The Fall of the Libertarians

Opinion Journal ^ | 05/02/2002 | FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

[Pokey78]

Sept. 11 might have also brought down a political movement.

The great free-market revolution that began with the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at the close of the 1970s has finally reached its Thermidor, or point of reversal. Like the French Revolution, it derived its energy from a simple idea of liberty, to wit, that the modern welfare state had grown too large, and that individuals were excessively regulated. The truth of this idea was vindicated by the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism in 1989, as well as by the performance of the American and British economies in the 1990s.

[TopQuark]

I am sorry, Alan, but we are on divergent paths. To justify one claim you make another, which leads nowhere. You also amplify assertions and put words in my mouth:

Almost all the world is our enemy by now? Why don't you think a little harder before you write. You asked "who was emboldened," to which I made the quoted reply. I did not declare the whole world to be the enemy.

Particularly the Arab world? How you suppose this happened? I have posted elsewhere on this topic, including a recent essay (do a surch on "superpower").

Furthermore, when you speak of the enemy are you referring to foreign governments, citizens, or both? I have already answered that.

Do citizens in foreign nations deserve death for the acts of their governments over which they may have no control? In all countries, the citizens as a whole have control of their governments. The question is whether they are willing to exercise it or not.

In Arab countries, do you believe that families sit around the kitchen table and conspire to kill Americans? No, of course not. This does not free them from the responsibility for the actions of their governments. In the very least they are guilty of negligence.

TQ: That has always been the case with enforcement --- from laws, to morals, to policies. AC: I see. Convenience is the standard by which we should measure. See, that is a great example. Whence this conclusion?

There is a difference between feasibility --- which is what I and you originally were referring to --- and convenience.

You may be morally right and the seven-foot bully is wrong but you simply cannot act on that rigth; it is not feasible for you to overcome that gorilla.

And here is the final example: ...it is a long-established notion of the tort law that the principal that hires an agent to perform a task is responsible for the actions of that agent.

AC: As it should be. An agent is a proxy representation of the principal. However, it is a common and erroneously held belief that a criminal act committed in one's individual capacity somehow becomes right and just when sanctioned by law and committed by an agent of the government.

What the h--l does this have to do with what had been said. You could also continue by sating, "however, it is a common belief that marriage last longer if people are in love," or something of that sort.

I am sorry, Alan: I gave you what I could but simply have no time to have a discussion on the topic "My girevances about the world," which you seem to pursue.

Thank you for your replies. Have a good night.

[Alan Chapman]

This is utopian: one cannot enforece anything without some force.

I said the initiation of force is not an acceptable means of problem solving. I said nothing of defensive or retaliatory force. Initiatory force is not morally defensible.

...whenever someone benefits, someone else gets hurt...

So, there is a victim in every transaction where the parties agree to the terms? So, when you buy groceries the store benefits and you get hurt? Or, is it the other way around?

It is the force that prevents that hurt person from changing outcomes in his favor.

That's a defensive use of force.

If a fight ensues and punches are thrown by all parties involved who should go to jail, who shouldn't, and why? How is this determination made?

You said earlier that "it is immoral for Congress to redistribute wealth." I asked you to clarify that. Whatever you said so far does not even touch the question.

It is immoral for Congress to redistribute wealth because any redistribution of property without the consent of the property owner is theft.

[xdem]

No.

[Texasforever]

Then tell me this. Name one example of any libertarian model of government in the civilized world now or in the past.

[Tuor]

Could it be that those "policies", taken to their logical conclusion never hold up?

Do you mean that almost anything taken to extremes will fail? If so, then I agree. I've never thought that the US should *ignore* the world, or even that it should totally cut itself off from the world. I do believe, however, that it should greatly reduce its presence in the world.

I have always been greatly impressed by Reagan's "City on the Hill" vision. It is not only in accordance to my own, it created it.

I am also a firm believer in MYOB: mind your own business. The US has put its' fingers into so many other people's pies that almost any pie you choose will have been touched by it, thus justifying (to some) the need to intervene. I view this as not only expensive and exhausting, but also as stupendous hubris on our part: that we think we can fix the world's problems and have some sort of responsibility to do so. The English thought that once and maybe still do (the White Man's Burden, anyone?), but they, and we, are wrong.

IMO, we should provide a shining example of peaceful strength while demonstrating the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we build it, they won't just come, but they may try to build their own, which I think is better.

Finally, I should throw in a caveat noted by Alexis de Toqueville: democracy is not for everyone, and American democracy is especially not for everyone (which is why we're the only ones who practice it). It is a laudable goal, but one that must be approached by a populous ready and able to undertake it, not forced from outside or above. Democracy in America is a great book which I urge everyone to read.

Tuor

[xdem]

The United States as it was founded, and as the founders envisioned it.

[tpaine]

Like said, ole Ron was proud of his libertarian 'leanings', as you admit:

"In the now famous Reason magazine interview from 1975, Reagan was basically talking about his desire for a smaller and less intrusive federal government and how his conservatism on that specific issue, was very similiar in regards to the libertarian idea of limited government."

--------------------------------------

I admitted nothing.

I quoted your exact words above. - You deny them?

Reagan's beliefs had nothing to do with libertarian leanings, you boob! Reagan was an old guard conservative Democrat. And please, stop referring to Ronald Reagan as "Ron". It shows disrespect for a great American.

You really should work on your authoritarian leanings, booby. -- I'll call ol Ron whatever I please, with no disrespect intended.

[Texasforever]

I see libertarianism as the first step in the political evolution of any democratic structure. The original colonies were far from libertarian in their governance but those that were libertarian in their nature were the ones that actually went into the rest of what we now call the United States. They were the individualists that settled the west and did it on their own terms and in many cases quite violently. However; once it was settled then that "social Darwinist" point of view was not conducive to the requirements for families to move there and actually develop the frontier. Libertarianism is the starting point for democracy but it is never the end point.

[Texasforever]

The United States as it was founded, and as the founders envisioned it.

You need to do some research on the laws of that time before you make those kinds of assertions. The original 13 states were NOT libertarian in any way. Nor was the Federal Government. The only change from then to now is the country has 100 times the population and most of the laws the original states had in place are long gone.

[Alan Chapman]

...we have also observed before Sep 11 that most of the attackers had at least once in their lifetimes, eaten cucumbers. Should I consider that also to be a reason for the attack.

In your estimation what is the likelyhood of eating cucumbers a provocation for attack as opposed to arming and aiding the enemies of our enemies? Which do you think is more likely to create hostility toward us and motivate people to try and harm us?

I am not joking. You may want to read on causality in some research methods book or consult J.S. Mill for initial contributions. You are very hasty with causality.

It might be wise for you to take a course on argumentation and logic. You'll learn how to examine evidence and postulate a sound conclusion using deductive reasoning. I'd also suggest familiarizing yourself with the scientific precept known as Occum's Razor.

[Reagan Man]

I quoted your exact words above. - You deny them?

There you go again!

It would take a libertarian to steal the values and beliefs of Ronald Reagan, apply a quick ideological twist and slap it on their libertarian philosophy.

You have no shame. Thief! Robber!

[Alan Chapman]

I do not know...that there are many libertarians that believe in limited government. That would disqualify them from being construed as anarchists, as I did earlier.

Out of curiosity where did you read that libertarianism is congruous with anarchism?

A moment ago you accused me of being hasty with causality. Perhaps you are hasty with generalizations.

[Texasforever]

It might be wise for you to take a course on argumentation and logic. You'll learn how to examine evidence and postulate a sound conclusion using deductive reasoning.

Ahh, last refuge of the libertarian. How about using Inductive reasoning and then apply your philosophy to that? How about a good old application of "theory of constraints" to your philosophy. Your problem and possibly your only saving grace is that you CAN"T apply DEDUCTIVE reasoning to a concept that has never been implemented.

[Tuor]

That may all be true, but I've always supported a very limited federal government, but as the governments get more local (state, county, city, etc), they should be increasingly less limited, though always bound by some sort of charter or constitution.

The main reason I am against big government is that I believe people are fallable and that human nature is flawed. People regularly misuse power, sometimes innocently, sometimes not. At the level of the federal government, this misuse can have catastrophic results, but at lower levels misuse is generally less severe and more easily fixed.

Communities have the right to determine who they want to be in them, and individuals have the right to determine who they want to associate with...or not associate with. By limiting federal power and encouraging lower levels of government, especially city and state governments, to go their own way, it creates a sort of competition in regards to 'flavors' of culture, all under the broad umbrella of the US Constitution. This, I believe, is what the Founders had in mind: their words seem to indicate this.

So, I am not in any way an anarchist. Even in an Ideal World with Unfallen Man, there would still need to be some sort of government. Assuredly it would be very different than the one we have now, but it would exist. Only, as you say, on the frontier with few people and wide open spaces could true anarchy ever be at all practical, and perhaps not even then.

Overall, I guess I would have to consider myself a strict constitutionalist rather than a libertarian. The Founding Fathers (most of them) considered themselves to be Liberals, I believe (in the old sense). I'm not sure what they'd call themselves now.

Tuor

[austinTparty]

Why? Is there some sort of legal case in which he is the judge, and has to disqualify himself because he has an opinion on the subject.

Where did I state that he had to disqualify himself or not state an opinion? Indeed I never said whether or not I agree or disagree with Mr. Fukuyama's positions. But that he appeared very recently at such an event certainly does color his arguments, and that is something that helps the reader put his remarks into context...

And I will disagree with Mr. Fukuyama in his general argument that the case for free markets/classical liberalism etc. has been won. Indeed, Lady Thatcher herself recently remarked something to the effect that it is an argument that is never ultimately won, but a battle which must continually be fought.

[Thraka]

Not nice, but let us examine the logic.

Examine it, by all means.

1. It is not possible to be anti-government while at the same time supporting the Constitution.

Nobody, including Regan Man, accused libertarians of being logical and consistent.

Oh, come now, this is sophistry. Surely you do not think people so foolish as to see your unskilled attempt at three card monte, here? Cain accused libertarians of being anti-government. His statement is illogical; libertarians cannot both support the Constitution and be anti-government. If you wish to challenge libertarian thought as inconssistant, you must show some circumstance where their stand is out of line with their stated support of the constitution.

.2. I served my term in the military, and am a better man for it...

Thank you for sharing with us, but what do your personal experiences have to do with the claim of Regan Man that you are trying to repudiate?

Your sarcasm is not welcome, and you do yourself an injustice by resorting to it. Again, you know full well that your comment is a switch game. Cain called libertarian philosophy anti-military. I disproved his assertion by providing evidence that contradicted his claim. And my example is hardly exceptional. You will find that _many_ military men subscribe to similar principles. There are few things that make a man value his liberty quite so much as having lost it for a period of time. When one volunteers for service, he surrenders his liberty for a while, mans the wall, and keeps the rest of you safe. It gives one a perspective that many civilians never acquire, because they are kept creatures, as is Cain himself.

3. Christ stood against a mob of men who had it in their mind to stone an adulteress.

And this has something to do with logic? Or with what Regan Man said? 4. Communities are as varied as men themselves. I would stand against a community of robbers. I would stand with a community of honest men. Your 'anti-community' accusation is meaningless wordplay.

No, it is not. Just one example: libertarians are against taxation and coercive power of the government, yet without it it is impossible to provide public goods.

You must clarify which public good you are speaking of before we can discuss them. In general, the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul, however, is not a Christian concept. I am willing to entertain argument for truly vital things, just as I am willing to forgive a man for stealing bread when he is starving, but no more. I cannot forgive someone stealing money because he is poor and wishes for wealth. Bearing that in mind, provide examples and let us discuss them.

Incidentally, your call for compulsory military service can be implemented only be coersion.

We have compulsory school, therefore we have in fact acknowledged that our citizenry requires certain knowledge. We, as a society, decide what knowledge is necessary, and that is what we require. I don't see it as an issue of liberty, because we are discussing minors, not full citizens. Minors are not posessed of the rights of an adult. They are kept, they are not held to full responsibility for their actions, so they are not entitled to all of the privileges of citizenship.

I am still wating for the logic to kick in, Thraka.

Perhaps you should stop smoking that strange weed, then? It's not really good for your reasoning....

See, I can be snide, too. Or not. I will follow your example, hmm?

Thraka

[austinTparty]

There is quite a difference between libertarianism with a small "L" and the "Libertarian Party". Libertarianism as a political movement, rather than a party, is often referred to instead by the term Friedrich Hayek (author of the seminal work "The Road to Serfdom", a book which many people have considered a profound influence on their lives, among them Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) used: "Classical liberal".

In this context, it means being for free markets, free trade, Constitutionally limited government, respect for the rights of the individual and civil society. Classical liberals tend to have a Jeffersonian worldview. It is not anarchy, for classical liberals understand the necessity of good government (limited government). Nor is it anti-morals. It is merely against government-imposition of moral standards. And if you want to know why, Mr. Hayek's book explains it all rather well.

[tpaine]

I see libertarianism as the first step in the political evolution of any democratic structure. The original colonies were far from libertarian in their governance but those that were libertarian in their nature were the ones that actually went into the rest of what we now call the United States. They were the individualists that settled the west and did it on their own terms and in many cases quite violently. However; once it was settled then that "social Darwinist" point of view was not conducive to the requirements for families to move there and actually develop the frontier. Libertarianism is the starting point for democracy but it is never the end point. - 288 -

You need to do some research on the laws of that time before you make those kinds of assertions. The original 13 states were NOT libertarian in any way. Nor was the Federal Government. The only change from then to now is the country has 100 times the population and most of the laws the original states had in place are long gone. - 289 -

========================================

You contradict yourself in the underlined quotes.

The federal constitution was quite libertarian, as you infer in 288, then you reverse yourself at 289.

In any case the constitution became a much more libertarian document with the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868. -- And, - as you note, many of the western states admitted in that era were also libertarian in spirit, & still are.

There is in fact, -- a resurgence of libertariansm in this republic, not a 'fall', -- and that is exactly why so many Rinos on this thread are going ape.

[Alan Chapman]

To justify one claim you make another, which leads nowhere. You also amplify assertions and put words in my mouth:

Examples please.

I did not declare the whole world to be the enemy.

In post #255 you referred to the enemy as, "Almost all by now, but particularly the Arab world."

You said almost all. Almost all of the world? Choose your words wisely and elaborate if necessary.

In all countries, the citizens as a whole have control of their governments. The question is whether they are willing to exercise it or not.

I believe that statement to be grossly ignorant. Having the willingness and the means are two seperate issues. While some may have the willingness they may not have the means. Willingness alone does not equate to control.

This does not free them from the responsibility for the actions of their governments. In the very least they are guilty of negligence.

Ah, so would you conclude that the Poles and Jews who died in concentration camps during WWII were guilty of negligence since they failed to defeat Hitler. And the tens of millions who died in Gulags were negligent because they didn't overthrow Stalin. Let's not forget the quarter-million Americans of Japanese decent who were interned in prison camps. They were negligent too, right?

I am sorry, Alan: I gave you what I could but simply have no time to have a discussion on the topic "My girevances about the world," which you seem to pursue.

Ok, you run along now.

[tpaine]

Ol Ron said what you quoted. - I didn't twist any words, - just made a logical comment on his libertarian view. -- And on your authoritaran reaction.

Thanks for being a booby.