Skip to comments.
Do Libertarians Really "Want a World Without Moral Judgments"?
Reason ^
| 03/22/2013
| Nick Gillespie
Posted on 03/22/2013 8:51:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On March 15 in The New York Times, liberal journalist and author Richard Reeves wrote an op-ed about the new plan in New York City to dramatize the many negative effects of teen pregnancy on girls who give birth before graduating high school and outside of a stable two-parent unit. Billboards and other advertisements around the city, for instance, point out that unwed teen mothers are twice as likely to not finish high school as girls who don't give birth before graduating.
With many smart qualifications, Reeves makes a case for shaming regarding teen pregnancy and other behaviors, and he does it from a liberal POV:
A society purged of shame might sound good in theory. But it would be terrible in practice. We need a sense of shame to live well together. For those with liberal instincts, this is necessarily hard. But it is also necessary.
My issue is less with Reeves' views on public shaming per se and more on an aside he makes about libertarians:
Libertarians might want a world without moral judgments, in which teen pregnancy carries no stigma at all. And paternalists might want the state to enshrine judgments in law perhaps by raising the age of sexual consent or mandating contraception. True liberals, though, believe we can hold one another to moral account without coercion. We must not shy away from shame.
I submit to you that few statements are more wrong than saying "libertarians might want a world without moral judgments." From my vantage point, one of the things to which libertarianism is dedicated is the proliferation of moral judgments by freeing people up to the greatest degree possible to create their own ways of being in the world. To conflate the live and let live ethos at the heart of the classical liberal and libertarian project with an essentially nihilistic dismissal of pluralism and tolerance is a gigantic error. It's like saying that because religious dissenters want to abolish a single state church that they are anti-god.
As the anthropologist Grant McCracken argued in a 1998 Reason story called "The Politics of Plenitude," our world is characterized by a "quickening speciation" of social types and sub-cultures, a liberating reality that is typically mistaken for the end of the world and the end of all morality. McCracken notes that plenitude particularly aggrieves conservatives, because they mistake an urge to escape "a morality" for an attempt to abolish "all morality." He explains:
The right acts as if the many groups thrown off by plenitude harbor an anarchic tendency, that people have become gays, feminists, or Deadheads in order to escape morality. This is not the logic of plenitude. These people have reinvented themselves merely to escape a morality, not all morality. New communities set to work immediately in the creation of new moralities. Chaos does not ensue; convention, even orthodoxy, returns. Liminality is the slingshot that allows new groups to free themselves from the gravitational field of the old moralities they must escape. But liminality is almost never the condition that prevails once this liberation has been accomplished.
courtesy PBSReeves is no conservative. He's a devotee of John Stuart Mill and, I rush to add, has said many positive things about Reason over the years. But his characterization of libertarians as uninterested in moral judgments proceeds from a very conservative - and very profound - misunderstanding of what I think we are all about. This sort of thinking typically emanates from the right - how many of us have had conversations with conservatives who equate ending drug prohibition with a case not simply for occasional use of currently illegal drugs but for an absolute embrace of never-ending intoxication and stupefaction? - but apparently it harbors a home on the left as well. (Go here to read part of a debate I had with Jonah Goldberg a decade ago on the same basic topic).
Shame is certainly not the first thing that most libertarians I know reach for in high-minded policy discussions or less serious conversations. On the narrow question of reducing teen pregnancy - which has in any case reached historic lows over the past decades - it's far from clear the role the sort of public shaming enivisioned by New York authorities will play compared to, say, frank discussions of the harshly reduced opportunities faced by young mothers. Certainly, it may make certain policymakers and politicians feel good, but that is hardly any ground by which to analyze the efficacy of a given policy (to his credit, Reeves calls for a cost-benefit analysis himself).
But it's time to start swatting away random accusations of libertarians as nihilists simply because we don't sign on to every given moralistic agenda that is proposed or enacted in the name of the greater good. No less a buttoned-down character than Friedrich Hayek once wrote that "to live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends." The libertarian commitment to true pluralism and tolerance is not easy to maintain, but it remains exactly the sort of gesture that allows for differing moralities to flourish and, one hopes, new and better ways of living to emerge.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: libertarianism; libertarians; morality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 221-223 next last
To: JustSayNoToNannies
I would say that is YOUR libertarian position, My position - but I don't claim to be a libertarian.
Fine. I will say that is one position sometimes held by self-identified libertarians, as well as by self-identified non-libertarians, such as myself.
My self-identification is "religious conservative," and that plus $4.50 will get you a cheezburger and a milkshake, if you have a coupon.
121
posted on
03/22/2013 12:01:49 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Now with more LOL and less UNNNGH.)
To: SeekAndFind
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
Criticism of libertarians by both major political parties is THE one big obstacle to all conservatives aligning against statist liberals in elections. Dems play the “cool & smart” card in every election: sex, drugs, atheism, high-speed rail, the UN and Agenda 21. “Message: Vote for Dems if you want powerful state control over everyone’s moral freedoms.”
Don’t let the moral choices of other individuals sway your voting choices. Dems are trying to accentuate individual choices, while conservatives are portrayed as trying to limit them through government. All the limitations have already been written into the Constitution & Bill of Rights. We need to get back to that as a unified party platform.
To: MHGinTN
Sort of like equating murder with somebody smoking pot? That kind of mis-characterization? Or claiming somebody is in favor of child molestation because they don’t think government should be regulating adult sex lives. That kind of mis-characterization? Is that what you mean? Is that scurrilous, as well? I’m sure you will go back down the thread and address those instances accordingly.
123
posted on
03/22/2013 12:04:19 PM PDT
by
cdcdawg
To: Tax-chick
Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free to discriminate against or in favor of gay "married" couples, straight couples, interracial couples, singles, or whoever the want - and that there should be no government schools. Some self-identified libertarians support government enforcement of approval toward homosexuality
Such as?
David Boaz, author of Libertarianism: A Primer. He supports [...] enforcement of homosexual "tolerance," as well as special treatment for favored minorities.
I can't find any evidence for that, but only for the opposite:
"This year, as Financial Services chairman, hes [Barney Frank] demonstrating his interventionist tendencies [...] He wants to push all workers into government health care, to regulate corporate decisions about executive compensation, to put more obstacles in the way of free trade across national borders, to keep Wal-Mart from creating an internal bank clearinghouse to hold down its costs. Not to mention expanding anti-discrimination rules to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. [...] would that Barney Frank come to realize that adults should also be free to spend the money they earn as they choose and to decide what contracts, with foreign businesses or local job applicants, they will enter into." - http://www.davidboaz.com/?p=309
He is far from the only one. Our self-proclaimed libertarian on the FR North Carolina Forum is all about "gay marriage"
Which implies "government enforcement of approval toward homosexuality" only in combination with "anti-discrimination" laws that are contrary to basic libertarian principles (as voiced by Boaz above).
124
posted on
03/22/2013 12:13:42 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: JustSayNoToNannies
I can't find any evidence for thatDid you just go read his whole book?
Don't bother to answer. I don't know what your agenda is, but it is not edifying discussion, so you just go on and have a nice day. It's been fun a brief distraction from a small but very tiresome financial issue I've been addressing all day.
125
posted on
03/22/2013 12:16:27 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Now with more LOL and less UNNNGH.)
To: DManA
I just dont want moral judgements handed down to me from the ruling elite. Of course not. The appropriate moral judgements are those any sane person would agree to - I don't wanted to be robbed, so stealing is wrong - I don't wanted to be killed, so most killing is wrong, etc.
Self interest will be adequate in most cases, and interestingly enough correlates pretty well with Biblical judgements.
126
posted on
03/22/2013 12:22:15 PM PDT
by
jimt
(Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
To: Tax-chick
David Boaz, author of Libertarianism: A Primer. He supports [...] enforcement of homosexual "tolerance," as well as special treatment for favored minorities. I can't find any evidence for that
Did you just go read his whole book?
I thought you mentioned his book only to establish his bona fides. Google Books shows 7 hits for "gay"; the only relevant one is this, which contradicts your claim:
'Gay activists claim a right not to be discriminated against; their opponents - echoing Mencken's jibe that Puritanism is "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy" - claim a right to know that no one is engaging in homosexual relationships. [p. 88] [...] If we accept the libertarian view of individual rights, we have a standard by which to sort out all these conflicting rights claims. [p. 89] [...] If a Christian landlady refuses to rent a room to unmarried couples, it would be unjust to use the power of government to force her to do so. [...] People [...] don't have a right to force anyone to hire them or do business with them. [p. 90]'
127
posted on
03/22/2013 12:33:03 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: GeronL
“but its in schools being shoved down the throats of kids, its all over TV and they want to punish those who have differing opinions.... hardly in their bedrooms”
That’s where people misunderstand libertarians.
This crap would never be pushed in schools — schools would be cut to the bare essentials -— reading, writing, ‘rithmatic.
128
posted on
03/22/2013 12:33:52 PM PDT
by
TheThirdRuffian
(RINOS like Romney, McCain, Dole are sure losers. No more!)
To: Responsibility2nd
Nope. That is a CONSERVATIVE position. A lib would argue there is no need for a law for or against enforcing a motel owner to rent to sodomites. In fact - if a state passes laws that require renting to sodomites - the lib places greater value on that law over his own personal convictions.
Your misunderstanding of libertarianism is breathtaking.
Of course there's no need for a law "for or against enforcing a motel owner to rent to sodomites."
The motel owner has absolute control over who he or she rents to. No "law" is necessary to enforce that right. The market will take care of that. If the motel owner discriminates against the wrong people, popularity of the motel will sag, business will dry up, and soon there'll be another owner.
Your second contention, that "the lib places greater value on that law over his own personal convictions" tells me you know very new libertarians - or their philosophy - or you've got 'em confused with authoritarians.
129
posted on
03/22/2013 12:45:36 PM PDT
by
jimt
(Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
To: Tax-chick
Some of the episodes so far involve businesses' being sued to provide services to declared homosexuals, when the business owners don't wish to. Charitable organizations have been forced to stop facilitating adoptions because they will not place children with homosexuals. Government schools in some states now insist children be taught that homosexual behavior is positive in every way. Those are not REMOTELY libertarian positions.
130
posted on
03/22/2013 12:48:10 PM PDT
by
jimt
(Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
To: jimt
Maybe not, but they are the verifiable, real-world outcomes of policies that are supported by some self-described “libertarians.”
131
posted on
03/22/2013 12:49:43 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Now with more LOL and less UNNNGH.)
To: Tax-chick; jimt
Maybe not, but they are the verifiable, real-world outcomes of policies that are supported by some self-described libertarians. So libertarians are poor tacticians - that says nothing about the soundness of their principles.
132
posted on
03/22/2013 12:53:59 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: ClearCase_guy; PreciousLiberty
One of us is coming across as an a-hole who cant have a polite conversation. I see we've found a point of agreement in this thread. And after many years, I don't recall your posts previously coming across that way.
133
posted on
03/22/2013 12:55:39 PM PDT
by
jimt
(Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
To: Hemingway's Ghost
Do you think such sweeping derogatory slurs validate your arguments ? Is is this just a gratuitous insult ?
134
posted on
03/22/2013 1:25:27 PM PDT
by
jimt
(Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed.)
To: jimt
Do you think such sweeping derogatory slurs validate your arguments ? Is is this just a gratuitous insult ? Huh?
To: Hemingway's Ghost; jimt
Thankee! Im surprised I havent received any Loserdopian arrows yet... Do you think such sweeping derogatory slurs validate your arguments ? Is is this just a gratuitous insult ?
Huh?
I think jimt thinks you were applying the term Loserdopian to others. My read is that you were noting its past application to yourself.
136
posted on
03/22/2013 1:46:20 PM PDT
by
JustSayNoToNannies
("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
To: SeekAndFind
Libertarians might want a world without moral judgments, in which teen pregnancy carries no stigma at all. And paternalists might want the state to enshrine judgments in law perhaps by raising the age of sexual consent or mandating contraception. True liberals, though, believe we can hold one another to moral account without coercion.
Just reading the first two sentences, I don't get a sense that he's saying anything about political libertarians -- just contrasting two human attitudes towards morality, one permissive and one judgmental.
When you get to the third, sentence, then sure, he does get political. It's also highly questionable. When somebody puts "true" in front of the name of a philosophy or idea, it can be a sign that they're talking nonsense -- putting forward something that isn't "true liberalism" (say) but their own highly unrepresentative interpretation.
In this case, that hunch is right. Liberals, "true" or not, are far more likely to oppose judgementalism than libertarians. Or at least, far more concerned with people not facing the consequences of their actions, than libertarians, whose attitude is more along the lines of "you made your bed, now lie in it."
He's a devotee of John Stuart Mill and, I rush to add, has said many positive things about Reason over the years.
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. That is the other Richard Reeves. He is an Englishman who wrote a book on Mill. This Richard Reeves is an American liberal of the midcentury, Truman-Kennedy-Johnson variety. (I laugh now because I made the same assumption myself -- as have others).
137
posted on
03/22/2013 1:58:21 PM PDT
by
x
To: SeekAndFind
Who is the freakazoid mentally ill person who wrote this dreck?
138
posted on
03/22/2013 2:43:39 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: TheThirdRuffian; freeandfreezing; Responsibility2nd
One of the many ways libertarians (large L or small) debate duplicitously is by pretending that because there were no Federal laws against, for instance, sodomy, porngoraphy/obscenity, adultery and the like, that the states had not laws against immoral acts. They completely ignore the fact that the Founders did not promote licentiousness, in fact spoke and wrote against immoral behavior, and thought nothing wrong or unconstitutional against State laws against various immoral behaviors.
139
posted on
03/22/2013 3:35:13 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: little jeremiah
And one of the most common ways people mischaracterize libertarians, or those who want a smaller, less invasive government, is to falsely claim that they "promote licentiousness."
It is hard to understand the underlying opposition regularly found here on FR to reducing the role of government when as it stands today the government is one of the largest promoters of licentiousness.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 221-223 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson