Posted on 07/13/2002 2:49:41 PM PDT by fporretto
In 1987, a California organization called the Advocates for Self-Government, led by a brilliant polemicist named Marshall Fritz, set forth to persuade the nation that the libertarian political philosophy could answer most, if not all, of the most vexing questions in public debate. To aid in opening minds to his message, Mr. Fritz composed a short quiz, whose results were intended to determine where a man's opinions placed him in the overall distribution of political opinion. Mr. Fritz built a campaign around this quiz, and called it "Operation Politically Homeless," to emphasize the considerable gap that had grown up between the major political parties and the typical American. It was upon meeting Mr. Fritz and being exposed to his presentation of the libertarian idea that I first decided to call myself a libertarian.
Yet I'm still a politically homeless man, and am still made uncomfortable by it. Yes, I call myself a libertarian; note the lower-case L. However, I differ with "party" Libertarians -- note the upper-case L -- on several important topics. And the people I get along best with, by party affiliation, are not Libertarians but Republicans.
Many conservatives find themselves at odds with the official positions of the Republican Party on one or more important points. Yet most of those persons would not be comfortable with "pure" libertarianism, and for good reasons. It's too wholesale. It attempts to answer every question, to be all things to all men. And it fails to recognize where it ceases to provide palatable answers.
Please don't mistake me. I think the libertarian political philosophy, where applicable, is a very good one. It's more accurate in its assessment of human nature and its controlling influences, and leads to better societies and better economic results, than any other political concept ever advanced. But the "where applicable" part is very important; in fact, it's the most important part of this paragraph, as it explains in near-totality the "conservative-libertarian schism."
Where would the libertarian postulates of individual rights and individual responsibilities fail to apply? Three generic places:
The specific topics that fall within these categories are:
On the subject of international dealings, including military excursions, American libertarians have strained under the tension of conflicting desires. On the one hand, the State's warmaking power is the most dangerous thing it possesses, at least superficially. On the other, no one has yet advanced a plausible market-based scheme for protecting the country that would operate reliably enough to satisfy us. Moreover, the American military, with a few exceptions, really has been used in a wholesome, life-and-freedom-promoting way, against genuinely deserving targets, and has met high ethical standards wherever it's been sent.
Immigration is another area of real agony for American libertarians. There's much truth to the old saw that you can't be anti-immigrant without being anti-American, for America is largely a nation of immigrants. Yet the demise of the assumption of assimilation has rendered large-scale immigration to these shores a positive danger to the commonalities on which our national survival depends. It's unclear, given world trends, that we could re-invigorate the mechanisms that enforce assimilation any time soon. Until we do, the path of prudence will be to close the borders to all but a carefully screened trickle from countries with compatible cultures. Our collectivity must preserve its key commonalities -- a common language, respect for the law and a shared concept of public order, and a sense of unity in the face of demands posed by other nations or cultures -- if it is to preserve itself.
Milton Friedman, one of the century's greatest minds, wrote in his seminal book Capitalism And Freedom: "Freedom is a tenable objective for responsible individuals only. We do not believe in freedom for children or madmen." How true! "Pure" libertarianism has wounded itself badly by attempting to deny this obvious requirement of life: the irresponsible must be protected and restrained until they become responsible, so that they will be safe from others, and others will be safe from them. Madmen who were granted the rights of the sane nearly made New York City unendurable. If the "children's rights" lobby ever got its way, children would die in numbers to defy the imagination, and the American family would vanish.
Of course there are difficulties in determining who is responsible and who isn't. No one said it would be easy. Yet our court system, excepting the obscene, supra-Constitutional "Family Courts," works quite well to determine competence, and would work still better if it were relieved of the burden of all the victimless crimes that swell court dockets nationwide.
Finally, abortion. Let it be conceded that a woman has the right to control her body and its processes. But let it also be conceded that a fetus in the womb is a human being with human rights, not to be deprived of that status by any sophistry. The clash is absolute; rights theory cannot resolve it. Therefore an arbitrary political decision must be made. The position most compatible with other American ideals is to protect the weaker party -- the developing baby -- from destruction by the stronger, unless doing so would demonstrably endanger the life of the mother.
Pure libertarian thinking must concede these bounds -- the bounds of individual action, individual responsibility, and clearly defined, non-contradictory rights -- before "orthodox" conservatives will take it seriously.
By contrast with the above, matters such as the War On Drugs are minor bagatelles. Most conservatives are open-minded enough to consider the possibility that the Drug War might be misconceived. Indeed, there are far more conservatives in the pro-legalization ranks than liberals. The harmony between rights theory and the argument for legalization only buttresses the practical evidence that the Drug War's massive invasions of privacy, erection of unaccountable vice squad bureaus, and sanctification of police-state tactics has done far more harm than good. The conversation will continue, the evidence will accumulate still further, and eventually the Drug War will end.
On the purely practical matter of political efficacy, the Libertarian Party should not be expected to produce electoral victories. It can't, in the nature of things. It's not pragmatic enough to play to the populace's current desires or demands. As a particular "libertarian" position becomes popular enough to command wide support, it will usually be adopted by the Republicans. This is as it should be; third parties do their best work along the margins of the debate, by addressing the more "daring" ideas that the institutionally committed major parties can't afford to play with while they're still controversial.
There's no shame in adhering to either the LP or the GOP, whether your convictions are libertarian or more conventionally conservative. The only shame is in insisting that you must be right, that all precincts have reported now and forever, that your mind is unchangeably made up regardless of whatever new logic or evidence might be presented to you, from whatever source. But this was put far better by the polemicist admired by more conservatives and libertarians than any other, the late, great Ayn Rand:
"There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Rearden," Francisco said, "except one: the refusal to think." (from Atlas Shrugged)
I've come to the conclusion that this trend toward even ditch diggers needing at least a BA is to expose as many people as possible to the marxist indoctrinators on the faculties of colleges.
A friend of mine mailed me a clipping from the Help Wanted ads in his local newspaper a few years ago. The ad he highlighted listed the qualifications needed which included a BA in something or other. The closing line of the ad read, "Some heavy lifting involved". I $#!+ you not.
Every freedom loving person, every libertarian, from George Washington on down, all believe in non-aggression by governments.
That is horrifyingly funny, or hilariously horrific, I don't know which!!! :)
Hold that thought. Think of the War on Drugs and
lifestyle, victimless crimes. By making so much private
behavior illegal, we are in fact making scofflaw criminals
of great swaths of the population. This is corrosive
to good citizenship, at the least, which leads to degradation
of society. Degradation of society is the prime rationale
of those who support and demand more victimless crime
penalties and lifestyle regulation. Think about it.
Thank you for your post. When I said "our" children, I actually meant "our" as in "my husband's and mine". It is not my place to enforce my views on other families through the gov't.
Also, my children are not in public schools. In fact, they're not in school at all. We homeschool them.
Thank you for your other comments, too. I do not dislike people based on their beliefs alone. However, I do become defensive when my own beliefs (or nonbeliefs) are attacked and I'm lumped with other groups that have nothing to do with "atheism". "Atheism" simply means "a" (without) "theism" (belief in a god or gods). That's all.
Letting each idiot learn directly from his own mistakes is less costly than having everybody learn from the mistakes of "America's only native criminal class" as Mark Twain referred to the Congress. Besides which even idiots can observe the other idiots and learn something valuable. For example, without the government it is fairly easy to observe that recreational drugs are dangerous and destructive. Unfortunately, with government prohibition the idiot also quickly learns that drugs provide an immense profit opportunity too. The best balance in terms of cost is to limit the power of government to involve itself at all in these matters. A relatively few idiots will suffer if drugs are legal but many more suffer when drugs are prohibited and society itself pays a much greater price in terms of quality of life and the expense of funding the government (the idiots also pay more for their drugs and commit an endless stream of property crimes to fund their habits).
Once an entity is created its operatives will always act to extend the power and reach of the entity that employs them. This means that every consecutive tentative decision made by government tends eventually to increase its power and scope until the cost to the people greatly outweighs any potential benefits the government was originally created to provide. Our federal government today not only costs more than it is worth but acts to our detriment and against our collective wishes and best knowledge with absolute impunity. This conclusion is not tentative. It is a law of nature: the more energy an entity uses the less of that energy can be used to perform useful work. Most of it is pure waste.
As I've read this thread, my initial hunch is coming to pass, namely, that heated idealism is getting in the way of anything constructive. Your idea here is viable constructivism (as I see it) and must be supported. But when ideologues get in the way as they already have here, this becomes nothing more than a 2002 version of the Tower of Babel which is doomed to destruction.
I like your thinking here, Mr. Porretto. Would that there were more of it.
Thanks for this fine, insightful essay, fporretto. I like the way you solve the abortion impasse. But of course, it doesn't quell the controversy to say that our presumption ought in principle to be the protection of the rights of the unborn. Some Libertarians believe that a pre-born person doesn't have rights; or if in some sense he does, they are not such that can possibly trump the mother's right to "control her body" (i.e., to terminate an unwanted child). Libs and Cons can get together on many, many issues. But clearly not all. best, bb.
We believe in not *initiating* violence, but in carrying a big stick to stop it.
Well good on you, but what percentage of the population thinks that way? 1%, 5%, 10%? When those who disagree with you create a government and impose their will on you, what will you do?
Some years ago, when I was involved with the LP, there was a speaker at a New York Libertarian Party convention by the name of Andrew Melechinsky -- no reason for you to have heard of him, he was an entirely local figure with no national visibility -- who chided libertarians generally for backing abortion, on the grounds that the most beautiful thing about the freedom philosophy is how pro-life it is in every other way. And you know, he scored some points. A significant number of the attendees were impressed by the argument, and many others looked as if they wished he hadn't opened his mouth.
We badly need President Bush's concept of a culture of life. We need to make a society in which women want the children they carry. Because abortion is so easy, and so easy to conceal, laws against it can only achieve so much. We've demonstrated the limitations of law and its enforcement with the Drug War.
There is much to be done. To do it will require a libertarian-conservative coalition whose members are agreed on general principles and who are willing to work on their differences in a spirit free of rancor. I am committed to building that coalition. Will you help?
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Some of your questions may be answered more easily in fictional form. The Probability Broach and The American Zone, by L. Niel Smith, are two books set in a parallel universe with an "America" based on libertarian ideals. The characters explain their philosophies very clearly and make some good points.
Ah, but faith in your fellow man is at least a forgivable foolishness.
That's a fascinating observation he/she has made there. But...uh...there has never been any "threat" of Jerry Falwell "ruling" our society. Never been any chance of a fundamentalist theocratic tyranny (except in the wild, paranoid, liberal imagination). More "privacy of the bedroom" fantasies of liberal paranoia perhaps? Wacky liberals and sex perverts are probably the only people that waste time worrying about Jerry Falwell and Co. taking over. There was, what, one run for the presidency by Robertson in the GOP primaries and he attracted a small minority of that vote, already representing a fraction of the conservative spectrum, itself a minority. Secular humanist liberals need a Time Machine to teleport themselves back to 17th-century Massachusetts to realize these fantasies.
Disclaimer: 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.