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)
Generally, I regard libertarians as "being on the same page that I am on" often enough that I see them as allies. At one time here down South, there was a breed of Southern Democrat who was often more conservative that the more moderate Republicans. Indeed, I have supported a few in years gone by. I will try to get back tomorrow and look over the replies.
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.
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.
If one does not believe in God, heaven, hell, eternal reward and punishment, individual immortality, onbe 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.
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.
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.
2. Constitutional law is indeed a serious thing. Where, in the actual text of the Constitution, do you find a general right to abortion on demand? Or do you subscribe to the theory that if the constitutional ruling feels good or agrees with your preconceived notions, it must be good constitutional law?
3. Do you believe that the constitution is a fixed document which may be amended only according to its own specific written provisions? Or do you believe that it is a "living" document which must be construed and reconstrued by the courts and principally the United States Supreme Court to fit the changing demands of successive eras in our history?
Abortions occur whether there are laws against them or not. Civil society expresses a strong approbation against abortion that serves to dissuade responsible women as strongly as any law. Does society benefit when the irresponsible reproduce? Should a woman who will abort be prevented from doing so if the result is destined to be another irresponsible adult? Can a woman legally decide for herself that her optimal reproductive strategy does not permit her to successfully raise an additional child or a specific child? Where in the Constitution is the state empowered to make this decision for her? Can a woman refuse to permit her own child to parasitize her body for nine months and then constrain her to a life of unremitting toil to raise the child to adulthood? Decisions of this kind belong exclusively to the family or to the woman (only women can reproduce).
Where governments dictate reproductive policy the results are necessarily at odds with the objective of a sustainable civilized society because the law of unintended consequences always prevails. The Chinese government limited families to one or two children. Because of the limit and the widely held desire for at least one male child the female fetus is routinely aborted. As a result of this policy the sex ratio in some locations is 20 males to 1 female. Most of those precious male children will never have children of their own.
If the United States were to prohibit abortion not only would a new criminal activity and corresponding law enforcement apparatus come into existence but it would also skew the population ratio of illegitimate and unwanted children to children who are loved and wanted. The effect on society would be coarsening and destructive. Leaving the decision to the mother is the most efficient way of resolving the abortion issue. All the consequences are confined to the woman and her unborn child if abortion is legal. If abortion is illegal then society pays for the policy as well.
Yet most religionists argue that they're the "man with the plan" because they know "God's will." Such arrogance has always lead to folly. The metaphysical world of the Bible looks more like a government bureacracy than anything else. It should thus come as no surprise that most "believers" are inclined to look for government approaches and semi-violently attack those who advocate a market-based approach. Drugs are a perfect example. I'm a Deist, not a Christian. I frankly don't really care if you OD on Heroin. If you are stupid enough to use it, you get what you deserve. Why? You knew that would be the consequence of your action and you took the action anyway. There is a very darwinian aspect to drug legalization. Such approaches to morality assume that most people are so utterly stupid and depraved that the barrel of a gun is the only thing that keeps them from partaking of a vice. The vast majority of people would never even try Heroin for the same reason that they would never stick their head into a grocery bag filled with model glue...
Most of the LP members I know are conservative Christians. You've clearly bought into a caricature that completely misses the actual demographics of the LP. I'm not an LP member, but I've known lots of people that were and most aren't as you describe. In fact, some of the nutty overtly religious types running that party are a primary reason I don't subscribe to it.
Don't knock it 'till you've...was I typing? Oh, yeah...
I'm a Deist, not a Christian. I frankly don't really care if you OD on Heroin. If you are stupid enough to use it, you get what you deserve
Do Deists love God? Do they love His works?
Reason is my basis. - An egg is not a being, nor is a sperm. -- Combining them in a lab is not an act of creation. Months of gestation are necessary before a viable human being, with individual rights exists.
- So our existing law reasons, with no better solution. You have one? - Where?
2. Constitutional law is indeed a serious thing. Where, in the actual text of the Constitution, do you find a general right to abortion on demand? Or do you subscribe to the theory that if the constitutional ruling feels good or agrees with your preconceived notions, it must be good constitutional law?
The mothers right to life, liberty, and property will do. --- Or have you found some 'power' that would enable government to sequester pregnant women at the moment of conception?
3. Do you believe that the constitution is a fixed document which may be amended only according to its own specific written provisions? Or do you believe that it is a "living" document which must be construed and reconstrued by the courts and principally the United States Supreme Court to fit the changing demands of successive eras in our history?
Yes, the constitution is a fixed limitation on government powers, and it guarantees individual, inalienable rights to ALL, including pregnant women.
My hope when I chose my freeper name was to remake the GOP in a more libertarian direction without adopting the non-agression and other bad ideas from the Libertarian party.
Libertarianize the GOP
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.
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.
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.
Libertarian, from what I have picked up on FR seems kind of anarchist to me. And anarchy is mahem, I'm far too lazy for mahem.
Only with a populace who recognizes no Law. The Israelites had no king and no police, just the judges, and they did pretty well, no?
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.