The civil war on the Right
This post- wherein I decry the culture of license and moral anarchy, parentheically including libertarianism right along with social liberalism as a symptom thereof- has drawn a great deal of dissent from libertarians.
There is no denying the fact that a civil war is taking place on the Right. And despite the efforts of the Christian libertarians (of all things) who have responded to my post to sidestep thls point, our mutual battleground with the Left overlaps the battleground on which that civil war is being fought. Abortion, suicide (assisted and otherwise), euthanasia, recreational drug use, and gay "marriage" are only a few of the issues concerning which the positions of the libertarian Right and the liberal Left are, for the most part, identical.
There is a reason, I suspect, why the debate in the comments on my previous post have fixated so strongly on the abstract, the philosophical, and the rhetorical; if one moves from that level to discussing actual, controversial issues, there is simply no escaping the conclusion I reached in that post: that the libertarians, as much as the liberals, are the opponents of social conservatives in the ongoing fight for the future of our culture.
The question becomes one of whether it is possible to distinguish between opponents, with whom we have some things in common, and enemies, with whom we have nothing in common- and do the pragmatic thing. Or rather, whether libertarians are willing to do so- as the junior partners in the coalition, in the sense of being the faction on the Right with the far, far smaller electoral base. That social conservatives are ready to continue the uneasy alliance is a given. And before it's even said, libertarians alone are too few and too weak to accomplish a thing- beyond diluting the electoral power of the Right by withholding their support from the Republican Party.
I realize that there are libertarians (including those who responded to my previous post) who are in fact on the same side as I am on these specific issues. That's great; glad to have you aboard. But I can't help put parenthetically note that they are departing from mainstream libertarianism in doing so. Why? I think the answer is clear.
One of the Christian libertarians involved in the discussion there made this telling point:
Who could be opposed to that? But then, isn't the difference between libertarians and non-libertarians more a matter of reaching different conclusions about what may be properly deduced from taking a reasoned view of nature? Certainly that seems to be the case between the position of most in the libertarian movement and what I assume to be the position of my Christian libertarian interlocutors on the specific issues I mention above.
All of this is a roundabout way of getting to this excellent article by Patrick Hynes on the current civil war on the Right- and what, on any reasoned view, is the utterly irrational and self-defeating attitude of many libertarians and even some "pocketbook conservatives" toward the current political situation in this country.
The article isn't perfect. I disagree with the notion that the growth of the budget is due to an inherent bent toward "big government" in the Bush philosophy, rather than to idiosyncratic circumstances which happened to accrue during his administration- and the deficiencies in the defense, intelligence and homeland security infrastructure he inherited from the Clinton Administration, which were no longer tenable in the post-9/11 world. But other than that single point, I think Hynes is pretty much right on target.
HT: Rev. Mike Zamzow
There is no denying the fact that a civil war is taking place on the Right. And despite the efforts of the Christian libertarians (of all things) who have responded to my post to sidestep thls point, our mutual battleground with the Left overlaps the battleground on which that civil war is being fought. Abortion, suicide (assisted and otherwise), euthanasia, recreational drug use, and gay "marriage" are only a few of the issues concerning which the positions of the libertarian Right and the liberal Left are, for the most part, identical.
There is a reason, I suspect, why the debate in the comments on my previous post have fixated so strongly on the abstract, the philosophical, and the rhetorical; if one moves from that level to discussing actual, controversial issues, there is simply no escaping the conclusion I reached in that post: that the libertarians, as much as the liberals, are the opponents of social conservatives in the ongoing fight for the future of our culture.
The question becomes one of whether it is possible to distinguish between opponents, with whom we have some things in common, and enemies, with whom we have nothing in common- and do the pragmatic thing. Or rather, whether libertarians are willing to do so- as the junior partners in the coalition, in the sense of being the faction on the Right with the far, far smaller electoral base. That social conservatives are ready to continue the uneasy alliance is a given. And before it's even said, libertarians alone are too few and too weak to accomplish a thing- beyond diluting the electoral power of the Right by withholding their support from the Republican Party.
I realize that there are libertarians (including those who responded to my previous post) who are in fact on the same side as I am on these specific issues. That's great; glad to have you aboard. But I can't help put parenthetically note that they are departing from mainstream libertarianism in doing so. Why? I think the answer is clear.
One of the Christian libertarians involved in the discussion there made this telling point:
No Libertarian is opposed to the government punishing crime. Libertarians are opposed to government making things criminal that are not shown to be criminal by taking a reasoned view of nature and deducing what is right and wrong from it.
Who could be opposed to that? But then, isn't the difference between libertarians and non-libertarians more a matter of reaching different conclusions about what may be properly deduced from taking a reasoned view of nature? Certainly that seems to be the case between the position of most in the libertarian movement and what I assume to be the position of my Christian libertarian interlocutors on the specific issues I mention above.
All of this is a roundabout way of getting to this excellent article by Patrick Hynes on the current civil war on the Right- and what, on any reasoned view, is the utterly irrational and self-defeating attitude of many libertarians and even some "pocketbook conservatives" toward the current political situation in this country.
The article isn't perfect. I disagree with the notion that the growth of the budget is due to an inherent bent toward "big government" in the Bush philosophy, rather than to idiosyncratic circumstances which happened to accrue during his administration- and the deficiencies in the defense, intelligence and homeland security infrastructure he inherited from the Clinton Administration, which were no longer tenable in the post-9/11 world. But other than that single point, I think Hynes is pretty much right on target.
HT: Rev. Mike Zamzow
Comments
Marriage is not the issue with gay "marriage," Jeff. Even partnered gays typically have dozens of sexual partners a year. The only reason the matter even arises as as a way of "mainstreaming" homosexuality by treating it as socially equivalent to hetersexuality. You can't wiggle out of it: whether you intend to or not, you're siding with the libertines. Again.
Unrestricted abortion is very close to a universal libertarian position. In fact, it is the philosophically consistent position. Libertarians care about others only when it is in their interest to- or, as in your case, when they choose to be inconsistent.
You don't care about the children of addicts or the education of poor children; why the concern for the unborn? How is it that you "take a reasoned look at nature," to quote Kobra, and reach a different conclusion than nearly all your fellow libertarians do? Could it be that different people reach different conclusions?
That, and one other thing: on this particular issue you choose not to be a libertarian. You choose to restrict the freedom of the woman to abuse her child for the sake of that child. Like every other libertarian (see the article to which this post links), you choose arbitrarily what is a reasonable restriction and what is not.
You can't have it both ways, Jeff- but all libertarians try. It is simply not a coherent philosophy- for anybody!
If we aren't winning the war on drugs, we need to fight harder. The price paid by innocent third parties- children with fetal alcohol syndrome and other birth defects, kids who are malnourished, ill-clothed and ill-housed because addicted parents can't support them, and so forth- belies the libertarian nonsense about "victimless crimes." Do you support their right to liberty, Jeff? Do you care about them? Apparently not! Why the difference? Why are unborn children entitled to liberty, and the children of the addicted or mentally ill or the poor not entitled to it?
You know, Jeff. The kids you want to deny an education because you don't think that philosophically the Federal government should be involved in education!
No action of any of us are without ramifications for others. Here, at least, you're consistent in your amoral approach to the issue. But make no mistake: there is no moral difference between your position on drugs and that of the most whacked-out liberal.
In short, you're an inconsistent libertarian- along with every other libertarian in the world. In the last analysis, libertarianism is what I initially stated: another way of saying, "I should get to do what I want, and everybody else should sink or swim. The details are different in pretty much every case; some or more amoral and self-centered than others.
But it's an intrinsically heartless philosophy that thrives on denial of the realities of the Twenty-First Century world, and it's finally not so much amoral but immoral. It boils down to, "I can take care of myself; if others can't, tough."
I sincerely hope you grow out of it.
http://tinyurl.com/pxbcy
That's why the Federal government is the only agency able to even begin to address that need- as halting and inefficient and inadequate as even it's efforts are!
When you wake up to that central and defining fact of reality- and only then- you will be ready to realistically address the questions involved here. Until then, your rhetoric can only be either naivette or hypocrisy.
Like the countless kids who are born brain-damaged, who go hungry, who grow up effectively without parenting, clothes or shelter because of the
Like the loss of freedom which comes precisely with addiction. Yes, child neglect and abuse would still be crimes under your plan. And they would be actively promoted by the government. And that would be an intolerable abuse on the government's part.
Sorry, Jeff. But your willingness to "help" such a person can't be heard. Your willingness to let them ruin their lives in a moment of weakness speaks too loudly. Once again, we see the uncaring, impractical and amoral nature of libertarianism in all its ugliness.
I would locate the difference elsewhere. I think the key difference is that we are unwilling to use guns against people in other than life-and-death instances. We think that the kinds of cases where the government may use force must be scaled way back.
But since you are not interested in philosophical arguments, I'll offer you a pragmatic one. Most of the electorate doesn't agree with many of your viewpoints Bob. But they do agree with you in imagining that the solution is to get control of the government so that it can enforce their views at gunpoint. The Democrats would be happy to force you to pay for the abortions of others at gunpoint. The Muslims would be happy to force you to worship Allah at gunpoint. And for some reason you agree with them on the idea that this gun should be big. You just have hopes that there are enough likeminded people out there that it will be fired in the right direction. Do you really think that a 51 percent majority has an unlimited right to use guns to force the rest to do whatever they wish? Does anything that gets voted in by 51 percent automatically qualify as something taken from a reasoned view of nature? What you are really advocating when you think that our government should have all this power over people is unlimited democracy, since it is the people as voters who decide what to get the government to do.
The tool you wish to use to the ends you desire is a tool you do not control. It is a democratic machine. It is only as good as the people who vote.
Now you insist that this machine must be used because people are fallen and you have given up on the idea of persuasion as your tool. You need guns becuase they accomplish more. But the guns are pointed at people on the basis of a 51 percent majority. You really think it is likely that a 51 percent majority will only use the guns to restrain what you regard as evil?
You can talk about "restraint of evil" all you want. But the reality is, when you empower the government to do anything, what you've basically done is given them power. They will then use the power to the ends they wish.
So the pragmatic end of everything that you fight for is that the government has more power to kill people. That's it. And people WILL end up dead at their hands.
That, and the fact that your argument is still with the Founder and Ruler of the Kingdom of the Left Hand, and not with me.
Other than that, you're pretty much on the money. It's called "civilization;"
the particular flavor you find fault with is called "democracy." If you have a better idea, I'd be glad to hear it. But I don't see anarchy as a better idea- and that's the only real alternative you leave.
All worldviews are "philosophies," and therefore, Bob, your position is no more practical than ours. Your worldview just bears the fruit of tyranny whereas the Classically Liberal view flowers and buds the sweet fruit of freedom. The real test of worth of our philosophies is not what "works" but what is true.
You assume in your philosophy that what is true and right is what makes things better. Libertarians, because they base their worldview upon Natural Law, recognize that in a fallen world "stuff" happens;however, they believe that "stuff" happens on ALL levels. That is to say, on the individual level as well as the corporate/governmental level. And because the governmental level is a far more powerful force for evil than the individual, it is far better to restrain IT and to allow the individual to self govern.
The battleship is the perfect example of the differences in our views, Bob. What is the primary defense a battleship has against sinking upon being hit? It is the compartmentalization of its interior. Your view leaves the ship without a defense! One hit and the whole ship sinks because it is comprised of one large compartment.
The Libertarian, on the other hand, compartmentalizes and in doing so sacrifices the individual compartment for the good of all.
So, you see, the Libertarian argument can even be found in the practicalities of the design of the battleship. This is a prime example that Libertarianism is harmonious with Natural Law.
The way democracy is held in such high esteem, it seems to me that people have an unlimited belief that the population should be able to have votes on how other people should live their lives, and this voting matters more to them than any rule that might be enforced through the voting.
elsewhere.
Now. Let's see:
Kobra. Yes, Solar is right- to a point. Government of any kind- civilization, for that matter- is precisely a matter of rule at the point of a gun. Of you are disposed to be pejorative about Western democracy, mob rule is indeed a way to express the thought.
The notion that since all worldviews are philosophies, mine is no more practical than yours is about as large a non sequitur as I've encountered recently. It's true that I've objected to you guys arguing on a purely philosophical level, since it's a way for you to cop out on libertarianism's Achilles heel: its impracticality. But the fact is that civilization has flourished- with all its shortcomings- for millenia.
To substitute the libertarian brand of social anarchy for civilization would not prevent "stuff" from happening. It would be simply to embrace and idealize the "stuff." It's like telling a seriously overweight person to stuff himself to his heart's content, since he's going to fall off his diet once in a while anyway, so why bother? A strange sort of practicality!
Your formula for "a minister of God" does indeed sound an awful lot like Paul's. Remember that the government to which he originally applied that title was that of Nero- the regime that threw Paul's fellow Christians to the lions!
Government, again, is accountable- at least in the modern Western tradition- to the people. With the exception of a few discrete areas, libertarianism by definition would make the individual accountable to nobody. It's a question of restrained evil versus unrestrainted evil.
Your battleship example is simgularly unapt. Libertarianism isn't "compartmentalizing the battleship." It's doing away with the battleship, and putting us all afloat in rafts. With guns. In a storm.
Some people have more seaworthy rafts and bigger guns than others, of course. Libertarianism is, in fact, a defiance of natural law, that leaves us all adrift in the storm.
Solar, we disagree as to the merits of civilization.
Jeff, says who? The two are not mutually exclusive, however much you may try to make them be. Solar makes the same mistake of thinking in terms of democracy and a constitutional republic being necessarily two seperate things, but at least he recognizes that our system is a combination of the two.
Yes, Jeff, I've heard of the prodigal son. Your point? Are you suggesting that the parable is really not about a son at all, but about a citizen? If so, My Bible disagrees.
Finally, I have to acknowledge this paragraph from Kobra. It's nonsense, from my point of view, but it's so poetic it deserves some acknowledgement:
All worldviews are "philosophies," and therefore, Bob, your position is no more practical than ours. Your worldview just bears the fruit of tyranny whereas the Classically Liberal view flowers and buds the sweet fruit of freedom. The real test of worth of our philosophies is not what "works" but what is true.
I've dealt with the illogic of the first sentence. I should add that my view bears the fruit of civilization, whereas your view has never germinated- and never will. That renders the question academic. And I might add that while the test of philosophies is indeed what is true, the test of governmental systems is results. By their fruits, as it were, we know them.