individual living their own life as they please, as long as they let others live their lives as they please.
This libertarian vision or principle has an enabling rule: don't assault people physically or steal their property.
This stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution.
"-- are not particularly constitutionalists, --" ?
You don't write like any libertarian I know.
Since the libertarian philosophy does not address particular political doctrines, limiting itself instead to matters relating to individual free will, any claim that an individual is honor bound to any historic doctrine or to any principles derived there from, is an assertion of an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will. No rational libertarian can ever accept such a notion.
Being a Libertarian who still feels bound, with out any show or claim to honor, by my three prior oaths to the Constitution of the United States of America, does not cause me to expect from others, who may or may not also have taken the same oath, the same commitment that I have.
I wonder, from what strange philosopher, you derive your authoritarian views, on which you claim to be a libertarian.
This article presents one of the most eloquent and erudite straw man arguments I have seen in quite a while.
Perhaps someday it might even apply to someone who actually exists.
In the meantime, it's more fuel for the fires of extremism that helped convert me, in the case of Free Republic, from a lurker into a contributing member, then back into a non-contributing occasional lurker that rarely bothers to lurk anymore.
For those who consider such a thing a victory, I point to what the Democrats are doing to themselves, and Republicans are now sadly beginning to do in turn.
If you choose to eat your own, you will eventually run out of things to eat.
Even a “Liberdopian” makes a better ally than an enemy, although that notion seems lost on some who should know better, but cannot be bothered to see past their own obnoxious and simple-minded insularity.
Here I see the spectacle of those who prize liberty being ridiculed for doing so by those who should respect themselves enough to realize their own hypocrisy.
I would love to know what our esteemed founding fathers would have to say about such a shameful display.
Actually, they wrote at great length about it, but so many of their ersatz worshipers don't seem to consider the actual opinions of the founding fathers to be relevant anymore.
They just mouth the words while following the herds.
Radicalism, fundamentalism and intolerance of dissent all lead to the same place, regardless of where you start out from, whether Marxist, Libertarian or Conservative.
Insulting and alienating those who differ on some points but agree on others is a recipe for isolation and ultimate oblivion, and I will have no part of it.
Mark my words well, because you are unlikely to read many more of them here.
Mark my words well, because you are unlikely to read many more of them here.
The first half of your reply you criticized the article. The second half you spent insulting anyone who disagrees with you. Then you post the above two paragraphs, I guess to insulate your self.
I think some self examination is in order here.
In fact the framers had much that same vision of every individual living their own life as they please, as long as they let others live their lives as they please.
-- The concept of rights to life, liberty & property for all is very libertarian.
____________________________________
jackbob, you wrote:
"We libertarians"?
"-- are not particularly constitutionalists, --" ?
You don't write like any libertarian I know.
82 P_A_I
Since the libertarian philosophy does not address particular political doctrines, limiting itself instead to matters relating to individual free will,
That's a specious claim, one you just made up. All the American libertarian philosophy I've ever read definitely embraces the principles of the US Constitutional system. Feel free to link me to any that does not.
any claim that an individual is honor bound to any historic doctrine or to any principles derived there from, is an assertion of an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will.
As I said, your imagination has made that a 'libertarian' position. -- And, your 'authoritarian/free will' bit is sheer gibberish. -- Sure, - everyone has free will, - but all residents of the USA are bound to obey the Law of the Land, our US Constitution. -- See Article VI.
-- No rational libertarian can ever deny that fact.
Being a Libertarian who still feels bound, with out any show or claim to honor, by my three prior oaths to the Constitution of the United States of America, does not cause me to expect from others, who may or may not also have taken the same oath, the same commitment that I have.
You do not expect your peers living in this country to support the US Constitution? Why do you claim that as libertarian position? Isn't everyone subject to the rule of law?
BTW, -- the oath I took included defending the Constitution, and I honor that. You don't? - Bold statement.
I wonder, from what strange philosopher, you derive your authoritarian views, on which you claim to be a libertarian.
I'm defending the point that our rule of Constitutional law in America is not 'authoritarian'.
-- I think you're the first person I've ever seen on FR that has made the claim that such a defense IS authoritarian. -- And you call me strange? How odd.
Replying back in #40, "secretagent" did not agree stating that "The real conservatives can teach us about the Constitution and how government could have stayed small." He then went on to say that "Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution." This last sentence "liberbaden" repeated word for word in #41 and asked "how so?
In reply #44, "secretagent" answered by putting the Libertarian Party main principle, proviso, and enabling rule into his own words, then explained that it "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution." At this point you came into it in reply #81 with:
Independant & beyond? - Not at all. Rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are..
The context of your statement "not at all," was a denial that Libertarianism, as presented by the Libertarian Party, "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution." Your commentary to support this denial, that "rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are.." was a clear attempt by you to limit Libertarian philosophy, as presented by the Libertarian Party, to only the "Constitutions principles." Libertarianism is much larger than that.
It was to this limitation on Libertarianism, that I then I responded that your position is an "an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will." In other words, Libertarians are not "honor bound" to limit their philosophy to only those principles that are already in our Constitution, as you proposed when you asked: "Independant & beyond? And then answered: Not at all.
Now I started off this reply stating its possible that you missed the context in which statements were made. But on re-reading your reply, I don't think so. It really looks like you purposefully twisted the context, so as to promote your authoritarian agenda, and once called on it, you attempt to squirm your way out. Your now twisting the "honor bound" limitations you put on political philosophy, into "all residents of the USA are bound to obey the Law of the Land," is a prime example of squirming, as nothing was said that implied they were not. Your claim that "defending the point that our rule of Constitutional law in America is not 'authoritarian'" is another example. Such was not said to be authoritarian. So on and so forth through out your entire reply, you twist and squirm around with quotes, much the same as you did with the context of the dialog.
As far as my not feeling honor about my oaths to the Constitution, which I voluntarily remain loyal to, I only have honor for that which goes beyond what I have done. Now don't twist humility into dishonor. There is a difference.
You had one item right in your entire reply. Yes, I do not expect peers living in this country to support the U.S. Constitution. I distinguish a difference between what I want and what I expect. I am not an authoritarian.
Of course I shouldn't be surprised by your attachment to authoritarianism. Looking at your reply #80, and your apparent support for an anti-Libertarian Party, authoritarian organization, says it all.
-- The concept of rights to life, liberty & property for all is very libertarian.
____________________________________
jackbob, you wrote:
"We libertarians"?
"-- are not particularly constitutionalists, --" ?
You don't write like any libertarian I know.
82 P_A_I
Since the libertarian philosophy does not address particular political doctrines, limiting itself instead to matters relating to individual free will,
That's a specious claim, one you just made up. All the American libertarian philosophy I've ever read definitely embraces the principles of the US Constitutional system. Feel free to link me to any that does not.
any claim that an individual is honor bound to any historic doctrine or to any principles derived there from, is an assertion of an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will.
As I said, your imagination has made that a 'libertarian' position. -- And, your 'authoritarian/free will' bit is sheer gibberish. -- Sure, - everyone has free will, - but all residents of the USA are bound to obey the Law of the Land, our US Constitution. -- See Article VI.
-- No rational libertarian can ever deny that fact.
Being a Libertarian who still feels bound, with out any show or claim to honor, by my three prior oaths to the Constitution of the United States of America, does not cause me to expect from others, who may or may not also have taken the same oath, the same commitment that I have.
You do not expect your peers living in this country to support the US Constitution? Why do you claim that as libertarian position? Isn't everyone subject to the rule of law?
BTW, -- the oath I took included defending the Constitution, and I honor that. You don't? - Bold statement.
I wonder, from what strange philosopher, you derive your authoritarian views, on which you claim to be a libertarian. I'm defending the point that our rule of Constitutional law in America is not 'authoritarian'.
-- I think you're the first person I've ever seen on FR that has made the claim that such a defense IS authoritarian. -- And you call me strange? How odd.
Its quite possible that you didn't bother to read the dialog on the thread first so as to be able to recognize context.
Not true. My post above establishes context.
The topic discussed was the Libertarian Party and what its members can and should be doing. Starting with reply #26 and moving through replies 28, 35, and on to #39, a clear continuity was maintained. Then in reply #39 "libertarianben" wrote "I'd like to see Libertarians teach "Conservative" Republicans the constitution and what small government is." Replying back in #40, "secretagent" did not agree stating that "The real conservatives can teach us about the Constitution and how government could have stayed small." He then went on to say that "Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution." This last sentence "liberbaden" repeated word for word in #41 and asked "how so? In reply #44, "secretagent" answered by putting the Libertarian Party main principle, proviso, and enabling rule into his own words, then explained that it "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution." At this point you came into it in reply #81 with:
Independent & beyond? - Not at all. Rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are..
The context of your statement "not at all," was a denial that Libertarianism, as presented by the Libertarian Party, "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution."
Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.
Your commentary to support this denial, that "rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are.." was a clear attempt by you to limit Libertarian philosophy, as presented by the Libertarian Party, to only the "Constitutions principles."
That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.
Libertarianism is much larger than that. It was to this limitation on Libertarianism, that I then I responded that your position is an "an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will." In other words, Libertarians are not "honor bound" to limit their philosophy to only those principles that are already in our Constitution, as you proposed when you asked: "Independent & beyond? And then answered: Not at all.
How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames?
Now I started off this reply stating its possible that you missed the context in which statements were made. But on re-reading your reply, I don't think so. It really looks like you purposefully twisted the context, so as to promote your authoritarian agenda, and once called on it, you attempt to squirm your way out.
Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..
Your now twisting the "honor bound" limitations you put on political philosophy, into "all residents of the USA are bound to obey the Law of the Land," is a prime example of squirming, as nothing was said that implied they were not.
Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.
Your claim that "defending the point that our rule of Constitutional law in America is not 'authoritarian'" is another example. Such was not said to be authoritarian. So on and so forth through out your entire reply, you twist and squirm around with quotes, much the same as you did with the context of the dialog.
Yep, "so on and so forth", masterfully put.
As far as my not feeling honor about my oaths to the Constitution, which I voluntarily remain loyal to, I only have honor for that which goes beyond what I have done. Now don't twist humility into dishonor. There is a difference.
How telling that you can't really reply to what I actually wrote.
You had one item right in your entire reply. Yes, I do not expect peers living in this country to support the U.S. Constitution. I distinguish a difference between what I want and what I expect. I am not an authoritarian. Of course I shouldn't be surprised by your attachment to authoritarianism. Looking at your reply #80, and your apparent support for an anti-Libertarian Party, authoritarian organization, says it all.
Now you want to 'tar baby' my post at #80? And you call the RLC an "anti-Libertarian Party, authoritarian organization?"
Are you aware that Jim Rob invited the RLC here to FR, and established a separate forum for them?
I don't know what you mean by the Constitution's principles. Perhaps you could expand on that.
I do know that many famous libertarians have supported anarchy, or no government at all. No government, no Federal constitution.
secretagent wrote:
I don't know what you mean by the Constitution's principles. Perhaps you could expand on that.
_____________________________________
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":
*The term "commerce" as used in Art. I, Sect. 8, consists only of exchanges of goods and services for a valuable consideration. "... among the states" is a restriction to those exchanges that begin in one state and end in another.
It does not include everything that has ever been a part of such an exchange, or that might be a part of such an exchange in the future, or which is a part of an aggregate of such exchanges some of which may begin in one state and end in another, or which "affect" such exchanges.
*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.
*The power to impose an excise tax may not be used for any purpose then to raise revenue. It is not the power to prohibit an item by imposing a confiscatory tax on it, or by refusing to accept payment of a tax on it and then declaring the item itself illegal because the tax has not been paid. For this reason, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional.
_________________________________________
It goes on in much more detail. Well worth reading.
You did however manage to say something new in this last reply. You said:
Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.
Hey! Wake up. The party was the context.
If maybe you weren't so busy cutting and pasting, just maybe, you might be able to write an explanation or argument supporting of your position, instead of devolving into unsupported statements. For example:
That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.
and
How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames?
and
Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.
Such statements of conclusion as a reply to explanations are vague at best, and do not qualify as argument. Since they are made without specificity and lacking in any supportive explanation, you reduce discourse to nothing more than insults.
Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..
But that is what you have doing in every reply since you first entered the discussion back in reply #81. And now you whimper about one small word describing your conduct. This is most telling.
I notice that you did not disagree with my statement that the RLC is an anti-Libertarian Party authoritarian organization. You only complained that I brought it up. Hmmmm.
Wrong. I made no specification as to the 'party'.
Your commentary to support this denial, that "rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are.." was a clear attempt by you to limit Libertarian philosophy, as presented by the Libertarian Party, to only the "Constitutions principles."
That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.
You did however manage to say something new in this last reply. You said:
Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.
Hey! Wake up. The party was the context.
Wake up yourself. You want "the party" to be the subject. It's not. The real subject here has become your libertarian bashing mania.
If maybe you weren't so busy cutting and pasting, just maybe, you might be able to write an explanation or argument supporting of your position, instead of devolving into unsupported statements. For example: That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above. and How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames? and Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.
Nice cut & paste job, bobbyjack, but what did you prove? -- Nothing.
Such statements of conclusion as a reply to explanations are vague at best, and do not qualify as argument. Since they are made without specificity and lacking in any supportive explanation, you reduce discourse to nothing more than insults.
Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..
But that is what you have doing in every reply since you first entered the discussion back in reply #81. And now you whimper about one small word describing your conduct. This is most telling.
Whatever.
I notice that you did not disagree with my statement that the RLC is an anti-Libertarian Party authoritarian organization. You only complained that I brought it up. Hmmmm.
How silly. "Notice" whatever you imagine.. Now, -- why don't you run along and find someone else to bug?
Now you propose that "the real subject here has become" my "libertarian bashing mania." Of course I have nothing against a new subject being brought in, especially since you so totally defaulted on the last one. The only problem here is that you bring in a new subject with a false claim about me, but no supporting evidence, no analysis, no argument, and not even an explanation. It really sounds just like another one of your unsupported childish statement with no evidence to back it up.
I find that when someone has something substantial to say, they do not rely on insults to make their point. They may use counter insults, but they never initiate them. But what has surprised me is how you initiated insults, and then cry foul when you get it thrown back in your face.
I more than substantially explained and presented evidence of the Libertarian Party context in the first six paragraphs of my reply #88.
And I've been countering your slurs on [small 'l'] american libertarians since our dialog on this thread started.
As I've noted, you seem obsessed with hatred for libertarianism to the point that you falsely claim to be one in order to misrepresent libertarian views on the US Constitution.
Feel free to continue your little 'crusade', as I will continue to expose it as libertarian bashing mania.
Your reply #81, to the comment by "secretagent" in #44, on his summary of the LP principle (which can be quite accurately viewed as a lower case libertarian also), was made into an already existing discussion of libertarianism as it is advocated by the Libertarian Party. Secretagent's comment that you replied to set out the same principle as the LP in its first two sentences. Secretagent then went on to state in his in his third and last sentence that:
This stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution.
On which you reply:
Independant & beyond? - Not at all. Rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are..
My disagreement with your narrow authoritarian "not at all" comment and follow up explanation as a restriction on libertarians (lower or capitol), was in no way an attack on libertarianism.
Your claim that you have been countering my "slurs on [small 'l'] american libertarians" is quite grandiose, as I have only been replying to your words.
I disagreed with your comment, and pointed out the authoritarian aspect of your words. You are not the embodiment of all libertarianism. A disagreement with your words, does not automatically mean a disagreement with libertarianism.
Of course I could be wrong here. Do you have any source material to support this notion of yours?
Anybody that reads our exchange can see that you are indeed.
And no, no source material will be furnished to support your pedantic notions.. -- You need rest, not more fuel for your anti-libertarian imaginings.
I must admit, that some times I wait to long, always giving the benefit of the doubt. But looking over the thread, I have to now concede that you are extremely anti-libertarian. No libertarian would write what you write. Your claiming to be a libertarian is fraudulent. Thus you are a fraud.
I quite recently found a lesson for you while lurking around the internet. You may do well to consider it.
...absolute faith in one's own virtue is not a commitment to virtuous behavior but a commitment to one's own will.
Of course there is nothing wrong with a commitment to ones own will. But it is quite delusional to have "absolute faith in one's own virtue."
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.
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.