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)
Alexander Bickel argued that the courts were "the least dangerous branch." Of course, he never met Blackmun.
George Washington was most certainly no libertarian as that term is understood today. His views and those of Hamilton were as close as their friendship and mutual admiration and they were the views of a new class of American Tory (as opposed to British Tory) horrified by the possibility that anyone not of an aristocratic elite might have power here. They also shared massive contempt for the original Tom Paine.
You might benefit from the development of the capacity to distinguish between your personal policy preferences and our fundamental law. America and 40 million slaughtered children would have benefited if Herod Blackmun had been capable of that distinction or honest enough to implement it.
If, as you have previously agreed, the constitution is a fixed document amendable only by its own provisions, then the SCOTUS has no business promiscuously imposing the social policy preferences of its transitory majorities as though those preferences were constitutional writ.
Your pop knee-jerk mantras are no substitute for thinking and your sloganeering is not substance. No one ought to feel intimidated by such lack of substance or knowledge.
Also, as I understand it, libertarianism claims to oppose the initiation of force against another or, by a different formulation, the unwarranted initiation of force against another (which is actually virtually identical since only the express or necessarily implied initiation of force by that other justifies force in response).
The discussion should not be about Republican or Libertarian Parties at all. It should be about conservative (defined as supporting the Constitution, as written) or liberal (bypassing the Constitution for political expedience). You will note that I did not rely solely on terms that might be interpreted differently by different people, but defined my usage of those terms.
We must keep in mind that our purpose is to elect those who will restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, regardless of what terms they use to describe their position or what banner they run under. I expect that there are few Republican voters who honestly believe that there are not some elected Republicans who have let down the voters. In fact, in the name of political expedience, many Republicans gleefully voted for such totalitarian legislation as the USA Patriot Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, among others. In fact, if a Libertarian fits the bill better than the Republican candidate, then we should vote accordingly. Conversely, avowed Libertarians should not let party loyalty keep them from supporting a Republican, who stands solidly behind the Constitution.
We need to send a message that we will no longer sell out the Constitution for such a trivial excuse as party loyalty. And yes, I know the party retort. Someone is going to start spouting that tired old GOP party line, about how we sometimes have to compromise on the Constitution, or lose half of our seats in Congress. Well, if that's so, consider this.
Compromising on principle is how we got into this position in the first place. If Republicans can't get elected and win re-election by sticking solidly by the Constitution, then it's already too late and we have already lost.
I don't think that it has reached that point yet. But, if loyal party robots don't start voting their convictions, rather than blindly voting straight ticket, it won't be long before it does reach that point.
The discussion of abortion, being a strictly religious issue, that is seen differently by the various religions that have congregations in the United States, has no place in political discussion in a country that claims as a founding principle, that it will not endorse nor deny any religion.
Although, because of my Christian upbringing, I am personally opposed to abortion, I believe that any law that prohibits abortion would violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution by, in effect, establishing Christianity as the national religion.
The Constitution is a fluid document, but not in the way that the liberals would have us believe. It is fluid because of the defined amendment process, that allows the people to vote to change the document, as necessary. The original document has been amended 27 times. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. If anti-abortion advocates want to make Christianity the national religion, then they should be pushing for an amendment to the Constitution, that will remove the restriction that is the very first part of the 1st Amendment, rather than pressing for an obviously un-Constitutional law. Get that amendment to the states and I will cast my vote. But, if we continue to reinterpret the Constitution every time we don't like a restriction that is a part of it, we might as well not have a Constitution.
The Constitution not only gives us a way to amend it, but a way to remove or modify those amendments, as well. Until the Constitution is amended to allow for the establishment of a national religion, the discussion of abortion (pro or con, Republican or Libertarian) has no proper place in our political dialog.
All my best,
Fran
To me, 95% of the abortion argument is people puffing out their chests and preening and parading around that they are more moral than the rest of us. They do almost nothing about really reducing the number of abortions. If they'd spend all this energy on an "Adoption not Abortion" campaign, they could reduce the number of abortions and help millions of families get started.
"If it feels good, do it" is hereby given up. Welcome aboad the Liberty Train. I'll supply an appropriate certificate certifying this renunciation, if you require it.
I know it doesn't require punishing the women, but that's ridiculous logic. You prosecute the hitman and leave the person who hired the hitman alone. Why do pro-lifer's leave the women alone? Because they believe the women are weak, stupid and helpless and they are victims of the abortionists. You also ignore the possibilities of self-induced abortions either mechanical or via drugs. Who do you prosecute then?
"Concerning the women, most of the abortions with which I am personally familiar were far more desired by the boyfriend than the woman (girl.) In one case serious pressure was applied to get the girl to go through with it."
Yup, see above.
"I think most Americans would strongly support the removal of public funding for abortions and organizations involved with abortions. This requires changing the status quo and a rather ugly political fight. I'm afraid you can't avoid choosing sides."
I agree and why don't the pro-lifers focus on an accheivable objective and work with the libertarians for example, who agree with pro-lifers on this issue? I find most pro-lifers, simply want an issue to prove that they are more moral than the rest of us slugs. One reason for their lack of success since 1971. You don't create allies, when you are dissing them.
"Most thinking Americans strongly support ending Roe V. Wade, even if it is because the understand it is a great insult to our Constitution. This requires an even uglier politcal fight."
This is simply untrue or Roe would've been overturned years ago. Why not start with issues you can win, then more on?
No welcome needed. I'm a card-carrying LP-er.
However, we need more friends, and to get 'em, we need to be less stupid.
Whew! Where do I start? Okay, answer me this: Why is the hitman the target and not the person who hired the hitman? Where's the logic? If your plan goes into effect, I can tell you already, what will happen. Women will conduct self-induced abortions, either mechanically or via drugs. You've built up the abortionist into such a boogeyman, you miss the point. You're comparison to the war on drugs is telling. Just as the drug warriors have drugs running around and attacking people, you have abortions running around and attacking women and the gun-grabbers do the same thing with guns. Only people are the moral actors, not inanimate objects or procedures.
"What really makes you a pro-abort and not a libertarian one (if such a thing as a genuine pro-abort libertarian could ever exist) is your denial of the human individuality of the innocent unborn child who has been killed for the convenience of the parents and all of that child's rights. If you also happen to be an agnostic or atheist, you are denying that child everything (at least in your mind). If you are a believer, you know that the child's soul is immortal but you will have some impossible explaining to do at death."
I may be wrong on the time, but the Catholic Church at one time, believed that the soul entered the body at quickening, the first body movements, which happens at three months (?). I believe that is the position of the Mormon Church, so abortion before that time was not dealing with a human being.
"The closest that one can come to libertarianism and still be a conservative is the fusionism of the late Frank Meyer. People of libertarian inclination among conservatives are not likely to feel comfortable with the sizeable agnostic and atheist wing of libertarians."
Who cares if they feel comfortable? What are you, a bunch of liberals? It's politics. You put together a coalition to get a majority of votes to enact your policies. Conservatives and pro-lifers especially, seem to me to be more interested in parading their superior morality than in actually accomplishing anything. Just my opinion formed over the past 20 years.
"If one does not believe in God, heaven, hell, eternal reward and punishment, individual immortality, one has little in common with those who do believe in all of those and the difference makes for great differences in approach to many apparently unrelated areas of public policy."
You still work in areas you agree on and you leave people to deal with their Creator when their time comes. Keep that out of politics.
"One who is an atheist or an agnostic might well be tempted to wonder what makes religion such a big deal to believers. Believers cannot fail to be amazed at anyone doubting the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Agnosticism and atheism, unaccompanied by a very difficult to achieve level of self-generated morality, leads, at best, to the sterile path of utilitarianism which is not likely to find enthusiasts among believers."
Natural Rights develops a morality without reference to God and doesn't lead to utilitarianism. Read Murray Rothbard, if you're interested. In politics, you still work with people on issues you agree with them and it doesn't serve your cause to insult them or question their morality or humanity.
"Tread lightly on matters such as abortion that far transcend in importance a "philosophy" which encompasses not much more nowadays than the obsessive and irrational selfishness of the Randian and of la Rand herself who suffered ideological demolition in life by such diverse voices as Ludwig von Mises and Whittaker Chambers, each a far more honest and rigorous thinker, apeaker and writer than she. In my not so humble opinion."
And your point is? I'm not a Randian, never was, never will be.
That's why we don't turn women who have abortions into victims of abortion!!!
The goal is not to find some absolute sense of justice. It is to stop, or at least curtail, abortions, which can be fairly defined as the intentional infliction of very real suffering on an innocent person -- namely a child.
I'd been willing to compromise even more for significant gains. How about prosecuting only those who accept money for performing abortions? I wouldn't be surprised if that would cut abortions by 90 percent.
I agree and why don't the pro-lifers focus on an accheivable objective and work with the libertarians for example, who agree with pro-lifers on this issue?
So, where are they? I hear them yap about drugs enough. Why don't they find issues upon which they can build a consensus-- such as cutting off abortion funding -- win them and go on from there?
"Most thinking Americans strongly support ending Roe V. Wade . ..This is simply untrue or Roe would've been overturned. . .
The phrase was "thinking Americans." Do you feel Roe was properly decided?
You couldn't be more wrong-headed than this. It's the GOP, who keeps promising to "reform" the government schools not the LP. They're the ones telling you to stay with the government schools, not the LP. The LP has been on the forefront for homeschooling for a decade before most people had even heard of homeschooling. Jeesh, where do you get this stuff.
If one stays in the Republican Party, one can either fight for change and be labled disloyal if one won't support unconstitutional or unethical party/candidate practices. IOW, 'if you don't like it, leave'.
If one leaves the Republican Party, one is faces the 'voting to allow democrats/greens/liberals/etc to win' fallacy.
If one votes party ticket out of loyalty or the 'any Republican is better than any Democrat' philosophy, then one is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
So far, I haven't found any solutions that met everyone's needs. Therefore, I'll just vote as I damn please, encourage others to do the same, and let the Lord take care of the results.
BTW, I don't have a great need to stick my finger in the air, see what is popular or what is a winning position and go that way. As stupid as most people are, following the crowd is sheer folly.
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.