Why I'm not a libertarian

World Net Daily ^ | June 18, 2002 | Joseph Farah

[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.

---

Special Offer!

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.

[dheretic]

Gov't uses force. Mis-behave, you go to jail. Disagree with the majority? Too bad, you still have to go along with them or go to jail.

A well armed minority is a real bitch for the democratic process when it goes awry. It has the option of fighting in the courts and if the courts won't side with the constitution the minority has the option of using deadly force to protect its rights. Screw democracy. It's candy-coated fascism when it is not strictly limited in scope. The democratic process in a free republic with a limited government is for choosing administrators who will keep the infrastructure working. It is not for choosing people to remake society in their image. That is where we libertarians disagree with conservatives and the left. We believe that social evolution should be driven totally be society itself and not by the state.

Gov't is inherently authoritarian, the opposite of God.

The only God that isn't authoritarian is the God of Deism. Every other view of God is of a God that says if you don't do things His way you go to Hell. Hell is basically a cosmic concentration camp.

[dheretic]

The paradox is, and for the very reasons Farah cites, many of the people most anxious to implement a libertarian government (pro-gay, pro-drug, pro-porn atheist fiscal conservatives) are least likely and able to make one succeed

1. We're not pro-gay. Sexual orientation should not be protected. We oppose hate crimes laws and equal employment laws. We believe an employer should have total power to choose who they employ. If they want to hire nothing but drag queens or WASP males or 1/4 American Indian, 1/4 Black, 1/2 Japanese female workers. That is their choice, afterall they're footing the bill.
2. We're not pro-drug. Only an idiot thinks that
3. We're not pro-porn. It's obvious that where we really differ is that when we talk about limited government, we mean it whereas social conservatives talk about a government that is merely a few shades shy of an orthodox Socialist state.
4. Libertarians are diverse religiously. Most are not christians because Christianity is incompatable with limited government.

On the other hand, many of the people least anxious to implement a libertarian governent (Judeo-Christian cultural conservatives) are most likely and able to make one succeed. They are not anxious to see a libertarian government implemented because they realize popular culture has become so debased and disdainful of morality and self-discipline that this nation would almost immediately descend into anarchy and chaos that the Constitution could neither ameliorate nor prevent.

Wrong! We would already have chaos, disorder and disarray if things are as bad as you say that they are. No government in this country has the military power to hold off such a thing. The private firearm ownership rate in this country is too high for that (thank God!)

Before you social conservatives start bashing pop culture, define it. It isn't all encompasing. Is it just teeny boppers like britney, shakira and N'Sync or does it include every artist whose CDs are at your local record store? What about the movies. Does it include Anime? How about other types of import films that have a following in the US? The entire comic book industry or just Marvel, DC and Image? Be specific. It helps you make your case.

How are social conservatives the ones most likely to make our system work? Social conservatism inevitably leads to a nanny state. You people are what you claim to oppose. The left isn't social conservatism's opposite, it is its siamese twin.

As a practical matter, libertarianism is the least likely form of government to be implemented anyway The strong tendency is toward nanny government socialism. Therefore, any part of the libertarian agenda (e.g., legalization of drugs etc) that can be implemented will almost certainly be implemented according to a socialist model--not a libertarian model

And it was social conservatives like Nixon and McCarthy that destroyed the credability of anti-communists with the public.

[monday]

"I believe a nation's borders are sacrosanct America needs a strong defense"

Are these beliefs really at odds with libertarian philosophy?

No. National defence is one of the primary reasons for government, and while most libertarians support free migration, it makes absolutely no since in the current state of affairs.

I don't know of any libertarians who think that paying immigrants welfare benefits is a good idea. This simply encourages people to come to the country and live on the dole. Not good for them or us.

There is also a problem with our overly PC culture which encourages immigrants to rebel against the mainstream culture, and see themselves as victims rather than assimilate into the local economy and culture.

Until these problems change for the better, open borders are out of the question.

[Cultural Jihad]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." -Patrick Henry

[KC Burke]

Authoritians cannot reconcile their belief that man is inherently evil and therefore must be controlled, with the concept of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Agreed, although I know few Authoritatians and can't speak for them.

Old Whigs feel that man is a creature beloved by his Creator, capable of both good and bad and possesing free will and the corresponding responsibilities. For each freedom, there is corresponding duty. Good men, possibly corruptible or capable of wrong actions, must be hemmed in by Order to enjoy true liberty. That Order is of the soul, of the society, of the community and political as well.

Arbitrary Power and its abuses are what our forefathers despised above all else...they even revolted against its use in the most "free" and democratic institution of its day: Parliment.

Libertarians agree somewhat, and see Order as arising later, subsiquent to Virtue being found in liberty.

Rationalism and political constructs created whole-hog are alone what seperates us.

Stay well.

[monday]

"The only God that isn't authoritarian is the God of Deism. Every other view of God is of a God that says if you don't do things His way you go to Hell. Hell is basically a cosmic concentration camp."

LOL...ok, but I was talking practically. When was the last time you saw God do a no knock raid, and drag sinners off to Hell? You pay after you die. Until then you have a choice.

[Trailerpark Badass]

That God allows people to make stupid decisions does not mean He exalts and rewards stupid decisions in either the spiritual OR secular sphere.

Yet, when the government, under the fallacious pretense of trying to prevent people from making stupid decisions, "exalts and rewards" them for doing so, it is usurping the role of God and negating the role of nature (human and otherwise) in God's plan (in my opinion, of course).

[rdb3]

God is a libertarian.

This statement hinges on blasphemy. And He's no Republican, Democrat, Green, or any other party label, either.

[dheretic]

The Treaty of Tripoli Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....

"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul) Graphic Rule

[monday]

"This statement hinges on blasphemy. "

Relax, I didn't mean God was a dues paying member. I only meant that He allows people choice in how they live their lives. They can accept Him into their lives and live their lives as virtuously as they know how, or they can reject Him and live a life of moral vacancy.

God allows freedom of choice, and requires personal responsibility for ones actions. Do you agree?

[dcwusmc]

So you advocate punishing EVERYONE for what someone MIGHT do? If so, our Constitutional Republic is hardly the place for you. May I recommend North Korea or Iran as more to your liking? Here we punish people for what they actually DO, not what they MIGHT do if under the influence of something or other. (That is, we used to until the authoritarians started getting control of the machinery of government. But we Constitutionalists mean to reverse THAT vile trend.)

[rdb3]

I agree that the LORD allows free choice (even though He knows what we are going to do before we even think about it).

My objection here is that the LORD can not be reduced to a manmade political philosophy. He's not [L]libertarian. He's God.

[monday]

"Most are not christians because Christianity is incompatable with limited government. "

I disagree. As long as the church doesn't hold the reins of gov't power I believe Christianity is very compatable with limited Gov't. The founders and authors of the constitution were virtually all Christians.

Islam seems to be incompatable with limited Gov't because it seems to be as much a political idealogy as a religion. It is certainly not a limited type of Gov't either. Indeed it appears to be at least as oppressive and authoritative as communism, or fascism.

[monday]

"My objection here is that the LORD can not be reduced to a manmade political philosophy. He's not [L]libertarian. He's God."

It was not my intention to do that. If you misunderstood, I apologize.

[Cultural Jihad]

God allows freedom of choice, and requires personal responsibility for ones actions. Do you agree?

What goes unspoken in these sorts of 'God gave us free will and therefore we must allow people to do evil' argument is that apparently only criminals and perverts are allowed their free will. Normal people have no free will to discourage evil. Conservative voters are not free to vote for conservative politicians. Politicians are not free to pass conservative laws. Policemen are not free to enforce the laws. District Attorneys are not free to remand into custody for trial. Judges are not free to preside over cases. Juries are not free to judge innocence or guilt. And jailers are not free to incarcerate and punish. Liberals are always favoring the rights of criminals and perverts over the rights of normal people.

[rdb3]

Can't argue with you here, CJ.

[monday]

"Normal people have no free will to discourage evil. Conservative voters are not free to vote for conservative politicians. Politicians are not free to pass conservative laws. Policemen are not free to enforce the laws. District Attorneys are not free to remand into custody for trial. Judges are not free to preside over cases. Juries are not free to judge innocence or guilt. And jailers are not free to incarcerate and punish. "

Why not? Whats stopping you?

Its pretty clear that you feel yourself uniquely qualified to tell everyone else how to live their lives. Fine, you want to control others lives, don't be surprised if others demand the same privilege to control your life.

Want to keep your guns?...too bad, government has been given the power to make these decisions, you must conform.

Want to send your children to the school of your choice?...sorry, they must go where the government decides.

Want to attend the church of your choice?....nope you must attend only Government approved churches.

If you give the government control of how you live your life, you can expect that eventually they will get around to regulating every aspect of it. That which is not prohibited will be compulsory.

If this is the type of life you would wish for your children and grand children then keep voting for government control. Its your right, just as its my right to vote against it.

[Lev]

Libertarians: Want you to keep your money AND stay out of your bed room.

Exactly.

[yendu bwam]

You miss the point. When humans beings are given full liberty to do whatever they want, many of them will do things (even as unintended consequences) that hurt other people. Society therefore has to decide which things, if allowed, will cause so many to hurt other people that they cannot be allowed. We don't allow public sex because we understand that the harm it causes (particularly to children) outweighs the freedom many want to have to do so - the same for shooting up heroin and LSD, the same for keeping pit bulls and cobras and tigers in some communities, etc. Yes, you may see it as unfortunate that your liberty is prescribed by irresponsible people. But it would be foolish to not take into account those people when making the law. Someone else said on this thread that libertarianism requires absolute responsibility. It does, and given that we certainly don't have absolute responsibility in society, complete libertarianism doesn't work. Sorry.

[yendu bwam]

Some people are bad, some are good. Some are bad one day and good the next. Some are good in one area of their lives and bad in others. Being overly general and stating that man is either totaly good or evil in nature is very simplistic, and idealistic. Something he accuses libertarians of. I don't think he is saying that he thinks man is inherently bad. I admit am puzzled why he thinks libertarians believe man is inherently good? I think libertarians are far more realistic than he believes.

What he's saying is that libertarians frequently do not take adequately into account man's badness. Giving people certain freedoms, which responsible and good people could handle, (and which libertarians want), does not always work. Why? Because in some instances there are enough irresponsible and bad people who will take advantage of those freedoms and do bad things, and the harm caused will significantly outweigh the benefit of the freedom in the first place. For instance, some people in Michigan wanted a nude beach in a secluded area along a river in that state. They promised to be responsible, and not to offend those who wouldn't condone such behavior. The state gave them the OK to go ahead and have the nude beach. Within a couple of months, nude people were pushing into the non-nude beach areas (where families go), they started having sex in the nude beach parking lot (clearly visible from the highway), they starting having sex and especially homosexual sex in the public areas of the beach. Those who favored the family beach (about 95% of the local population) were forced to give up and abandon the beach. Law enforcement tried to do something about the situation, but didn't have enough manpower to constantly patrol the beach, to monitor all the abuses, and to make all the necessary arrests. - If you give all teenagers the right to invite their friends over when the parents are away, a large percentage of them will abuse that privilege, having alcohol and drug parties, and trashing the house. It would be senseless to have a libertarian law that said all teenagers should have that right. The sad fact is that many adults act like teenagers (or worse), and cause us to require certain laws which restrain all our freedoms, so that the irresponsibles out there don't get out of control. In that sense, pure libertarianism is a non-common sense approach to things.