As you know I'm on the Libertarian bandwagon as long as it's aiming and reducing today's monstrously bloated states, but I have all sorts of misgivings about travelling along to the final station, about some of the arguments I hear here.
Joe Carter have summarized most of my problems here very well: http://culture11.com/blogs/kuoandjoe/2008/09/19/virtue-ethics-broken-windows-why-i-am-not-a-libertarian/?from=blog
Then John Schwenkler wrote a rebuttal (so there is no point repeating those arguments here): http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/libertarianism-wrongly-understood/
And then Helen Rittelmeyer finally nailed perfectly what problems many Conservatives, including me, really have it: mostly the vocabulary.
http://culture11.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2008/09/29/i-found-it-out-in-a-book-and-she-was-such-a-pretty-dictionary/
(Note: don't be put off by the references to original sin and stuff like that. These can be understood in a secular way: passions, human imperfections. These arguments should not be taken as somebody using religious arguments, these are rational arguments sometimes expressed in a bit religious language.)
I like especially the last article, I think she nailed it:
"Once a man admits that these profoundly invasive experiences are the basis for the best things this life has to offer (love, trust, personal growth, inspiration), he certainly might still prefer small government, but the vocabulary of libertarianism—"autonomy," "individual conscience," and especially "voluntary"—will stop making sense."
Exactly that. No, it's not about at all that governments should make us about virtuous. Our problem is rather with this self-centered vocabulary.
I think Libertarianism could be reworded, rephrased so that it does not sound like cultural individualism, without losing too much of the core political idea.
Read all three, they are very thoughtful articles. And please don't bother repeating the arguments in the second one, they are all well-known ones and Helen I think addressed them correctly.
Libertarianism is a mess because the word libertarian is a hijack of a revolutionary communist movement.
Notice that Lewrockwell.com doesn't say "libertarian" in its heading.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Please tell me when they see the "Liberterian Bandwagon". There have been several Ron Paul rallies but they didn't even put a dent in the machinery of the Republican Party much less the rest of government.
Stranger: Libertarianism is a mess because the word libertarian is a hijack of a revolutionary communist movement. Notice that Lewrockwell.com doesn't say "libertarian" in its heading.
Yeah, but if you download the podcasts it says something to the effect of the most read libertarian website blah blah blah.
If Libertarianism doesn`t sound much like Conservativism it is because Libertarianism is radical and Conservatism is anything but. Conservatives actually pride themselves on "not being an ideology" by which they mean they don`t have a coherent doctrine. Essentialy Conservativism is little but a collection of personal preferences albeit in America due to its unique history some of those preferences happen to coincide with some libertarian goals. However libertarians base their goals on their doctrine and logic whereas with conservatives their goals stemm from feeling and their attachement to tradition. There is precious little wrong with that, but it is not science. It`s voodoo.Which is really why Conservatives *will* get upset by some of the Libertarian vocabulary. We are consistent and we don`t care where our consistency lands us. A far cry from a Conservative manouvering the confused seas of a vague theology.
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." Robert LeFevre
This all conservatives need to know.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Miklos Hollender: And then Helen Rittelmeyer finally nailed perfectly what problems many Conservatives, including me, really have it: mostly the vocabulary. http://culture11.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2008/09/29/i-found-it-out-in-a-book-and-she-was-such-a-pretty-dictionary/
What, IN HELL, was she EVEN saying???
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
don't be put off by the references to original sin and stuff like that. These can be understood in a secular way:
The original article is horrible and defies everything I know about libertarianism.
a) the rule of law - if anyone appreciates it, it is libertarians. we most definitely believe in moral absolutes, such as never killing unless necessary to prevent an aggressor from killing someone else. the last thing libertarians tolerate is arbitrary use of force, whether through government or individual thugs.
b) utilitarianian roots - i don't feel libertarianism is in any way firmly connected to utilitarianism. in fact, one should claim any democracy without a rule of law is more inclined to support whimsical utilitarian majoritarianism. In other words, it's not illegal or immoral in boundless democracy when the majority does it. Those same things are still illegal and immoral to libertarians. Why? Because libertarians generally support moral absolutes as the highest moral order, not utilitarianism. These are embodied in our allegiance to basic human rights, such as life, liberty, and property. It is unimportant which moral viewpoint one uses to form these morals. What is important is that they are firmly and nearly universally heralded as moral. Additional moral judgments may be rooted in any combination consequential, deontological, or virtuous views of action; however, the use of coercive force is only justified in dealing with the violation of moral absolutes.
c) freedom vs. virtue - libertarians are not advocating freedom so they can disregard virtue, morality, and social consequences. they advocate it because it provides more practical solutions to society's problems. we always stress personal responsibility and the establishment of justice. to do this we must fight a irresponsible and unjust government. When everyone is trying to rob everyone through the state, this cannot be called a virtuous society. Big government does not create virtue or restrain freedom; it forcefully collectivizes it.
d) order - order is not an ends in itself. the author has a point that order is counter-balancing forces; however, by assuming it is simply an ends rather than a means, he would defend the rule of some of the greatest tyrants in history because they maintained some form of order. the simple virtuous individual order and just society he admires is not far-fetched to libertarians. in fact, we'd claim our system is more orderly, in addition to being more just and more enjoyable.
e) doling out freedom - the essential statism of the author finally appears at the end of the article where he assumes that only coercion can be used to maintain order, and additionally claims most people have no virtue. apparently, without the police to stop us, we'd all turn into vagrant drunks. this is a pathetic argument to use in a democracy. so when the majority of people express their will through government force, the outcome is virtue, but when they express their will through individual choice, the outcome is vice? That's a flawed argument if i ever heard one.
There is a small point to be mentioned on (e). If there were a small libertarian area, big enough for it to be impossible to know everyone personally but still representing a very small portion of society as a whole, a community where drugs were legal would indeed draw many vagrant drug users to this community. it may appear that the population of libertarian-ville has turned into drug addicts. rather, it is because such people are seeking assylum that they grow en masse. They will also have the best chance at turning their lives around in a libertarian community.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Who is joe carter?
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Miklos Hollender:Joe Carter have summarized most of my problems here very well: http://culture11.com/blogs/kuoandjoe/2008/09/19/virtue-ethics-broken-windows-why-i-am-not-a-libertarian/?from=blog
To be frank, the author has no idea what he is talking about. Many libertarians, including myself, base libertarianism in virtue ethics. He also seems to think that libertarian = utilitarian and minarchist, neither of which are necessarily true.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.