Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.
Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.
His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.
Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.
The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?
Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.
We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:
In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.
Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.
However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.
Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.
Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.
I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.
Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."
The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.
Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.
What justification does Prof. Singer express for his position on euthanasia?
Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.
However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood.Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. Accordingly, we oppose all laws that impede these processes, notably those restricting private adoption services. In particular, we call for the repeal of all laws restricting transracial adoption.
A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews based on age.
Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. And before you make an ass out of yourself, please understand how this provision of the constitution works. Pay careful attention to Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court in 1942 proclaimed that even activities such as a farmer's growing grain to feed to his own livestock had been meets the test of "interstate commerce.
Their authority to legislate such things came long before the 14th amendment. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA you can't possibly be this ignorant?
Can you share with the audience which judge or even which court has declared that 1914 act unconstitutional? You libertines like to cite all the provision of the constutition except the one where it says the supreme court is the ultimate arbitrator of what is unconstitutional.
Actually, I’m a former libertarian myself. I’ve read Rand’s entire “oeuvre”, if you can call it that; Nozick; Bastiat; Rothbard’s “Man, State and Economy”; Mises; Spooner and all kinds of other offerings from Laissez-Faire Books. I subscribe to Liberty Unbound. So, your characterization of my misunderstanding” of libertarian philosophy is incorrect. You could not know this a priori, but now you do. So, now to work.
“HV, you're okay so far. The libertarians of my acquaintance would agree one hundred percent. The heart of modern libertarianism is this simple thesis: the actions of consenting, rational adults should be their own business, unless those actions result in harm to others. If three or more people of sound mind and mature years choose to enter into a polygamous arrangement (can't quite call it "marriage" myself), they ought to be free to do so.”
I disagree, but then again that’s not why we’re having this discussion.
“This is where HV's ratiocination begins to appear a bit frayed around the edges, I'm afraid. He began with "polygamy" and instantly conflated the issue with that of "polygamous parents".”
Unfortunately, this is where you’ve blown the whole deal. You assumed that I was arguing against polygamy itself. While I believe polygamy is quite correctly illegal, that’s not the point. The broader point is whether or not our fellow citizens have the *right* to ban polygamy. In other words, does an individual possess an inherent “right” to engage in polygamous activity? Or, for that matter, any activity that is deemed corrosive to the social order? My answer is, emphatically, no. But let’s deal with the specific issue first then we’ll get to the broader point.
First of all, let me say that I’m not going to be insulting you in this reply. You described my first post as a “sloppy rabbit punch” and “fairly stupid”; while I agree that it’s not my best effort to date, it’s not productive to fling insults. Otherwise we should just debate on alt.flame. You seem highly intelligent and deserving respect. Hopefully you’ll extend the same courtesy to me.
Now let me clear out some of the brush that you’ve thrown up re: polygamy. Most of your reply has to do with what you would probably describe as ‘reasoned parameters’ for proper polygamous relationships. To wit:
“Most libertarians I know are sharp enough to immediately draw that distinction. There is a profound difference, legally and philosophically, between being a childless spouse and being a parenting spouse.”
“Another party enters the social arrangement with the conception of a child. That party is a human person with certain irreducible protectable rights, or so would say nearly any randomly selected libertarian.”
“The majority of real-world, non-theoretical libertarians recognize that the world does not consist entirely of consenting, rational adults. The primary and obvious exceptions are children. And most real-world libertarians are prepared to admit that there must be measures in place to ensure the well-being of children who are subjected to the decisions of the adults around them.”
And so on. Notice your verbiage: “most libertarians”; “…nearly any randomly selected libertarian”; “a majority of real-world, non-theoretical libertarians”. I don’t suppose you detect the irony of an idealist appealing to the argumentum ad populum. In other words, it’s true because most people believe it to be true. As a Christian, I believe in God as Creator. But I’m not a Young-Earth Creationist, i.e. seven days six thousand years ago. But sixty percent of Americans, according to polls, believe the earth was created within the last ten thousand years. Does that make it true? And you must realize that, as a libertarian, the argumentum ad populum always descends into the argumentum ad baculum—the argument from force. If you wish your particular view to prevail in the real world, someone has to enforce that view. So, this is a little amusing coming from a libertarian. Force, as I remember, isn’t held in too high esteem in your area of the intellectual briar patch.
But back to polygamy. Because all idealistic philosophies end in either absurdity or arbitrary decisions, I’ll go with absurdity because it’s more fun. Let’s trundle out Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This basically states that to know whether a particular activity is desirable, it must be applied to everyone and the results examined. So, let’s say that everyone wishes to engage in polygamy. But that’s the thing about polygamy—it’s a kind of zero-sum game. There aren’t enough women to go around. So, in this situation, let’s say that rich and powerful men each have three or four (attractive) wives, and poor schlubs have either the castoffs (if they’re lucky) or Rosie Palm and Her Five Sexy Sisters. If you don’t think that’s a prescription for social disorder—i.e. millions of men without women—then I don’t know what world you’re living in.
But an intellectual argument like this isn’t even necessary here. As a conservative—a true conservative, IMHO—I value order above liberty. In fact, liberty is impossible without order. In fact, people always prefer order to liberty, and if you don’t believe that, read the USA Patriot Act. To test public policy, or any issue, I as a conservative appeal to two things: Revealed Truth and history. I’ll use history here to drive the point home. Here’s a quote from you:
“I have discussed the subject of children's care repeatedly with libertarian friends, and their general position has been that children are a protectable special case.”
Well, hey I’m glad that’s settled. This is a typical idealist position: get a bunch of “smart” people together and work things out. You sound like a collectivist, or at least a Harvard professor. For libertarians this line of thinking, however, is particularly problematic. I’m sure you’ve made this statement at one point or another, or at least agree with it: “no one is smarter than the market”. And you’d be right. The entire collectivist enterprise is based on the idea that some people are smarter than the market. But this, as you and I know, is nonsense. No one can anticipate all the actions of millions of people engaged in any particular activity.
So, what’s the point? Idealists ask: “Should polygamy (or whatever) be banned?”; conservatives ask: “why is polygamy (or whatever) banned?” Do you think that you’re the first person in the history of mankind to confront these questions? In seven thousand years of recorded history—and beyond—do you really think that millions of ‘rational’ people just like you haven’t confronted this issue, over and over and over again? In thousands of different cultures? Some may have adopted polygamy, true. But where are the great polygamous societies? Why do so many successful societies ban it? Where it exists, why is it reserved for tyrants?
Again, you would almost certainly agree with the idea that “no one is smarter than the market”. Yet you and your libertarian acquaintances assume that you are smarter than seven thousand years of a “cultural market”. Smarter than billions of people, many of them far smarter than you or I, across seven millennia, with each succeeding generation weighing and sorting the previous one’s decisions over and over again. And guess what: after all that polygamy didn’t fare very well. That’s good enough for me.
You might reply: “No, but now we’re better, we know more, we’re smarter than those who came before us.” If history teaches us anything, it is to run for the hills whenever someone proclaims: “No, wait, it’ll be different this time!” This is where I and other conservatives part ways with you idealists. Man is not perfectible. Man is not by nature good. Man, by nature and Original Sin, is wicked, covetous, greedy, slanderous etc. We as humans are no better than we were when we were created; we may live better, but we aren’t any better in our basic moral makeup. It takes a lot of effort and Grace to stay “good”. It doesn’t just happen. History teaches that as well.
Let me take one more thing from the above quote: “children are a protectable (sic) special case”. BTW, “protectable” isn’t a word, but I digress. Because all idealistic philosophies end in either absurdity or arbitrary decision-making, it’s worth it to note your arbitrary decision re: children. Libertarianism has all kinds of “special cases”. As does collectivism. In fact, much of your defense of polygamy is “special cases” and appeals to majority belief among libertarians. Apparently you don’t see the contradiction in this. If libertarianism can give us an ideal world, why are there concurrences and dissents about what “liberty” and “freedom” entail? How can there be an ideal world if people disagree on its fundaments? How will these disagreements be solved? Usually, it’s with firearms. But again, I digress.
The rest of your disquisition involves explaining the wonders of polygamy and, typically for idealists, applying some kind of slide-rule-esque boundaries on behaviors for polygamists. Here’s a typical idealist conclusion:
“Simple. Clean. Contractual. Implemented via free-market agencies. Non-governmental except for the requirement that the contract exist. Very libertarian.”
History is filled with “simple” and “clean” solutions dreamed up by bright people. I think you are bright, and your response to me was very able. But people aren’t clean and neat and tidy. They’re messy, very messy. And often violent, and covetous, and all other kinds of awful things. That’s why the judgment of history has priority over man’s (limited) reason in my book. History has spoken on polygamy. We should follow history’s counsel.
And we should follow history’s counsel on all kinds of things that libertarians want: homosexual marriage, free drug use, abortion, and so on. They’ve all been bounced long ago. It’s only when we forget history that we get into trouble.
So what rights do we have? One. The right to live. God created me and everyone else, so I belong to Him and not anything else. Because I can’t know what value God puts on me or anyone else, I just have to assume the best: we’re all equal, no matter what our physical makeup. I can’t take your right to live away (kill you) because I didn’t give it to you. All the other “rights” in the Bill of Rights are meant to secure life and equality, and to stop tyrants from destroying God’s Creation—us. So, the Founders looked to history and found that when the people don’t have guns, there is tyranny. When people can’t freely criticize the government, there is tyranny. When governments can lock people up for no reason or threaten them with torture or confiscate their property willy-nilly there is tyranny. The First Amendment is meant to secure our only right—to live and be equal—by making sure the government is held to account. It’s not meant to make sure that Hustler magazine can be published. So, pornography can be banned, but unfortunately the New York Times can’t. If it was the case that in societies where everyone wore blue hats on Sunday there was tyranny, over and over again, you can be sure that blue-hat wearing on Sundays would have been banned by the Founders. You can also be sure that modern idealists would be railing against the practice and asserting that “We’re better now! We can handle the blue hats!”. And so on.
I think that’s enough for today. The reason that a lot of libertarians hold Christian conservatives in disdain is that very few can make a cogent case for conservatism. Hopefully this will illustrate to you that there is one.
Cheers, nice debating with you…HV.
The libertarians and their fellow travelers have never been able to formulate a cogent reply to those findings.
Many times.
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.