Posted on 11/17/2002 2:15:27 PM PST by hscott
In the last essay I argued that libertarians have the wrong approach to advancing their cause. I could have quoted libertarian godfather Murray Rothbard: "While Marxists devote about 90 percent of their energies to thinking about strategy and only 10 percent to their basic theories, for libertarians the reverse is true." Rothbard observed that the libertarian strategy amounts to an intellectually satisfying but strategically impotent method of talking at people. "Most classical liberal or laissez-faire activists have adopted, perhaps without much thoughtful consideration, a simple strategy that we may call 'educationism.' Roughly: We have arrived at the truth, but most people are still deluded believers in error; therefore, we must educate these people -- via lectures, discussions, books, pamphlets, newspapers, or whatever -- until they become converted to the correct point of view."
Libertarians not only suffer from a lack of strategy for winning, they have little to offer in the way of maintaining authority should they some day emerge victorious. This is important to consider because American liberty (and I am largely confining this to be an American question, though many of my comments apply to libertarians in other countries) has enemies both internal and external.
Start with external enemies -- the host of armed authoritarian states that would relish an opportunity to seize American wealth and liberty. There is no gentle way of saying this: libertarians sound like absolute fools when they talk about foreign policy. I have heard libertarian thinkers much smarter than me give brilliant, sophisticated, world-wise discourses on libertarian domestic policy, only to sound like naive sophomores when the talk turns to foreign affairs.
Libertarians like to pretend, for example, that the U.S. could have avoided World War II without consequence for liberty. At best they argue from historical accident rather than principal -- the claim that Hitler would have lost by virtue of his failure in Russia, for example, or that Britain could have survived without the American Lend-Lease program.
Likewise comes the libertarian claim that American adventures in the Cold War were misguided. In this they display an ugly penchant for concerning themselves with the liberties of white Americans, which explains the view of many that the U.S. Civil War represents the earliest great infringement on liberty (as if the liberty of slaves doesn't count in the balance).
These arguments against foreign intervention derive from the libertarian principle that coercion is wrong, which is really no fixed principle at all, because nearly all libertarians admit that a military financed through taxation is a necessity for the protection of liberty. Somewhere in their calculus, however, they conclude that this coercion shouldn't extend to financing the liberation of non-Americans. Perhaps this is principled, but it is certainly not the only viable alternative for a true lover of liberty. To tell people languishing in states like China and the former Soviet bloc that our commitment to liberty prevents us from opposing their masters is the height of churlishness and foolishness.
Perhaps the worst is the libertarian position on Israel, which amounts to a replay of Joe Kennedy's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to Hitler in the 1930's. Sure, without American support every man, woman, and child among the Jews might have their throats slit by Muslim thugs, but it's not like they got that country fairly in the first place, and really, it's none of our business. That's not a caricature, by the way. At an event in Washington I heard a prominent libertarian argue that we shouldn't support Israel because what happens to them is their problem, not ours. And libertarians wonder why nobody takes their views on foreign policy seriously.
The libertarian response to this critique is to point out examples of failed U.S. intervention. Yes, the CIA sowed seeds of anti-Americanism in Iran by supporting the Shah. Admitted, we supported a tyrant in Haiti. True, we armed the mujahaddin in Afghanistan. But we also dealt the death blows to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and accelerated the self-destruction of the Soviet Union while controlling its expansion. These are not trivial events in the history of liberty. Libertarian academics have developed a cottage industry, however, to produce counterfactual histories which amount to claiming that all of the good things would have happened anyway without American intervention, and probably would have happened faster.
Of course one can just as easily tell a story in which American isolationism leads to the emergence of totalitarian states that divide the rest of the world, restrict trade, and make all of us worse off. The point is that in the area of foreign policy libertarians are most likely to argue from principle, yet this is the area where consequentialism is most required. Nobody cares about principle if it leads to enslavement or death. When libertarians do argue from consequence, they have no experience or expertise to speak from, nor do they associate with people who do. Name the libertarian scholars with serious expertise in foreign or military affairs. Name the libertarian activists with considerable experience in foreign or military affairs. You get the point.
To be taken seriously as a philosophy of governance, libertarianism must grapple with foreign affairs, and with the possible reality that liberty depends on strong military power. Suggest this at a libertarian gathering, however, and you'll hear chuckles of derision. Perhaps they are right. The fact that they chuckle, however, but have yet to answer this question in a convincing manner, is evidence of the libertarian closemindedness on this issue.
But let's assume that most libertarians would support a military large enough to fend off foreign enemies. They would still have to confront the reality that they have no viable model of power maintenance against domestic enemies of liberty. To see what I mean, imagine that libertarians have nominated a slate of charismatic, well-funded, highly networked candidates (indulge me -- it's a Friday) who have won the Presidency and a solid majority of Congress. These revolutionaries proceed to create the libertarian wet dream -- drug legalization, plans for phasing out government schools and Social Security, isolationist foreign policy, no more ATF . . . and did I mention drug legalization?
In this fantasy the economy booms but foreign states are deterred by our minimal armed forces, people are happy, and sales of Atlas Shrugged go through the roof. It is the End of History.
Except, people get older. Memory fades. The Left remains committed to brainwashing children and co-opting public and private organizations. A child overdoses on heroin. Drugs are slowly re-criminalized. Some idiot old babyboomers (sorry for the triple redundancy) starve to death because they could never be bothered to save for old age. Others lose their savings when they invest them all in Bill Clinton Enterprises. Hello Social Security and financial regulation. The schools stay private because the Left realizes how much easier it is to peddle garbage by McDonaldizing it (i.e., by becoming the low-cost provider and pandering to human weakness).
So, in a generation or less, the revolution is slowly dismantled, and libertarians are blamed for the ills of society. They go back to holding their convention in a Motel Six in Las Vegas, and cheering when their candidate for Sonoma County Commissioner comes in a close third in a three-man race.
The Left doesn't face this problem. Deprived of principle, integrity, or honor, they are happy to snip the bottom rungs as they climb the ladder of power. You can already see this in Europe, where EU thugs are slowly transferring decision-making authority from quasi-democratic legislatures to unelected Brussels technocrats. We saw a hint of it in the U.S., when supposed children of the free-thinking sixties proved strikingly willing to use the power of the federal government to punish and stifle opposition.
But libertarians are all about individual liberty. Thus they face a quandary: How to maintain their state once it's built? This question should be especially pressing, insofar as their model implies that government tends to grow and become oppressive.
There appear to be two avenues open: the first is to adopt a variant of the Left's strategy, and eliminate unfavored options for future generations. Libertarians might, for example, replace the Constitution with a mirror document that does not contain any provision for amendment. This would leave the states open to adopt all manner of idiocy, however. Perhaps libertarians at the state level could adopt similarly permanent protections of individual rights as well. Thus libertarians could effectively ban most opposition parties, without suffering the guilt that Third World dictators endure when they do so more directly. I'm not sure if this would be acceptable in the libertarian paradigm. No matter, however, for the point is that they don't discuss it.
The second avenue for maintaining the libertarian state is culture. If children and new citizens are thoroughly educated in logic, economics, and other foundations of libertarian thinking, then perhaps they can be trusted to maintain liberty even in the face of very persuasive demagogues. But then certain topics become central: childrearing, childhood education, individual self-censorship and discipline, community norms, and reciprocal obligations. It would also require a consideration of the place religion plays in all of the aforementioned. Nearly all of these topics, however, are ignored by individualist libertarians, who furthermore routinely deride -- almost as a condition for membership -- those who call for their rigorous pursuit either as policy or personal practice.
Libertarians have less that's interesting to say about childhood education, for example, than does the Democratic Leadership Council. But childhood education is probably the linchpin of the libertarian society. How many libertarians, however, give much thought to where even their own children will go to school? Sure, they want safety and effectiveness, like any other parent, but how many give serious attention to finding or building schools that inculcate in children the ability to think critically, along with a sense of moral responsibility? Precious few.
If libertarians were serious about taking and maintaining power -- truly serious -- then they would drop the caterwauling over drug criminalization and focus every drop of energy on building schools. The latter is hard work, however, and forces consideration of messy things like moral instruction, and self-discipline, and what makes for good parenting. It's far easier to toke up in the discounted hotel room at the Libertarian Party Convention and rail against the DEA. Thus libertarianism remains less a force for change than a tool for self-expression.
This is in part a product of the natural individualistic nature of libertarianism. The solution isn't to eliminate -- or even drastically reduce -- the individualism that underlies libertarian philosophy, but it does require reconciliation with the social nature of human beings. It also requires acceptance of the fact that people are not only communal in nature, but spiritual. I will address this in my next essay.
Keep on dreaming, bucko!
I realize that many libertarians oppose laws against drug possession and use on the grounds that you gave, but this issue is not what draws them to libertarianism. They simply hold that position as a consequence of having looked at the evidence in light of libertarian principles and come to a conclusion. I may disagree with their position, but I understand that it isn't the center of their political philosophy. Instead, it is a result of their political principles.
In characterizing some libertarians as "drug-lovers," I am saying that I believe that there are people who are drawn to this political philosophy primarily as an excuse for wanting to legalize drugs. I don't claim that they make up a large percentage of the libertarian movement, but I think they are a faction. If someone made up another philosophy that sounded as good intellectually as libertarianism but called for complete confiscation of private property, they could support this philosophy just as easily as long as it held the promise that they could use drugs without fear of punishment.
The same is true of the "anti-Christian" libertarians. I realize that there are many Christians who are libertarian, but I think there is an "I hate God" faction. Members of this faction would be drawn to any movement that sounded good intellectually and promised an anti-Christian government. I was once romantically involved with a woman who had some of this flavor in her libertarian philosophy. I said I didn't think that the First Amendment was an excuse for government to work actively against Christianity. She eventually admitted that government action against Christianity or the church would be in violation of libertarianism, but her basic mindset was that Christianity was "anti-liberty," therefore, attacking Christianity (using the government or anything else) was "pro-liberty."
I also understand that every political movement has members of this kind. I'm opposed to legalized abortion because I believe the unborn child is a person with rights. That unborn child didn't ask to be conceived but came into being as a direct result of the free choices of a mother and father. Therefore, the mother and father may not kill that child. I think an overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement believes as I do, but I'm sure that some are drawn to the movement because they think it gives them an intellectual/moral basis for bullying women just as the pro-abortion movement claims.
Does any of this clarify where I stand? Do you recognize that I see these factions as subsets of the whole and not as characteristics of everyone who is drawn to libertarianism?
WFTR
Bill
I agree, but I've run into many libertarians who argue vehemently against anything that is based on "an extended defense" idea. Admitting that "an extended defense" idea has merit is dangerous to many libertarians because it means going beyond a black-and-white view of their principles. It means that we have to draw lines between the black-and-white positions and argue for where the reasonable line should be drawn.
I'll give a few examples. Many people argue against drug legalization as "an extended defense" against someone frying his brain with LSD, PCP, or cocaine and driving his car into a tanker truck full of liquid propane. Many people argue for laws against hard-core pornography as "an extended defense" against rape or argue for laws against child pornography as "an extended defense" against exploitation of children. For that matter, gun-control proponents argue that they are only wanting "an extended defense" against violence. Anti-sodomy laws could have been considered "an extended defense" against AIDS even though the total severity of the health threat posed by some homosexual behavior was not known before the 80's.
I think you've made an important point, but I've found that many libertarians have problems with the whole idea of "an extended defense." To make matters more frustrating, many others have a problem with this idea when it goes against the position that they want to advocate but will use it when it is convenient.
WFTR
Bill
I agree with the litmus tests - they underline the non-iniation of force principle, as opposed to just low taxes, say.
Those who argue as you do generally castigate the "drug loving" libertarians as morally evil, as people who simply wish to indulge their lower base appetites.
Well I have no data to support or oppose this proposition but I disagree based on the libertarians I have known. The one I have known base their endorsement of drug legalization on fury against the government for depriving them of their rights. And that is also the basis of my support for drug legalization
Again it is an ad hominem argument to counter the libertarian argument for drug legalization with the accusation that libertarians simply want legalization in order to indulge themselves in drug use. The only valid method of argument is to rebut the libertarian argument on its merits or lack thereof.
Similarly the anti-Christian faction of libertarians is I believe a fallacy. You persist is trying to question the motives of libertarians rather than just debating the issue. It seems to me that the anti-Christians in our society are mainly on the Left and I deplore this as much as you seem to.
As to abortion. Did you know that Harry Browne, the 2000 LP candidate for Pres, is pro-life? And that there are many libertarians (including me) that are pro-life?
But of course you are right about the fact that there are many factions in libertarianism. And just like other parties, I am sure that you can find libertarians who advocate all kinds of things. So what? I think that the 'libertine" faction and the "anti-Christian" factions of libertarians are pretty small. Granted the pro-choice (God how I hate that word) faction is pretty large. So you disagree as do I with some factions of libertarianism.
What I was getting at was a disagreement with the vast majority of libertarians. That to the extent that libertarians have a foreign policy at all, it is a disgusting and totally unrealistic one.
The demise of America is at hand! You're living on the outer limits of the twight zone.
>>> I do know most Americans despise freedom, and think it means "freedom from responsibility."
What nonsense! You're paying way to much attention to libertarian propaganda. Pure rhetorical hogwash.
The American's I know are politically conservative, love their freedom and are willing to fight to defend the USA from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The patriots I know, have a bright outlook for America's future and don't have the doom and gloom attitude you have. So go preach your old worn out sermon, about how the sky is falling, to the libertarians. They're the only ones who believe such tripe.
I've been politically active for the last 35 years and have been involved in many local, state and national political campaigns. As a conservative and astute political observer, I've been listening to you chicken little types my whole life. America has its problems, but they're nothing that we can't solve. This is the greatest nation in the history of the world. I'll put my good faith and optimism on America having a great future and leave the whining and complaining to you and your ilk.
Good points you make, and I think we'd both agree that "extended defense" could get extended indefinitely all the way to total lockdown, both at the border and within.
Then we get into discussions as to what points defense switches to offense. No bright lines wherever we like, darnitall.
Horses**t!
The 2nd amendment gives every American the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to spread STD's across the fruited plains. Grow up you knucklehead!
Eehh...you're wrong.
At that time we had perhaps the highest standard of living in the WORLD.
Most people were educated...a lot were self-taught...but almost every single house had books..(they were PRIZED) and one of the things people DID was to read them.
Also most people lived way past 40.....
Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance.
redrock
Libertarians also include both pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates. They agree on the libertarian principle but disagree as to what point the individual develops enough to deserve its protection.
Oh, and he quotes Murray Rothbard only in part on the strategy question: to read this dimwit, you'd never know that he's quoting from an essay wherein Rothbard constructs an entire theory of libertarian strategy.
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.