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'm going to have to disagree with you a bit. Ten years ago, I would consider myself, a conservative Christian Republican. Now I'm leaning to conservative Christian libertarian for several reasons. First off, the WOD. Now as a Christian I understand and know that the 'feel good do it' mentality is wrong. However I also understand that under the Constitution of these United States, there is no real defining of this power. Sure I've seen the arguments, but they're weak. Should the WOD continue? Not at the federal level. However, there should be laws on drugs passed and prosecuted at the state level.
The other issue is conservatism. At least here in NC, the Republican candidates the RNC backs are liberal to say the least. I'm constantly flamed for it, but take a look between Liddy Dole and Erskine Bowles. I can't find an issue that they truly differ on, except maybe by a few degrees. I will agree that the Libertarian Party in its truest form exists with few morals, however I have left the Republican Party and joined the Southern Party, an up and coming party that will in years to come hopefully cause a stir for us down here in 'occupied territory' (yes, I'm one of those)
I have to say that the Republicans have left me behind a long time ago on many issues. I am for a national defense, I do believe in fighting for the right cause but I also see this nation of states has become what the Founders left behind over 200 years ago with its citizens not much more than subjects to the centralized government in Washington DC. I do not believe or support a tariff to protect jobs for any reason. In the end it hurts the industry and for the short term causes higher prices. I am on the fence on immigration. I do believe in protection of borders, especially with the general government funding every social program under the sun. However if those social programs were limited to citizens instead of anyone that could get a driver's license as they are now, I'm not sure I have as much of a problem with immigration.
Abortion? Of course it is wrong, but heck look at the number of Republican candidates this year that either don't have an official stance or are open to 'limited' abortions. Same case with homosexuality. We are pandering to less than 2% of the population for fear of being labeled hateful. Yet more Republicans either condone this sickness outright or in private. The Democratic Party may differ on the fiscal side of the party lines but the Republican Party as a whole is moving to the left. I didn't move as much as the Party picked up the tent, moved it, and staked it in the middle of the road. I'm still over here on the far right but tended to be ostracized by many of my former party's members for my beliefs.
You say you make sure your Christian friends understand the Libertarian Party and its stance, I'd start questioning them about what the Republican Party seems to be doing, especially here in the South. Look at the RINOs lined up and ready to win. Sure Republicans may 'win back the Senate', Bush may even throw a judge out there to the cheers of the party faithful, but at what cost. What will they be doing 5, 10, or even 15 years from now. Look at Bush's latest agency invention. A SWAT team to fight corporate corruption? What? Were there not laws in place before for corruption whether it be lying to the stockholders, insider trading, or outright embezzlement? Is the general government's regulation of the stock market somehow going to help cure all our ills, turn the stock market around, and help the economy? Yet, so many Senators, Representatives, or anyone else in Washington possibly affected by a political vote is jumping on the bandwagon of corporate responsibility, the axle's going to break on the wagon!! And the guys yelling loudest are Republicans!! They're just in it for the vote, whichever of their constituents see the nightly news, see that their Congressman is fighting for them, and maybe get a vote out of it. Does it really matter if they have a D or an R beside their name anymore? From the past 6 months, I'm beginning to believe it doesn't.
LOL...I had to go and look at his home page to see if that is what it said, and sure enough there is was. If this is what our colleges are turning out as an excuse for a political science major, we are in bigger trouble than what I thought.
Please do not confuse libertarianism (limited government)
with anarchy (no government.).
I look at the requirement for teachers in the way of degrees and
wonder why. We sure don't pay them for the time spent at university.
Heck, even a city librarian opening requires a master's degree.
Then I consider that I could teach my profession to a class
better than any general teacher ever could, and I don't have a
degree at all.
That a political science graduate would be so ignorant, yet so
convinced of his mistaken views, makes me wonder why, in lieu
of a year of OJT, any job below research scientist requires
college education at all.
No conflict exists here unless you look to religion for morality. Religion has no place in politics. Secular ethics are the only answer for a modern civil society.
Libertarian, from what I have picked up on FR seems kind of anarchist to me.
We agree with anarchists less than most on the religious right agree with socialism (well actually there are strong similarities between the religious right and socialism so maybe that is a bad comparison...).
And anarchy is mahem, I'm far too lazy for mahem.
Anarkia: (Greek) lacking a king. Anarchy means lack of a government. It does not imply mayhem. An anarchistic society is more likely to be peaceful than one ruled by either Jerry Falwell or Vladimir Lenin. Government is often little more than deadly force institutionalized. Most government is not legitimate. Didn't your parents teach you that violence rarely ever solves anything?
An anarchistic society is more likely to be peaceful than one ruled by either Jerry Falwell or Vladimir Lenin
Fair enough, if supported by evidence. What examples can you offer?
Yes, and how might I avoid that without asking the question?
My point in asking was to understand exactly what libertarians do advocate. I was looking for an informative answer.
I have wondered that myself. Most everything I have actually learned that had any bearing on the real world, outside of accounting, I learned outside of school. Then again, I have always had a desire to learn and have found that one lifetime is not nearly enough time to learn all that I would like to know.
I could have written that myself, including the part about accounting.
Nice to meet another lover of learning. I'll remember your screen
name and look forward to your opinions on other subjects.
Oh gee, let me think, it settled the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Spanish/American War, WW1, WW2, and it will settle this War on Terror.
Lack of government is chaos, like what we have now, we lack principled governance, but even though it's bad and getting ever worse and will eventually disolve into chaos, it still beats no government at the present time.
Libertarians are similar to liberals seems to me, both given to flights of fancy. I get tickled at the PC movies where the liberal talks the killer out of his weapon using shame, reason, and sympathy. Liberals and Libertaires must have led sheltered lives, if they really believe that stuff.
...derive their authority from something other than an obligation to protect the liberty of the people.
Have you an example of the above?
The Spanish/American war was a war of aggression and the War on Terror is not even a declared war. The majority of the powers the feds have assumed during it will do nothing but help to oppress the public. Bush has made no case for why the feds need any new powers at all. If the terrorists are in as large of numbers as they claim then do some good intel work and dispatch infantry to kill them, even if that means busting down someone's apartment door and shooting them in bed. The US faced a similar situation with the Left back in the turn of the 20th century. Good police investigations to get the names of the terrorists did the job without creating a police state. All we need is to pull SEAL team 5 off any current assignments and use it to hunt down and kill any terrorist on our soil.
Lack of government is chaos, like what we have now, we lack principled governance, but even though it's bad and getting ever worse and will eventually disolve into chaos, it still beats no government at the present time.
Your argument, like all religionist arguments against anarchism, puts absolutely not one iota of faith in the ability of the people to not slaughter each other like cattle, rape and pillage each other and destroy all of human civilization without the threat of the guillotine hanging over their heads. It is also built on a completely irrational basis. If man is not good enough to rule himself, he is absolutely under no circumstances good enough to rule another. If anarchy cannot work then its opposite is a guaranteed failure. Government works because man is capable of governing himself competently. If he were not, then the government would collapse within a year of its establishment.
And 80% of Libertarians would blow his head off if they had a gun and could do so without putting a hostage or something like that in danger. We tend to have far less qualms about retaliating in self-defense than conservatives. That's one of the reasons why you won't see a libertarian having compassion for a heroin addict who committs a violent crime. We blame the a$$hole, not the drug for the crime.
Liberals and Libertaires must have led sheltered lives, if they really believe that stuff.
Leftists, yes. My libertarianism is the result of seeing the herd-mentality imposed on most of my peers by religious-totalitarianism and wanting none of it. You have no right to legislate away the product of my labor to fund your "poverty war" programs, to support your elderly who never bothered to save for their retirement nor your socialized healthcare for the poor. The only legitimate functions of government are providing basic infrastructure like roads, military, police and courts.
The level of corruption in both leftist and rightist dominated government in this country would make Ken Lay blush yet most people don't have the will to reform. They think they also have the right to continue grafting more of the wages of productive workers for their petty little programs. They think it is legitimate because they voted for it. Pure rubbish. Democracy is the most sinister form of might-makes-right. If government were limited to its true rightful functions people could be chosen at random from the law-abiding population to serve 1 year terms in Congress/State assembly. Such people would have far more balls when dealing with government corruption because they'd be coming in as some average joe who has had to spend most of his/her life funding it.
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.