Skip to comments.
Why I'm not a libertarian
World Net Daily ^
| June 18, 2002
| Joseph Farah
Posted on 06/18/2002 9:48:13 PM PDT by old-ager
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27981
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
Why I'm not a libertarian
Posted: June 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily Editor, Chief Executive Officer and daily columnist Joseph Farah is working on a new book set for release in early 2003 called "Taking America Back," delineating the problems the country faces and their solutions. In the meantime, you may wish to consider purchasing his most recent book, "This Land Is Our Land."
By Joseph Farah
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
After I wrote my column last week, "Why I'm not a conservative," many libertarians wrote in happily proclaiming me one of their own.
I hate to disappoint them, but that political label doesn't describe me, either.
Here's why I am not a libertarian and why, I believe, that political movement will never resonate with the American people.
- I believe a nation's borders are sacrosanct. Without borders, there are no nations. We become one big global village subject ultimately to a new form of tyranny imposed by unaccountable internationalists. Borders are also critical to maintaining the distinct culture of a nation. That's not a racist or jingoistic concept it is a matter of practicality. If anyone and everyone can become an American simply by relocating and without any pledge to our nation's Constitution and political creed then we lose everything our founding fathers established in fighting for our independence, our sovereignty and for the rule of law.
- While I agree with libertarians that our national drug laws and the enforcement of those laws are terribly abusive and beyond the scope of our Constitution, I have no problem with states and local governments passing laws prohibiting the sale of narcotics and enforcing such laws. The truth is, legalizing dangerous drugs will surely lead to increased use and abuse a trend that could pose problems as severe or worse than those created by the drug war. I'm all for ending the drug war at the ineffective federal level, but condoning drug use is the wrong prescription.
- America needs a strong defense and this is a reality many libertarians don't accept. True, the concept of defense in America has been distorted and twisted. We spend mega-billions not on defense, but on offense. We deploy tens of thousands of troops in more than 100 countries around the world as if America was the world's policeman. That is wrong. We leave Americans at home virtually defenseless against terror attacks and weapons of massive destruction. That is equally wrong.
- Libertarians, more often than not, fail to understand the moral dimension so critical to self-government. Read the words of the founders. They all got it. They all intuitively understood that even the best form of representative and limited government would be twisted into coercive tyranny if the people did not have the basic morality necessary to govern themselves.
Libertarians make a fundamental mistake about the nature of man. Man is not inherently good. Man can only learn to govern himself when he understands there is a higher accountability a higher authority. Ideally, that higher authority is not the government, but God. Government can only demand good behavior through force. But when individuals understand they are accountable to God, and that He requires certain kinds of behavior as defined in the Ten Commandments and the totality of scripture, there is a chance for man to maximize his freedom here on earth.
Freedom can only be experienced and maximized, though, when it is accompanied by personal responsibility. Personal responsibility cannot be legislated. It cannot be forced. It cannot be coerced. Libertarians generally understand this, but too few of them comprehend a laissez faire society can only be built in a culture of morality, righteousness and compassion.
Libertarians who expect to build such a society through politics alone make a fundamental error. In a sense, they are utopian dreamers like the socialists, ignoring the importance of human nature in shaping communities and nations.
I don't want to be too hard on the libertarians, because of all the political activists in America, they may have the best concept of limited constitutional government. That's a big start, but it's only a start. We cannot ignore the flaws in their positions. We cannot ignore the fact that they don't have a complete picture. We cannot ignore that a libertarian society devoid of God and a biblical worldview would quickly deteriorate into chaos and violence.
Would this country be better off with more libertarians? Absolutely. Do they have all the answers? Not even close.
The truth is there's more to life than politics. Much more.
Here's the way the father of our country and, as some have described him, "the father of freedom," George Washington put it in his inaugural address:
The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the external rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People.
When the libertarians add such a provision to their national platform, let me know. I'll be happy to consider the new label.
Get an autographed, first-edition copy of Joseph Farah's 1996 book, "This Land Is Our Land," now available in WorldNetDaily's online store while supplies last.
Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated column originates at WorldNetDaily. If you would like to see it in your local newspaper, contact your local editor. The column is available through Creators Syndicate.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: conservative; josephfarah; libertarian; worldnetdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-132 next last
For discussion. Farah is certainly an articulate fellow.
posted on 06/18/2002 9:48:13 PM PDT
Joe's article pretty much summarizes my thoughts exactly.
posted on 06/18/2002 10:04:18 PM PDT
Joe Farah doesn't know what he is! He's living in limbo.
>>>The truth is there's more to life than politics. Much more.
Frankly Joe, you're full of s**t!
"Man can only learn to govern himself when he understands there is a higher accountability a higher authority. Ideally, that higher authority is not the government, but God. Government can only demand good behavior through force. But when individuals understand they are accountable to God, and that He requires certain kinds of behavior as defined in the Ten Commandments and the totality of scripture, there is a chance for man to maximize his freedom here on earth."
And this is why our nation is going to hell in a handbasket today! Bravo JF, as usual!
posted on 06/18/2002 11:32:30 PM PDT
Hmmm.... I thought I was a libertarian, but I agree pretty much with Farah. Doe's that mean I am not a libertarian either?
I think there might be more libertarians than Farah realizes that agree with him:^)
posted on 06/18/2002 11:40:39 PM PDT
Libertarians make a fundamental mistake about the nature of man. Man is not inherently good.
Typical anti-libertarian strawman argument. Libertarianism does not entail a belief that "man is inherently good". In fact, libertarians require that individuals be held responsible for their own actions -- which is the quickest way to expose bad actors.
posted on 06/18/2002 11:53:58 PM PDT
To: ravinson; PatrickHenry; jennyp
there's something really backwards about liberals--libertarians and evolutionists...
they think the state/human nature will evolve and wither away---too idealists to put it nicely!
The big lie...
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progess---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...stable scientific reality/society---industrial progress!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin...atheist secular materialists through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and calling all technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC---utopias!
Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too!
Do you write your posts extremely drunk or stoned?
posted on 06/19/2002 1:22:55 AM PDT
Joe is always able to put into words well that which escapes me.
posted on 06/19/2002 1:25:09 AM PDT
Very true, I have been amazed at how the "liberal" political label has evolved.
posted on 06/19/2002 1:28:19 AM PDT
they think the state/human nature will evolve and wither--float away---too idealistic to put it nicely!
Libertarianism requires absolute responsibility. How many libertarians out there blame porn, and not Ted Bundy, for the crimes that he committed? How many conservatives blame the drug and not the violent criminal? How many conservatives are not willing to stop subscribing to cable tv since it attacks their values? They want the government to step in and regulate it so they can still have it. They aren't willing to take responsibility
by cutting off the service. Same goes for movie and music. If you don't like the music, don't listen it. Movies too pornographic? Don't go to the theatres and see anything above PG. Radio too saucy? Replace your radio with a CD player.
We advocate freedom and responsibility. We do recognize the fact that you cannot have freedom without a moral society. What we disagree with is how the state should deal with that. If the people aren't moral, the actions their government takes won't be either. Only a limited government can minimize the damage. Libertarianism is, as many libertarian writers put it, quite possibly the most cynical philosophy about human nature around in the mainstream.
posted on 06/19/2002 1:33:16 AM PDT
I was referring to your bizarre syntax.
posted on 06/19/2002 1:35:02 AM PDT
These were the classical liberals...founding fathers--principles---
stable scientific reality/society...industrial progress---growth!
Some libertarian concepts are only plausible in a purely libertarian society. For instance, 'open borders' is absolute suicide unless we also completely eliminate our overly generous welfare state.
posted on 06/19/2002 6:44:07 AM PDT
I'm a libertarian, but not a Libertarian. There's a difference. One is a thinking, realistic libertarian. The other is a brain-dead Libertarian living in a theoretical world.
posted on 06/19/2002 6:45:37 AM PDT
Your posts make me believe that English is not your first language and that you are having major problems speaking it even proficiently. You write in English less coherently than I write Spanish.
posted on 06/19/2002 6:55:55 AM PDT
Libertarianism does not entail a belief that "man is inherently good".
This is not what Farah was saying. He said that libertarians do not understand that man is inherently bad. Which has a lot of truth to it.
Libertarianism requires absolute responsibility. How many libertarians out there blame porn, and not Ted Bundy, for the crimes that he committed?
Right, like drugs. Libertarians refuse to see that allowing everyone to use dangerous narcotic drugs, as an example, leads inevitably to an increase in violent crime and theft and driving under the influence of drugs (which leads to innocent death). By the time the offender has been punished, the crime has been done. They're like the Catholic bishops, who wish to punish homosexual teenage boy molesters after they've committed the crime. By then, the teenage boy has already been horribly harmed.
>Why I'm not a libertarian
||Why I'm not a libertarian:
I keep falling off my broom...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-132 next last
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