"libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government. Libertarians make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government. That is, libertarians believe that murder is murder and does not become sanctified by reasons of State if committed by the government. We believe that theft is theft and does not become legitimated because organized robbers call their theft "taxation." We believe that enslavement is enslavement even if the institution committing that act calls it "conscription." In short, the key to libertarian theory is that it makes no exceptions in its universal ethic for government. "
I have always thought of myself as a "Paleo-conservative". After reading this article, it appears that all conservatives believing in the principles expressed in the Constitution "could" see themselves as a subset of Libertarianism.
Please comment.
That’s what Libertarians would like you to believe. :)
Many libertarian principles are enshrined in our Constitution. But, these libertarian principles did not engender nor do they encompass our Constitution.
Libertarians oppose our republican government—it is far too restrictive for rugged individualists. As a Paleo, you must believe in State’s rights—this is anathema to Libertarians.
Ultimately, Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a form of government. Start talking about the realities of politics and its adherents’ eyes glaze over. Suggest compromise and watch them go ballistic. It’s almost a religious thing.
Rothbard's career encompassed an interesting span of time. When he was young, people actually believed in socialism and thought it would make people better. By the time Murray Rothbard died, very few people thought that way. Libertarianism is, in spite of the ideological dogmatism, a much more realistic way of looking at the world and humanity. Will it actually make people better, as Rothbard implies? Some would say yes, but it looks like that's another overly rationalized deduction from general principles. It may or may not fit humanity's character more than other political theories, but those who think it will actually make people "better," more foresighted and more responsible, labor under the same rationalist delusion the socialists of Rothbard's younger years did. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the idea that socialism would make people more moral, more social and more concerned seemed as "rational" or "logical" or "uncontestable" to the socialists of the thirties as does the idea that doing away with social programs will make people responsible and ethical does to libertarians today. The kernel of perversity or irrationality in human nature, or the desire to cut corners, proved such hopes wrong, and may do so again. Certainly, the legendary improvidence and ill-fortunes of the Victorian working classes, suggest that things may not work out as cleanly as Rothbard would wish.
And "fastest growing political creed"? How about some data to back that up?
Far from being immoral, libertarians simply apply a universal human ethic to government in the same way as almost everyone would apply such an ethic to every other person or institution in society. In particular as I have noted earlier, libertarianism as a political philosophy dealing with the proper role of violence takes the universal ethic that most of us hold toward violence and applies it fearlessly to government. Libertarians make no exceptions to the golden rule and provide no moral loophole, no double standard, for government. That is, libertarians believe that murder is murder and does not become sanctified by reasons of State if committed by the government. We believe that theft is theft and does not become legitimated because organized robbers call their theft "taxation." We believe that enslavement is enslavement even if the institution committing that act calls it "conscription." In short, the key to libertarian theory is that it makes no exceptions in its universal ethic for government.
If, as the author says, the "Golden Rule" is applied to government without exception, how can government exist? The most basic role of government is protection from external threat, but if murder by government is never legitimate, how can it carry out that purpose? Furthermore, applying the principle of non-initiation of force, must a libertarian government only act to defend its people after it has been attacked? In other words, if the government is aware of a threat, can it be justified in pre-emptively acting against that threat even though no act of aggression has been committed? And, of course, if all taxation is theft, how would a libertarian government fund itself?
It seems to me that libertarianism dooms itself by proclaiming absolutes that can never be adhered to in the real world. While the non-initiation principle seems admirable on its face, applying it absolutely would seemingly prevent governments from carrying out even their most basic function. Is there an answer to this?
"since why should anyone assume that those men who form the government and obtain all the guns and the power to coerce others, should be magically exempt from the badness of all the other persons outside the government?"
Quick answer - they're not. They just legislate or order for themselves the means to satisfy the darker, more avaricious side of their own human nature. This is principally accomplished by robbing rights and resources from those less privileged and empowered.
Rush has metioned Libertarians in his show today.
Rush Limbaugh (who I only listen to a couple of times a month) brought up the topic of Libertarians nation-wide over their lack of understanding in the area of freedom and laws.
He was saying basically that:
"Libertarians don't understand the concept that all freedoms have restrictions in every society."
"That limitations, laws and freedoms are based on moral values."
"Because we have been a moral country in the past we have been great. At least in our past."
He stated the Libertarians were "clueless" to this and he said:
"The furthest extent of freedom is anarchy!"
Rush finds Libertarians are morally much like Liberals based on his comments! VERY INTERESTING.
That certainly takes all the fun out it for some people, doesn't it?
But seriously...
This is a very good article. It notes correctly that libertarianism isn't a complete moral system, nor is it intended as such. It deals strictly with economics and politics. Moral suasion is thus seen as the province of individuals, not big government. The 1st Amendment's prohibition against an official national religion is in line with that thinking. (Those who question the idea ought to ask themselves if they'd have been happy to have "Pope Bubba" for eight long years!)
redrock--Constitutional Terrorist
"Far from being immoral, libertarians simply apply a universal human ethic..."
"Murder is wrong"
"Theft is wrong"
I believe some Democrats are posing as Liberaterians on this forum,Possibly just to cause trouble and make the L party look nuts.
I've always been a Republican,but the real Liberaterians(not the bill maher type)are very smart. And I do register a lot of people to L's and I's , when they won't go R. We need to look for common ground and negotiate the left overs.
Absolutely hilarious, imo, that Rothbard would begin his expose of 'the myths' about Libertarianism with this tired old canard. The Libs have been saying this about themselves for a quarter century at least. If true, how come the Libertarian party finished the last presidential election in a dead heat with Pat Buchanan and the Socialist Worker's League? Political philosophy aside, I am soooo tired of hearing this kind of self-serving bs from Libertarians. They use it to pull in naive, idealistic members, who seem to leave even faster than they join up. Course, Murray eventually left the Libertarian Party himself, didn't he?