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.

[monday]

"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. "

I believe that adults should have the freedom to do as they like as long as they do not cause harm to others. If they make poor decisions that cause themselves harm, I am sorry but that is their problem.

I am not willing to give up my freedom, so that Government can be a Nanny to all of those too irresponsible to make wise decisions on their own.

In my experience Gov't intervention usually causes waste, inefficiency, and makes everyone unhappy. Why you would trust such an organization to regulate your private life is a mystery to me.

See my post #57 if you think government control of your life is a good thing.

Remember, once you give Gov't the power to regulate your private life, there are those who may decide they want to regulate it in ways that you may not like or even expect. Many Democrats are eager for the power to tell you how you may live your life. You make it easy for them by essentially agreeing that government regulation of personal behavior is a good thing.

What will you say when the "PC thought" police show up at your door demanding you report to a re-education camp? lol

[VA Advogado]

For discussion. Farah is certainly an articulate fellow.

And he's generally right about libertines. Uninformed clowns, one and all.

[yendu bwam]

I believe that adults should have the freedom to do as they like as long as they do not cause harm to others. If they make poor decisions that cause themselves harm, I am sorry but that is their problem.

No, it is society's problem (meaning my problem, or my children's problem).

[yendu bwam]

I am not willing to give up my freedom, so that Government can be a Nanny to all of those too irresponsible to make wise decisions on their own.

Well, you give up that freedom every day, so you must be willing (unless you go out and break the law) - or live in another country.

[yendu bwam]

In my experience Gov't intervention usually causes waste, inefficiency, and makes everyone unhappy. Why you would trust such an organization to regulate your private life is a mystery to me.

I never even hinted that I trust the government!!! I don't on most issues!

[yendu bwam]

Remember, once you give Gov't the power to regulate your private life, there are those who may decide they want to regulate it in ways that you may not like or even expect. Many Democrats are eager for the power to tell you how you may live your life. You make it easy for them by essentially agreeing that government regulation of personal behavior is a good thing.

The government has had limited powers to regulate our life since the founding of our country. And every other government on the face of the Earth has the same. I agree that we have way too much regulation of our lives. But some regulation is necessary and essential. That is where libertarians are on the wrong track.

[yendu bwam]

What will you say when the "PC thought" police show up at your door demanding you report to a re-education camp? lol

I will fight them tooth and nail. But this wasn't the topic of the debate! You want to make me out as someone who wants government to regulate everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Farah was saying was that total freedom to do what we want doesn't work because many people are bad. And he's right.

[steve-b]

The truth is there's more to life than politics. Much more.

Well, yes, but that's beside the point. When resolving a political issue, one focuses on politics. It is appropriate for libertarians (and conservatives, and liberals, and so on) to focus on politics for the same reason it is appropriate for architects (and civil engineers, and car designers, and so on) to focus on mechanical physics.

[yendu bwam]

I believe that adults should have the freedom to do as they like as long as they do not cause harm to others. If they make poor decisions that cause themselves harm, I am sorry but that is their problem.

Misread this. When you give some types of freedom to people, some (the bad people) will inevitably use it in a way that causes harm to YOU. That's what Farah was saying.

[steve-b]

Hypnotism--witchraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION

Did you copy this from a Dr. Bronner's Soap label?

[monday]

"they starting having sex and especially homosexual sex in the public areas of the beach. "

This is not behavior that doesn't harm others. The police should throw them all in jail, just as they would any other law breaker.

There are always people who will intentionally abuse and harm others. Passing more and more laws will not stop them. Banning guns, will not stop criminals from using guns to commit crime. If someone murders someone with a gun, charge them with murder. Don't ban guns. If someones drug abuse is causing them to neglect their child, charge them with child abuse. Don't ban drugs.

Banning drugs, or guns, or anything else for which there is a demand, only makes criminals wealthy, because it is they who will step in and fill the demand.

Just as prohibition gave rise to organized crime in the 30's by making them rich, drug prohibition is doing the same now.

[Aedammair]

It's a good article, chuck full of truth, and that quote by Washington shows why we are, and have been for decades, in need of leaders with his intellect and lack of appetite for the job.

I distrust anyone wanting to be President from the get go, because the desire for, and reasons to, want to wield that kind of power should be scrutinized. Washington had to basically be talked into being President, no recent politician that I'm aware of who has attempted to capture the Presidency can say the same.

[monday]

"When you give some types of freedom to people, some (the bad people) will inevitably use it in a way that causes harm to YOU. "

So what you are saying is that we should ban the freedom to own guns because some, (the bad people) will inevitably use them in a way that causes harm to you?

Shall we ban Alcohol too? Some people use it irresponsibly.

What about motor vehicles? Irresponsible automobile use kills thousands every year.

Cell phones don't kill people it's true, but many people use them very irresponsibly, annoying hundreds of thousands, and damaging their quality of life. Perhaps they should be banned?

Actually, there isn't a human activity on the planet that doesn't offend someone, somewhere. Shall all human activity be banned?

Who gets to decide? You? Perhaps we should let the Democrats decide since they seem to be in the majority now? What do you think?

[monday]

"The government has had limited powers to regulate our life since the founding of our country. And every other government on the face of the Earth has the same. "

It is supposed to have limited powers acording to the constution, but it has assumed more and more powers during the last two and a quarter centurys. The founders never envisioned the type of over regulation and the intrusiveness of the current federal government. Their vision was of a realitively small ferderal government and state governments that would regulate, or not, the type of personal behavior laws that we are discussing.

As for every other government on earth having limited powers, well you probably didn't mean it that way, but if you did, I would remind you of North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, China, Zimbabwa, Pakistan, Libia, etc. I don't imagine their citizens would share your views that their governments powers are limited.

[f.Christian]

All you did was smoke the label...you didn't try the soap--shampoo??

The big lie/con/scam...

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progess---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law/constitution--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the classical liberals...founding fathers--principles...stable/sane scientific reality/society---industrial progress!

Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin...atheist secular materialists INSANITY through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and calling--RENAMING/CLAIMING all technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!

Libbertearaliens---Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too!

Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION...

all liberalism--evolution insanity/revisionism!

[yendu bwam]

Yes, yes, yes. The point is, governments everywhere must regulate people's live to some degree. We have overregulation here, but some regulation is necessary.

[yendu bwam]

So what you are saying is that we should ban the freedom to own guns because some, (the bad people) will inevitably use them in a way that causes harm to you?

When the inevitable harm (or the cost of eliminating it) outweighs the value of the freedom (as it does on some issues), regulation is needed.

[yendu bwam]

This is not behavior that doesn't harm others. The police should throw them all in jail, just as they would any other law breaker.

Yes, but when the cost to the town taxpayer of providing an around-the-clock police force to enforce the law grows too high, the town (representing 95% of the people) is perfectly reasonable in saying that the cost of the freedom granted is too high. Again, if everyone were responsible, there would be no cost to that freedom. But they aren't, and there often is a substantial cost borne by society as a whole. Libertarians miss this.

[monday]

"When the inevitable harm (or the cost of eliminating it) outweighs the value of the freedom (as it does on some issues), regulation is needed."

So it's ok with you if anything is banned so long as a majority of the people, or a well connected special interest group, believe that on balance it would be better to ban it?

I guess there is no point in arguing with you since you don't believe in freedom. You have alot of company in this country unfortunatly.

Don't say I didn't warn you when something or some activity you hold dear is banned as well.

Our society is creeping towards the totalitarianism. We are smothering ourselves in good intentions.

Strange that you don't see it when you admit that: "We have overregulation here, "

[Japedo]

When you give some types of freedom to people, some (the bad people) will inevitably use it in a way that causes harm to YOU. That's what Farah was saying.

Yes, yes, yes. The point is, governments everywhere must regulate people's live to some degree. We have overregulation here, but some regulation is necessary.

I pose to you a Question Yendu, Who "GIVES" us rights? Does Government Grant our rights? Or Does our Creator (God) grant us our rights?