Libertarians to Conservatives: Drop Dead

National Review Online ^ | Aug 6, 2007 | Carol Iannone

[DesScorp]

I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.

I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.

Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.

[JamesP81]

In the American system of government, civil government was never intended to make moral judgments; government exists to secure the rights of the individual against infringement. Judgment for one's actions can come only from our sovereign Lord.

So, yes, morality is legislated, but not because it's morality. It's just that securing a person's rights against infringement is also moral.

As for the decayed moral state of society, we have only ourselves to blame. Many people have long since abandoned Biblical principles, and it's the job of those of us in the Church to bring that teaching back into the public eye. However, doing so by legislating it will have no effect. A man who is good because the law requires him to be so is not good, for goodness is not truly in his heart.

[Greg F]

Thanks for taking on the discussion. I’ll respond after I get back (2 year old daughter, soon to be 3, is going into a school a couple days a week and we have a meeting).

I think John Paul was talking about how to live as a citizen in a free country, what your duties are as a citizen, and what type of freedom is truly important. Here is the context:

Christian witness takes different forms at different moments in the life of a nation. Sometimes, witnessing to Christ will mean drawing out of a culture the full meaning of its noblest intentions, a fullness that is revealed in Christ. At other times, witnessing to Christ means challenging that culture, especially when the truth about the human person is under assault. America has always wanted to be a land of the free. Today, the challenge facing America is to find freedom’s fulfillment in the truth: the truth that is intrinsic to human life created in God’s image and likeness, the truth that is written on the human heart, the truth that can be known by reason and can therefore form the basis of a profound and universal dialogue among people about the direction they must give to their lives and their activities.

One hundred thirty years ago, President Abraham Lincoln asked whether a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” could “long endure.” President Lincoln’s question is no less a question for the present generation of Americans. Democracy cannot be sustained without a shared commitment to certain moral truths about the human person and human community. The basic question before a democratic society is “how ought we to live together?” In seeking an answer to this question, can society exclude moral truth and moral reasoning? Can the Biblical wisdom which played such a formative part in the very founding of your country be excluded from that debate? Would not doing so mean that tens of millions of Americans could no longer offer the contribution of their deepest convictions to the formation of public policy? Surely it is important for America that the moral truths which make freedom possible should be passed on to each new generation. Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.

Full text here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/bal-homily100995,0,4247104.story

[radioman]

The Democrats tell you from in front most of the things they plan to do to you, if elected; the Republicans lie to your face and screw you after they get your vote.

And now Republicans are angry because libertarians have told the RP to drop dead!
.

[MrB]

How about the man “who is good” because making other choices leads to bad consequences which a removed safety net won’t alleviate?

[Caesar Soze]

I consider myself a little-l libertarian, with Jefferson and Madison as my model statesmen. I am, however, staunchly pro-life, as I see a human, no matter what stage he is in or location, as deserving to have his rights to life, liberty, and property protected.

Are you familiar with Libertarians for Life? They make a secular pro-life argument from libertarian principles.

[Grumpy_Mel]

The problem with your arguement about certain behaviors (porn, drugs, etc) is that you are trying to regulate them NOT because they result in actual harm to 3rd parties but because they have the POTENTIAL to cause behaviors that do.

Libertarians don’t believe in punishing people for harm they MIGHT potentialy cause but for harm they ACTUALY cause.

Using your example, eating red meat SHOULD be illegal too. It’s been scientificaly established that eating red meat leads to a higher risk of heart attacks. It’s been empericaly proven that people who suffer heart attacks while operating machinery (i.e. motor vehicles) often can lead to injury of innocent 3rd parties. Therefore red meat should be illegal because of it’s POTENTIAL for harm.

By that same token, being born a minorty should be illegal too. It’s statisticaly established that minorties commit an disproportionate percentage of violent crimes in the country. Therefore being born one has a higher POTENTIAL to result in harm to others...and therefore should be illegal.

Clearly that’s absurd. To a libertarian, it’s as absurd as outlawing porn simply because SOME people who indulge in porn have a greater likelihood to go out and commit rape. You punish the ACTUAL commission of the crime.... not something that MAY or MAY NOT (depending on the individual) make the crime more likely.

[MrB]

In other words, we don’t make everyone wear diapers because on person shts their pants.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

You Thieving, Bible-rejecting Statists can go ahead and keep all the rest of the Payroll Taxes, Income Taxes, Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, ad nauseam, which you steal from me and my Family to fund your own stunted, State-dependent version of "maturity" (which is to say, an infantile Adult suckling at the Government's Teat, forever) at other people's expense, I don't care any more.

"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:17-21)

I am NOT arguing that we should pay high taxes, in fact, I think we ought to have essentially NO taxes. All the same, I will say that if you think the Bible gives justification to not pay them when they ARE levied, then you need to re-examine your doctrine, because you are falling into the trap of twisting the Scriptures to justify your own man-made philosophy. The Bible nowhere mandates or condones any Christian to rebel against their government - like it or not. Christians are to be good testimonies and witnesses in the world, even when our governments are despicable, because we ultimate serve the higher purpose of serving the Lord and seeing souls saved - an end which is NOT facilitated by pridefully making nuisances out of ourselves.

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." (I Peter 2:13-17)

[CatoRenasci]

Sorry, no sale. There’s not even a discussion to have if you can’t accept that whatever your personal morality and religious belief, it is not the glue of a civil society such as our constitutional republic (I detest the term democracy with its tendency, in both ancient times and modern, to be a tyranny of the majority). To the extent we have such a glue it is our civic ‘religion’ of equality before the law and inalienable rights (regardless of what one considers their source), and the right to pursue our personal ends more or less as we see fit, subject to limited constrains in law. It’s also includes a civic virtue that a Cicero, Cato or Epictetus would recognize.

[radioman]

And that's what libertarianism breaks down. Just what constitutes "harm" to others

No, that's when libertarianism holds up. Harm is when I trample your rights. If you want to expand harm into the good of the whole, you will have to deal with the tyranny and violence that befalls those who take that line.

That's how Germany went from "family values" to exterminating Jews.
.

[microgood]

I see no contradiction between liberty on the one hand, and restraining people from harming others (i.e. infringing THEIR liberties) on the other. In fact, if we DON'T do so, then we find that we all have less liberty, because some unretrained individuals will always go around bringing harm to others so as to better themselves, which limits the freedom of those whom they harm.

On a theoretical level I agree, but because laws generally are not enacted based on people's perceptions of harm at the altruistic level.

A perfect example is the outlawing of marijuana. It was outlawed in 1935 and earlier in the states mainly based on racism and not so much the effects of the drug. Even in 1970, the very commission that Nixon appointed to study what laws should be enacted stated that outlawing the drug would breed a lack of respect for the law because youth would not believe that it caused the harm the government had claimed. And yet it was still made illegal.

In essence, the whole history of laws against this drug have been based on lies and misperceptions which is why I believe it is illegal most likely because it is considered a sin, not because of any harmful effects it may have.

Many of our other laws are also decided on this basis and because of that there is a tendency of more lawlessness due to lack of respect of the authority or basis of such laws.

In addition, the very same arguments that are used to outlaw pornography as you discussed can be used to outlaw guns as well, the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.

Another inconsistency which breeds lack of respect of the law is the way these laws are enacted. Abortion, for example, is now being argued as a state's right issue because of Rowe. Yet the same argue for national drug laws based on the Commerce Clause, which could cleary be extended to Rowe using the same arguments.

I understand your points clearly but my objection to many of these laws is that weren't decided in a rational way and are not rationally defendible. Maybe pornography can be, but many others cannot.

In an earlier post you talked about libertarians need to make a case for why drugs, etc should be legal, but at the same time I argued with a conservative freeper the other day who was totally OK with putting someone in jail for 20 years for having some Vicodin he had a prescription for it that since he had a little pot (which is a misdemeanor). When this guy who spend two years in jail for possessing a drug he had a prescription for was freed on appeal, he was totally OK with the prosecutor retrying him for the same crime.

That is the crux of my issue with many of these laws. They do not seem to fit the paradigm you have set up as a rational basis. Its not that they are nebulus, it is that they are totally based on the concept of sin or evil, and not on the harm they cause to society.

[GunRunner]

Cut off the social safety net. Then let’s see them laugh and smirk.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The problem with your arguement about certain behaviors (porn, drugs, etc) is that you are trying to regulate them NOT because they result in actual harm to 3rd parties but because they have the POTENTIAL to cause behaviors that do.

No, actually, we regulate them because they ALREADY HAVE resulted in actual harm, and have the potential to do so again in the future.

This is the same reason we outlaw drunk driving. It has already killed thousands - i.e. presented ACTUAL HARM. We regulate it despite the fact that not everybody who gets behind the wheel drunk is necessarily always going to harm someone by doing so - i.e. there is only the POTENTIAL for them to harm someone.

There's no logical difference.

[tacticalogic]

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but, morality has been legislated from the beginning of time and will continue to be legislated till the end of time. Morality is currently being legislated in every single country on the face of this earth.

I hate to burst yours, but morality is not "commerce", and the federal government is not your mommie, your daddy, your nanny, or your clergy and wasn't ever intended to be. Now, quit trying to use it for things it wasn't supposed to be used for and maybe we can get it back to doing the things it was.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Just in case you weren't aware that we exist. I find that libertarianism is the political philosophy most compatible with my Christian faith.

i find it very instructive that the Apostle Paul, when writing to the Corinthian Church did not rail against the blatant immorality of the Corinthian population that was the reputation of Corinth at that time.

Rather, he concerned himself with the Church.

i never once within the pages of scripture saw a "Let's reclaim the Roman empire for Jesus" crusade. Never saw the ballot initative to persuade the Roman Senate to ban temple prostitution in the empire coming from any of the churches of the New Testament.

Rather, we saw the Apostle Paul exhorting the Church to attend to it's own business.

Never read the section in the Gospels where Jesus rails against Capital Punishment as he hangs on the cross.

And finally, i never saw the scripture that said
God is a Right Wing Republican, and Rush Limbaugh is His Prophet

Kind of instructive, isn't it?

[tacticalogic]

No, actually, we regulate them because they ALREADY HAVE resulted in actual harm,

Under what enumerate power do you submit that Congress has this authority?

[tacticalogic]

No, actually, we regulate them because they ALREADY HAVE resulted in actual harm,

Under what enumerate power do you submit that Congress has this authority?

[Grumpy_Mel]

Nice!

I should let you write my tag lines from now on!

[radioman]

In other words, we don’t make everyone wear diapers because on person shts their pants.
ROFL!
Best analogy I've heard yet!
.

[andy58-in-nh]

Evolutionism and Homosexual Rights

Uh-huh. Right: the world was created only 5000 years ago and gays are not human beings deserving of compassion.

Crawl back in your hole now, all right?