What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Mere Libertarianism

I have long thought of myself, and sometimes described myself, as a sort of libertarian. But when I hear what other people have to say about it, sometimes I wonder. Both critics and proponents of libertarianism always seem to be saying things about it that go way beyond my understanding of the position.

For example, my former co-blogger Zippy Catholic seems to associate libertarianism with the pursuit of absolute autonomy - of a society (if it could be called that) of "free and equal supermen." And my present co-blogger Jeff Culbreath apparently sees it as a sort of "cult" of the individual and of property.

On the other hand, "liberaltarians" like Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson seem to believe that it represents some sort of advance for libertarianism when people not only stop imposing various traditional mores by law, but actually start celebrating the transgression of those mores.

All this seems wrong to me. I don't find notions of absolute autonomy very compelling, or even very comprehensible, and I certainly don't pine for a world of free, let alone equal, supermen. Nor do I see anything sacred about "the individual" or "property," as such. And while I think that libertarianism requires one to leave everybody from neo-nazis to transvestites in peace, it certainly doesn't ask one to love, or even to tolerate, them, if that means anything beyond leaving them alone.

So I guess my idea of "libertarianism" must be relatively minimal - what one might call, with apologies to C. S. Lewis, "mere" libertarianism. I'd describe it kind of like this:

Libertarianism is a purely political doctrine according to which the state ought to be confined to, at most, a few essential functions - most notably police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense. Period. Full stop. That's all, folks.

It is compatible with a variety of metaphysical, ethical and religious worldviews, but does not entail any one in particular. One might endorse libertarian politics because one has bought into the theories of Ayn Rand, or Murray Rothbard, or Robert Nozick. For all I know, one might do so because the thought of a society of free and equal supermen floats ones boat, or because one entertains worshipful feelings towards the concepts of "the individual" and/or "property." One might even do so because one wants to be free to get stoned out of one's mind every day while dressing up in gender-bending outfits. But all of that goes beyond "mere" libertarianism - which, again is a purely political doctrine about the proper limits of state power.

Now obviously I have my own particular reasons for wanting state power strictly limited, and I suppose it's only fair to say what they are - but keep in mind that at this point I, too, am going beyond "mere" libertarianism.

In the end, I think that what it all comes down to is that I just have a very strong aversion to bullies and busybodies: I don't like people butting into my affairs without being asked, let alone trying to boss me around. Moreover, I tend to like and admire other people who share this aversion, and to dislike and scorn those who don't. Those who react to bullies and busybodies with subservient or sympathetic feelings strike me as, if anything, even worse and more contemptible than the bullies and busybodies themselves. Combine that set of personal tastes with the easily observable fact that any concentration of political power inevitably and invariably draws in bullies, busybodies, and those who love them as a magnet draws in iron filings, and, well - Robert's your father's brother. I was an instinctive libertarian long before I ever heard the word.

Over the years I've come across various more or less systematic attempts to provide libertarian political views with deep theoretical foundations in metaphysics and ethics, but I can't say that I've found any of them particularly persuasive. Not that they tend to be any worse than similar attempts to shore up the available alternatives, but still: no sale. In the end, my libertarian tendencies are, and will, I suspect, always remain, more emotional than rational - and perhaps all the stronger for that.

Comments (59)

Trying to one-up Lydia in the can o' worms department, I see.

One thing I've always found a kind of interesting exercise is thinking about the status of "ought" or "should" statements in the context of the limitation of government. For example, I might say, "The government shouldn't be running universities." But I don't mean by this, "It is an intrinsic evil for the government to be running universities," otherwise I would (right?) think it wrong for anyone to be employed by a government university. And I don't think that. I don't think that no one going on the market in the humanities is morally obligated to refrain from applying for jobs at state schools or community colleges. And for that matter, even if one applied for a job at an ostensibly private college, it would almost certainly be partially funded one way or another--student grants or favorable student loans--by government money. So what do I actually _mean_ when I say, "The government shouldn't be running universities"?

I suppose I mean that it's unwise, imprudent, likely to lead to bad results in the long run. Something like that.

On the other hand, when I say, "The government should not be telling Aunt Betty that she cannot sell her brownies to her neighbors because they weren't baked in a government-approved kitchen," I seem to mean something stronger. I can get really _angry_ thinking about Aunt Betty and her brownies. I mean something more like, "If you were a government employee and you suddenly found yourself tasked with shutting down Aunt Betty's brownie sales, you should refuse to cooperate, even at the risk of losing your job." There we seem to be talking about the acts of bullies, so we're at something more like, "It is intrinsically wrong for the government to tell Aunt Betty that she cannot sell her brownies."

But I'm still not sure I mean _exactly_ that. I suppose I can imagine strange circumstances in which it might be okay to stop Aunt Betty, even if they don't usually apply in real life. (You discover that there is an outbreak of some rare disease in Betty's town that is especially likely to be spread by her brownies.) But if it were intrinsically wrong to stop her, then it shouldn't matter what the circumstances are.

I suppose one of the points that drops out of this is that even if one means that something is a _very_ bad idea though not intrinsically wrong, this should not be cast as some weak condemnation: "Oh, you're merely saying that it's wrong as a prudential matter." Things that are wrong "as prudential matters" can still be very serious indeed. Like, e.g., setting up a centrally planned economy out of high-falutin' idealism, for example.

Combine that set of personal tastes with the easily observable fact that any concentration of political power inevitably and invariably draws in bullies, busybodies, and those who love them as a magnet draws in iron filings . . .

Lack of concentrated political power surely does the same. This is why no incantation of "Period. Full stop. That's all, folks" is realistic.

Over the years I've come across various more or less systematic attempts to provide libertarian political views with deep theoretical foundations in metaphysics and ethics, but I can't say that I've found any of them particularly persuasive. Not that they tend to be any worse than similar attempts to shore up the available alternatives, but still: no sale. In the end, my libertarian tendencies are, and will, I suspect, always remain, more emotional than rational - and perhaps all the stronger for that.

It's the "no theoretical foundations in ethics" part that makes me blanch at Libertarianism. I don't know why something lacking a principled ethical foundation should command my respect. Of course, as a Conservative I have loads of libertarian leanings and understandings, and I'll happily say so and defend these manifold and deep individual libertarian ideas. I see it as a question of scope. It seems to me the problem is that Libertarians end up denying some ethical principles in order to limit the scope and arrive at a supposed coherent system of their liking. I prefer to just admit that the ethical realities we face are more or less personal ethics writ large, while holding that the practical limitations of action are imposed much more severely on the community and wider level, in increasing degree.

Those who react to bullies and busybodies with subservient or sympathetic feelings strike me as, if anything, even worse and more contemptible than the bullies and busybodies themselves.

I don't know what to say to this. I certainly can't figure out why social conservatives don't register as busybodies under this value system, even if you are convinced liberals are worse. If they do register this way, why show sympathy to them? A shared fondness for classical music and arts can't gloss over an instinctive aversion.

As far as "mere libertarianism" goes, it seems grossly insufficient. National defense is fairly straightforward, but police protection and enforcement of contracts requires some sort of common understanding of individual and property rights, and I promise you that groups with conflicting agendas have wildly different notions about that.

I think something that every libertarian faces at some point is this question: What about busybodies (or those the libertarian thinks of as busybodies) who are busybodies only by means of their private use of their own resources and who do not resort to force or fraud? Does the libertarian's aversion to those busybodies rank as more important or less important than his original idea about the limits of government?

I imagine most of us can think of actions that we would regard as legitimate acts that others would think of as "being a busybody." On the other hand, we can all probably think of things that we would regard as real busybody-ism.

One type of libertarian encounters something that ticks him off so severely in that regard that he says, "That's it! The government should _punish_ that." Another type just bites the bullet and says, "I don't approve, but he should be left alone to do it."

Libertarianism is a purely political doctrine according to which the state ought to be confined to, at most, a few essential functions - most notably police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense. Period. Full stop. That's all, folks.

Steve, thanks for this explanation of your views. However, despite the admirable brevity, your definition of libertarianism needs a lot of unpacking.

1. Why? Why just these functions and not others? The answer, whatever it is, reveals a set of cultural assumptions - a culture that would be imposed on all by a libertarian state. If you truly can't find any reasons for your own libertarianism beyond an emotional reaction to bullies and busybodies, then you aren't looking hard enough.

2. Police protection for whom? For what? Against whom and against what? Who has rights and who doesn't? What are those rights and where do they come from? Do rights exist corporately in any form, or do they strictly belong to individuals? Etc. Again, the answers to these questions reveal a definite worldview, and one that would be imposed on everyone in a libertarian state.

3. Enforcement of what kinds of contracts? No society enforces every kind of contract: there are limits, and it is culture that sets those limits.

[Libertarianism] is compatible with a variety of metaphysical, ethical and religious worldviews, but does not entail any one in particular.

Well, I don't think it would be too tough to identify the common threads shared by various libertarian-compatible worldviews. In any case libertarianism certainly excludes particular worldviews, and in that sense is just as paternalistic as any other.

It strikes me that anarcho-libertarians would reject the notion that police protection is a proper government activity - as is each of the others. Anarcho-libs don't think a state has any right to exist at all. I suppose that under Steve's ideas, they would have to be classified somehow or other as outside the box of "libertarian", but they certainly don't think that's fair.

While there might indeed be a valid way of distinguishing libertarianism to exclude anarcho-libertarians, it seems pretty reasonable to suppose that that way must begin to provide answers to the questions Jeff raises. In which case, libertarianism cannot be presented as internally coherent "merely" in the sparse format Steve provided.

I was strongly attracted to libertarianism for a while. But I gave it up when I realized that it seems to rest on a negative rather than a positive view of human nature. Human nature is such that humans abuse power over others. Fine, that's true. But as soon as you say the words "human nature", you have by the back-door admitted that natural law is real, and that inherently means something very positive indeed about humans: they are social beings as such. The state is not, when you get right down to the bottom, a merely negative expression springing from humans abusing the capacity to affect others; it is ordered to the common good, which is itself positive. And as soon as you say that there is a positive common good, you admit the possibility of the state to have a purpose beyond merely preventing some people from adversely affecting other people in "unacceptable" ways (not accidentally, the only standard against which one can measure the acceptability lies outside of a merely negative view of the state.)

Police protection for whom? For what? Against whom and against what?

Jeff, is this a real question you expect anyone to answer? Isn't such a shared understanding of this in the minds of citizens a prerequisite for a decent society? If not, what would your answer be on any hypothetical scenario you'd choose?

Likewise, the next time you ask the "freedom for what?" question, as you often do, don't you think the answer is that without a group of people who know what to do with their freedom that no community is possible? Do you really want us to specify these things explicitly, or are these questions merely rhetorical?

Mark,

I just came back from my monthly Texas Hold'em game and since I won (relatively) big and I'm feeling generous, I'll take a shot at jumping in and speaking up for Jeff C. in case he's in bed already:

1) I think the police protection question is a great question as it involves the bigger question of what should or should not be legal. As Step 2 already suggested above, presumably Steve wants the police to protect an individual's life and private property --but then we need laws to define exactly what we mean by property.

But then there is the broader questions related to so called "consensual crimes" -- would they exist at all in Steve's "mere libertarian" world? What if one group of libertarians really didn't like drugs but another group didn't mind drugs -- how would the police deal with drug dealers? Etc.

2) I think Jeff C.'s "freedom for what" question is closely related to the idea I was getting at above -- what happens when you have two groups of people who have very different ideas about how to live a free life? Group A wants to live a drug free life and wants their kids to live without drugs -- Group B is just not that worried about drugs and/or believes legalized drugs are better in the long-run because you can never really stop people from "trying" some drugs now and again. If those two groups are living in close proximity -- how do they resolve their differences about drugs? Wouldn't they step back and have a debate about the good life and whether or not drugs contributed anything to that good life? In other words, they would engage the kinds of questions Jeff C. likes to ask around here.

I was also struck by the "busybodies and bullies" thing. Taking the idea of bullying literally, isn't it precisely the state's acting as a busybody that's reduced certain kinds of bullying in recent years? For instance, the state's busybody attempts to normalize homosexuality, whatever one thinks of them, may have reduced the bullying of homosexual high-school students. If so, then this was one intended consequence of of the busybodies. And when a teacher takes steps to stop bullying, the bully and others might reasonably see that teacher as a busybody. That doesn't justify this or any busybodiness, but it seems kind of slippery to link "busybodies and bullies" like that. Similarly with more figurative meanings of the two words.

Another thing that struck me was the idea that libertarianism or anything else could be a "purely political doctrine." That seems to be a favorite of the kookier "paleolibertarians" especially: Murray Rothbard and his Lewnatic disciples. No cultural contradictions of capitalism for them! At least the liberaltarians on the other hand seem to accept the fact that a libertarian "purely" political philosophy has enormous social and cultural implications.

Steve,

I just saw this episode and thought of you and this post:

http://spongebob.nick.com/videos/clip/banned-in-bikini-bottom-clip.html

Sadly, that is just a taste of the full delight that is Miss GristlePuss (she is married to the Chief of Police), but if you poke around the web you might be able to find the episode in its entirety. It will be worth your time as it is a perfect artistic representation of this post.

"Police protection for whom? For what? Against whom and against what?"

Jeff, is this a real question you expect anyone to answer? Isn't such a shared understanding of this in the minds of citizens a prerequisite for a decent society?

Mark, the question is rhetorical and meant to lead precisely where you are going with it: the fact that even the idea of "police protection" requires a shared and imposed understanding of the common good in order to be implemented.

The libertarian who believes in police protection needs to think about where his understanding of the common good comes from. If it's just "there" and needs no explaining, as Steve seems to imply, then it is part of a larger cultural inheritance - a tradition - which for most people is simply lived rather than articulated.

A libertarian who wants to defend this position needs to explain why he accepts only part of his cultural inheritance and not the rest. That can certainly be done - no cultural inheritance is without its flaws - but it has to be done coherently on the basis of some authoritative principle.

Likewise, the next time you ask the "freedom for what?" question, as you often do, don't you think the answer is that without a group of people who know what to do with their freedom that no community is possible?

Yes, that's part of the answer. I'd be pleased to elicit this much from my libertarian interlocutors, along with an acknowledgment that the state exists to facilitate the right use of liberty, and to discourage its abuse, based on this shared understanding.

Jeff, I am not sure your drug example will strike a chord with libertarians. Typically, libertarians think that you're wanting to live drug free cannot be taken to impose a restraint on OTHERS to live drug free. Of course, that attitude works only if all the players are adults fully responsible for their own acts. Libertarianism generally falls into incoherence when you take into account children, and I don't think I have ever seen a really thorough attempt to reconcile children to the libertarian models. By definition, a child is incapable of exercising freedom because he is not yet mature enough, and at the same time he is owed certain benefits from his parents, and not because of any contractual conditions. Finally, libertarians don't like the idea of any authority and obligation for obedience arising other than by reason of a consensual contract, but this cannot be made to fit for children.

The drug example is a good example of where libertarians depart from standard civil and social law concepts. People know that you cannot simply feed and clothe a child for 18 years, and then expect them to exercise their wills in a way that will be fruitful and fulfilling. You have to train up the child with good habits, and teach them how to discern right from wrong, in order to develop their capacity to choose well. But you cannot do that developing and teaching effectively in a vacuum, and you cannot do it well in a society where the customs directly oppose good choice. Therefore, it is impossible for society to be wholly neutral about how you exercise your freedoms: you either aid good custom or you detract from them, and each of these impacts children who do not yet have the developed capacity for freedom. Does a parent have a right to push society to prefer wholesome customs over damaging ones? Yes, absolutely. But libertarians won't agree with that, because they won't see man as being inherently social and thus having natural obligations toward each other's welfare.

I think that many of the things that we who are not card-carrying libertarians say will go nowhere with one who does carry a card. I, for example, think no one should be allowed to have a contract to sell his body. A card-carrying libertarian will disagree.

I say that you shouldn't be permitted to cut your own arm off, but the card-carrying libertarian will say that you _should_ be permitted to do so as long as you don't expect any assistance after doing so, including the burial of your body. Perhaps you could be required to cut your arm off somewhere where you can die and rot quietly without this causing any trouble to anyone else. And so forth. This seems to me to get pretty absurd, but it's difficult to get anywhere if enough bullets are bitten.

But I think that even someone who carries a card should feel a little _uncomfortable_ about the following examples:

Contract: What about a contract to sell your infant child? Now, you can't really bring in the "force or fraud" thing here, because there might be no force and no fraud. The baby is going to be carried around by other people anyway. Even if he's being sold to do some sort of unchosen labor (say, to work as a chimney sweep when he's old enough), well, parents might make a child do chores he doesn't want to do, also, so we usually have some kind of exceptions to "making people do things" for children. What is the libertarian to say on his own principles?

Doing whatever you want with your own life: Again, the issue of children can come up here, this time in the form of gross neglect. Suppose that Mother A. is a crackhead, brings her baby home from the hospital, and then gets herself completely stoned and never feeds the baby. The baby is starving to death. What should happen? If the government's only roles are police protection, enforcement of contracts, and defense, nobody from the government can come into her house and take the baby, except in a role as a private citizen. Now suppose some private citizens get together and come to the house, break in the door, and take the baby. Aren't _they_ engaging in the use of force? (Remember, Ayn Rand said that the government should have a monopoly on force.) What if the mother who is letting her baby starve while she gets stoned fights them over the baby? Are they allowed to take the baby away by force? Isn't this anarchy? But if the government does it, the government is acting outside of its only allowed spheres.

I have a certain degree of sympathy with Dr. Burton's concept of "mere libertarianism" as he has expressed it in this post. I do not think that a person needs to believe all the wrong-headed ideas of classical liberalism (the basic goodness of mankind, the idea that the individual precedes society, the contractual theory of society, the Whig theory of history as inevitable social progress, etc.) in order to accept the idea that the government should exist within clear and definite limits and keep its nose out of people's personal affairs except for in situations where rules are absolutely necessary for people to live together as a society.

Indeed, the reason I titled my own blog "Throne, Altar, Liberty" was to express my conviction that the idea of limited government with a high degree of personal freedom is completely compatible with both traditional Christianity and my basic philosophical-political worldview - traditional British/Canadian High Toryism (organic society, hierarchical in structure, with aristocratic leadership, parliamentary monarchy government, guided by tradition, with strong traditional social institutions of family and church).

I would argue, however, that the reason for this compatibility lies in the fact that the tradition of the English-speaking world has been oriented towards a high degree of personal liberty and constitution limitations on government for a very long time, for centuries preceding the birth of modernism and classical liberalism. This is why classical republicanism originally worked so well in the United States when it had a very different outcome in eighteenth century France. It very much matters why a person believes in liberty. If you treat liberty as a universal good, arrived at through some objective rational process, which everybody should believe in and which should be applicable everywhere regardless of the worldview and traditions of a particular society, you will run into difficulties.

step2 - unfortunately, my personal feelings do not resolve any of the major disputes in political philosophy.

I'm sorry if anything I wrote seemed to suggest that I thought otherwise.

. . . wrong-headed ideas of classical liberalism (the basic goodness of mankind, . . .

Gerry, I have to be honest with you that I hate fuzzy denials of "basic goodness." Many views bake in an unspoken view on what level of goodness can be expected of persons that runs anywhere from the philosophical equivalent of the doctrine of total depravity to some progressive utopian understanding. Honestly, I think "basic goodness" is hopelessly vague and I detest such statements as saying nothing definite. For example, in my historical studies as well as anecdotal experience throughout life I have come to think that there is a kernel of decency in most persons that would be compatible with what many call a "wisdom of crowds." This does not mean that this cannot be suppressed in social groups, nor that some social dynamics may not be so evil that it cannot severely compromise the level of basic decency in individuals. But anyway, I tend not to throw out what people have believed over long periods of time without due consideration, except where justified and even then I'll have an account for why that is justified. Others will be willing to toss it all out with a "Bah . . . human nature doesn't get you anything." Many debates in here turn on such questions.

The question isn't whether people are "basically good," the question is what level of goodness we can count on in persons? I take it that it is somewhere north of zero. In any case, I just don't see how it is constructive to say that classical liberalism assumes a "basic goodness" of humanity beyond what is merited when it also has a robust conception of evil and opposing it. But then I have problems with the way the term "classical liberalism" is used synonymously with Liberalism in the modern American sense. As if there is no difference. And yeah, I know a half-dozen people are going to quote this line and say "sounds about right to me."

Steve,

Why are so many of your fellow libertarians open-border advocates?

For example, in my historical studies as well as anecdotal experience throughout life I have come to think that there is a kernel of decency in most persons that would be compatible with what many call a "wisdom of crowds."

Decency and goodness are related, but not the same thing.

~~The question isn't whether people are "basically good"~~

In one sense it's the only question, and represents a foundational difference between liberalism and conservatism: which is correct, the classical/Christian view of man as fundamentally flawed, or the Rousseauian/Enlightenment view of man as fundamentally good and perfectable?

The root of this question is, of course, theological, but in its anthropological manifestation it sums up the key difference between Left and Right. How you answer in large determines your politics, social views, economics, etc.

Re: libertarianism, it seems to me inarguable that there is a "mere libertarian" strand in traditional American conservatism. At the same time there is also a communitarian thread, and it's vital to keep these two strands in balance. Since there is an inherent tension between them which tends to pull in one direction or the other, the balance must be maintained consciously. Conservatism must not exalt individual liberty at the expense of community, or vice-versa. We need to know our Hayek, but we need to know our Wendell Berry as well.

I have to say that I do think the "basic goodness" presumption can be a huge problem. Sure, it comes in degrees, but there is a pervasive pattern of public policy assumptions and prescriptions that come from liberals in society and have done so for a long time--a couple hundred years--that involve a very strong assumption that everything that is bad about man is the result of his environment and can be corrected by a change in policy, a change from outside, a change in environment, more education (and more and more and more education).

I'm not sure that I would connect this with "classical liberalism," myself, because I tend to think that the notion that government should be very limited is _itself_ an acknowledgment of man's fallen nature. There can be naivete on all sides. The libertarian-inclined may have naive views of how good things will get if only people are left alone (I instance here again the von Mises Institute's downplaying of the evil of forced abortion in China and their sunny optimism about how much better things will get in China with economic reform); those more sympathetic to government power tend to have naive views of how good things are likely to be if only their kind of people can have that power. So I'm not sure any side really fully acknowledges the likely effects of sin nature.

Re: libertarianism, it seems to me inarguable that there is a "mere libertarian" strand in traditional American conservatism. At the same time there is also a communitarian thread, and it's vital to keep these two strands in balance.

Quite true, but allow me to propose a place where these two tendencies might be reconciled without having to oppose them.

The only worthy definition of freedom is the ability to act virtuously with a minimum of restraint – and, by implication, to choose freely between competing goods (and therefore to err by choosing lesser goods). That's why Lydia's example of the state preventing Aunt Betty from selling her brownies, or little Jimmy from selling his lemonade, tends to infuriate social conservatives as well as libertarians.

In those situations where freedom to do good necessitates freedom to do evil - for instance, in the matter of true and false speech - social conservatives will generally err on the side of permitting the evil, so long as its damage is controlled. In general, though, as the freedom for evil expands, the freedom for virtue necessarily contracts.

The measure of an unjust government or society is therefore the extent to which it inhibits, restrains, and penalizes the freedom of the good. The license for abortion and homosexuality, for instance, is fundamentally unjust and un-free because the inevitable result is to punish the good: e.g., the protection of the unborn from mortal aggression is legally forbidden, and the protection of sexual innocence is impossible where homosexuality is normative. Similarly the license for pornography, blasphemy, and heresy is fundamentally unjust because it disadvantages chastity, piety, and fidelity. Etc. So it is impossible to have a free society without a true and authoritative conception of the good.

As corollary of this axiom, there are certain positive things the state might do to encourage the good. Supporting a public media that places the good before the eyes and ears of the public is one example; policies which privilege the poor and vulnerable are another. At least I see no reason why the state must be limited to a purely negative role, one of merely preventing evil.

As corollary of this axiom, there are certain positive things the state might do to encourage the good. Supporting a public media that places the good before the eyes and ears of the public is one example; policies which privilege the poor and vulnerable are another. At least I see no reason why the state must be limited to a purely negative role, one of merely preventing evil.

Let's use welfare as an example. You begin by taking 5% of a man's paycheck to provide for the poor. For a year or two, he really notices it. Then he gradually factors it into his lifestyle and it's part of the basic taxes he pays on his income. Pretty soon he does "good works" that he doesn't even think about. He also has no control over their direction. Thus what would have been a good work to his credit becomes nothing of moral significance to his existence. Some men may not fit this category, but most would forget and move on unless the system is a burden.

There is also the fact that the Bible explicitly says this regarding the state and society showing disproportionate favor to any class:

"'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Let's use welfare as an example. You begin by taking 5% of a man's paycheck to provide for the poor. For a year or two, he really notices it. Then he gradually factors it into his lifestyle and it's part of the basic taxes he pays on his income. Pretty soon he does "good works" that he doesn't even think about. He also has no control over their direction. Thus what would have been a good work to his credit becomes nothing of moral significance to his existence.

Mike, I'm not sure what point you're making here. I do not claim that taxes should be considered the moral equivalent of alms, although there are moral considerations in both the taxing and the spending. If there were sufficient almsgiving in the first place, the need for taxation would be drastically reduced (though not eliminated).

In the United States it is clear that almsgiving is not being seriously proposed as a solution. The richest 400 Americans own more than 50 percent of the nation's wealth - 1.57 trillion dollars. To put this in perspective, in the fiscal year 2000 the United States spent 1.01 trillion dollars on welfare at the federal, state, and local levels of government combined, much of it undoubtedly wasted on bureaucracy and salaries. (Which serves to remind that a revival of Catholic religious orders would do wonders in this department...)

There is also the fact that the Bible explicitly says this regarding the state and society showing disproportionate favor to any class:

"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."

In the context of civic justice, of course.

But the Bible says much more about the poor:

Deuteronomy 14:28-29 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

Deuteronomy 15:7, 11
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.

Leviticus 23:22
When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

Psalm 12:5
Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the LORD, I will protect them from those who malign them.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Proverbs 14:21
He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy.

Proverbs 14:31
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.

Proverbs 19:17
He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.

Proverbs 21:13
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.

Proverbs 22:9
A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor.

Proverbs 28:27
He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.

Proverbs 31:8-9
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Isaiah 1:17
Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.

Isaiah 58:6-7;10
Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter-- when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? ...and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.

Ezekiel 16:49
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Zechariah 7:8-10
And the word of the LORD came again to Zechariah: "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.'

Micah 6:8
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Matthew 25:41-45
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 12:33
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

Luke 14:13-14
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

1 John 3:17-18
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Jeff,

Why do you say that a libertarian who thinks that "the state ought to be confined to, at most, a few essential functions - most notably police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense" needs to explain why he accepts only part of his cultural inheritance and not the rest?

For example, I suggest that the culture I inherited evolved in a feudal society where, regardless of what the theoretical powers of the lord were, the state was effectively confined to a few essential functions - most notably police protection, enforcement of contracts, local and sometimes regional defense, and the protection of the lord's hunting land against trespassers. So if I embraced Steve Burton's mere libertarianism and noted that the protection of the lord's hunting privileges and the harsh penalties placed on poachers do not seem to be cultural essentials wouldn't my mere liberalism be very consistent with my cultural inheritance?

Why do you say that a libertarian who thinks that "the state ought to be confined to, at most, a few essential functions - most notably police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense" needs to explain why he accepts only part of his cultural inheritance and not the rest?

Because the default position for everyone is to accept what he's been given. To dissent from that, as most of us here do in some areas, requires some explanation, some rational and authoritative principle. That's why there's a libertarian think-tank on every corner in D.C.: they know they have to explain themselves.

But Jeff, surely you're not saying that FDR's and LBJ's vast expansion of government powers have now become part of our "cultural heritage" and that we must "explain ourselves" if we don't accept it. Isn't that stretching things a little? Steve P. is trying to talk about a longer-ago cultural heritage--one that ought to appeal to you, of all people. You yourself often point out that the monarchs of the past couldn't have dreamed of the level of government power that the bureaucracy of today possesses.

And I would suggest, too, that a person like yourself who is so strongly suspicious of even representative, republican, constitutional democracy--which it might fairly be argued is what you have been "given," being an American--and who shows such a marked preference for a confessional Catholic monarchy with strong centralized powers, which isn't _at all_ what you have been given, would be somewhat hesitant about saying that people who don't accept what they have been given have 'splainin' to do.

But Jeff, surely you're not saying that FDR's and LBJ's vast expansion of government powers have now become part of our "cultural heritage" and that we must "explain ourselves" if we don't accept it. Isn't that stretching things a little?

Lydia, I don't think it is stretching things at all. The present system - our inheritance - has a public rationale and philosophy behind it. It's the air we breathe, like it or not. If we disagree, in whole or in part, we should explain the basis for our disagreement and make our case. That explanation will entail, in whole or in part, an alternative worldview - the one we want to "sell" in the marketplace of ideas. I don't understand what's controversial about that.

And I would suggest, too, that a person like yourself who is so strongly suspicious of even representative, republican, constitutional democracy--which it might fairly be argued is what you have been "given," being an American--and who shows such a marked preference for a confessional Catholic monarchy with strong centralized powers, which isn't _at all_ what you have been given, would be somewhat hesitant about saying that people who don't accept what they have been given have 'splainin' to do.

In the first place, my so-called preference for a "confessional Catholic monarchy", when I have discussed it, is purely a hypothetical exercise when it comes to the United States as it assumes a predominantly Catholic population, which we obviously do not have.

Second, as you admitted in your previous paragraph, whatever "strong centralized powers" I would assign to this hypothetical monarchy pale in comparison to the powers claimed by our modern democracies.

Third, I do accept our American representative, republic, constitutional democracy in is essential form, and have never proposed that it be replaced with something else - only improved.

Finally, I agree that many of my social and political views require coherent explanations based on some authoritative principle or worldview, and I think I have spent quite a lot of time and effort doing exactly that! Perhaps that's one reason I don't want to let Steve off the hook.

You will NEVER understand Liberty and thus Libertarianism if you still believe in the Collective and it's customs. Pure and simple. I have spent the better part of three years coming to grips with this argument.

Simply put, Libertarianism is about individual Liberty. Freedom for one's self and one's choices. You can not have any of that as long as the Collective, i.e. the State, decides what you can do and what you can't do. It's not "mere"...it's total. And worse, it's either all or nothing. Either you are free from someone else controlling you and your actions or you are not. It's not some. It's all. Either you are free or you are not. And if the "state" or the government is being pushed by various other smaller...lobbying Collectives like Churches and gay rights groups...you'll never have freedom.

People who wrestle with all the fluff are Collectivist trying to continue to feel good about their decisions to be apart of the Collective. You are just sadly arguing against anything you can to keep the wolves at bay and protect yourselves and your collective. It doesn't matter the argument. If you choose to remove another person's freedoms of choice and property from them for the protection of your morals, collective, ideology, group, etc...you are a Collectivist who wishes to enslave the individual in order to ensure your protection.

That is not Liberty. And calling man "social" to defend it is less than disingenuous. Bringing in the "children" shows you are beyond hope. You will enslave your own children to your Collective...so why wouldn't you enslave mine? That's all you are really after after all...slaves to further your Collective's agendas.

To be completely honest, Conservatism is really just baby-Socialism. You are only arguing over what the ideology the Collective should enslave everyone too. Socialist just want to enslave the world to pay for the people to live off of the state. Communist want to enslave the world to pay for the oligarchy and the "elite". Conservative's want to enslave everyone to their moral code.

Master's setting the rules at the table and slaves living by those rules.

The reason you struggle with "Libertarianism" is because you struggle with the Liberty of the Individual. You always will as long as you see the Collective, Culture, Morals, Traditions, etc, as more important as the individual. People more important than persons.

A person is a person's property. You don't need any rules for that. No laws. That "person" makes his own rules about himself. What he does. How he does it. Who he does it with. You cry fowl as a Conservative when Ms. Obama says you can't have a happy meal...but see nothing wrong with telling a grown man he can't smoke pot. Or cut his own arm off. Or who he can pay to have sex with. And worse...you can't see the dysfunction in that. Why is it my body when it's food but your body when it's a drug? Or self-mutilation? Or prostitution? The reason? Your Collective isn't trying to protect it's self from Happy Meals...only the "Moral Hazards" of drug abuse. Of self-mutilation. Of prostitution.

These are arguments you'll never get. And sadly you don't even realize why.

Here are the simple Libertarian rules:

1. My body is my property and I decide what happens to it. And no one else can own it without me selling it. And yes...I can sell it...it's mine.
2. Anything that is in my possession through contractual means that did not involve theft, fraud or violence is my property and I decide what happens to it. My house, my land, my car, all mine. And you can't "take it" without my say-so. If you do...it's theft.
3. Any contract that I make with another person that does not include violence, fraud or theft is legal and must be honored. So yes...I can sell a service such as prostitution because I am not hurting anyone or lying about it.

That's pretty much it. You'd be surprised how many issues of our day take care of themselves if you just follow those rules.

Children using drugs? Can't. They aren't adults. They don't have the capacity for that judgment yet. We can dither on about when they'll get it...but the fact is we already do that.

Children contractually sold? Can't. Why not? I don't own my child. I am a steward of them...charged with raising them and providing them with shelter and the skills, morals, or ethics needed to compete in the world. Your problem with me is that you don't agree with what morals or ethics I may teach. But see...as a "card carrying" Libertarian my first lessons have a lot in common with yours: Don't take what isn't yours. Don't harm anyone.

It's my last one that scares you: You don't have to share if you don't want to.

Thus endeth the lesson...that was a waste of my time. Why? Because if you are a Collectivist...even a baby one...you didn't get it.

Ha, thanks usc. That was perfect. :-)

Golly, usc, you didn't say what to do about the crack mother, the government, and the use of force. Interesting start, though. Why don't I own my children, by the way? And why do I get to tell them what to do? Is there any notion of legitimate parental authority? How does that fit into card-carrying libertarianism (which, I admit, may be something more than "mere libertarianism").


Oh, while you're at it, give a whirl to the "right to cut off your arm" one. I've always found that an interesting test of whether the ability to recognize a reductio is still alive or has been utterly destroyed. Oh, wait, sorry. I see the reference to self-mutilation. It's been destroyed. You do uphold a right to cut off your arm. Presumably in a wilderness somewhere that you personally own so as not to cause anyone else any trouble. What if your children then become a burden on the rest of us? Does that have any relevance?

Third, I do accept our American representative, republic, constitutional democracy in is essential form, and have never proposed that it be replaced with something else - only improved.

Well, my impression is, Jeff, yes and no. I guess it depends on what one means by "accept." Perhaps I'm exaggerating a few things, but my impression is that you really, really, really think representative government is problematic and suspect it probably always leads to disaster in the end and that we'd be better off without it. That doesn't necessarily mean you propose our getting rid of it, perhaps because of practical barriers. But I've gotten a very strong sense that you feel very suspicious of the whole form of government we were given from the outset of the country.

Lydia, I can see how some of what I have written over the years may have conveyed that impression, taken in isolation, but I would hope that there is enough context here at W4 to disabuse anyone of the idea that I reject the idea of a constitutional republic carte blanche, or even in its American incarnation. Yes, I'm suspicious of some of the ideological mischief behind our nation's founding, but certainly not "the whole form of government we were given". For the most part I just accept our inherited political tradition as a system that seems particularly suited to the temperament of the American people, and more often than not seems to work well enough. I probably concern myself more with its defects than its merits, and maybe that's something I need to work on. Is our system fatally flawed? Probably, but so is everything without a foundation in the Faith.

usc - troll, much?

JC, Lydia - please don't be fooled by this guy.

Bringing in the "children" shows you are beyond hope. You will enslave your own children to your Collective...so why wouldn't you enslave mine?

Children using drugs? Can't. They aren't adults. They don't have the capacity for that judgment yet.....Children contractually sold? Can't. Why not? I don't own my child. I am a steward of them...charged with raising them and providing them with shelter and the skills, morals, or ethics needed to compete in the world.

Ugh. Usc, did you intend to be that contradictory?

Who "charged" you with raising your children? I hope not the "Collective". If they did, that was slavery. Was it God? Then when did God hand over to the Collective the right to enforce that charge? That was slavery.

And when you are raising that child, telling him he cannot use drugs, you are "enslaving him to your Collective," as you put it. You CANNOT "raise" a child "providing him with morals" without instilling a respect for your own understanding of how society does, or ought to, work. Which is just what you object to about enslaving a child to your collective.

As I said, libertarians in general cannot deal with children without falling into problems. Anarcho-libertarians tend to be the worst of all, for they tend to either totally eschew any parental obligations toward children (and thus become moral monsters) or they become so blatantly illogical that they fall into pure incoherence and shrill screeching.

@JC: "there's a libertarian think-tank on every corner in D.C."

Really, Jeff - are you not ashamed to say such things?

1. My body is my property and I decide what happens to it. And no one else can own it without me selling it. And yes...I can sell it...it's mine.

True, but the brain is severely damaged. I'll give you five bucks, and that's a generous offer.

Gerry, I have to be honest with you that I hate fuzzy denials of "basic goodness." ...Honestly, I think "basic goodness" is hopelessly vague and I detest such statements as saying nothing definite.

Mark, I confess that I do not see the vagueness you refer to. That evil exists, is virtually universally acknowledged because it is evident through experience and the only way to deny it is to deny the reality of the experiential world. Where does this evil come from?

The Christian answer, is that it comes from people. God created man good, man fell from his created estate into Original Sin, and out of his fallen nature specific sins are born, producing the evil we see in the world around us, and in ourselves if we are honest about our own nature.

There is a similar, although not identical, view of evil in certain traditions coming down to us from Greece and Rome. Greek pagan theology, beginning with Hesiod, had its own version of "the Fall of man" and the tradition of Greek tragedy famously presented the suffering of Greek heroes as arising out of flaws in their own character.

Classical liberalism began with social contract theory, and while the first major statement of this (Hobbes' Leviathan) was not inconsistent with the above view of human nature as fatally flawed, subsequent versions were. This is where liberalism's concept of man's basic, or innate, goodness began. If evil comes from a fatal flaw in man's character, resulting from the Fall and Original Sin, then it cannot be eliminated through social and political means. Liberalism, which wishes to better man's conditions, found this doctrine difficult to accept and so denied it, but as a result had to look for other explanations for experiential evil, causes of evil which could be eliminated through social and political programs. They have been looking ever since as their programs have failed every single time.

You are right that there are huge differences between classical liberalism and what is called liberalism in North America today. There is also, however, continuity between the two which arises out of liberalism's basic understanding of human nature, evil, and history. The classical liberals, looking for causes of evil that were external to human nature, blamed the traditional order of society. As the liberal project gradually succeeded in replacing that traditional order, without any lessening of human evil, other social and systematic causes of evil had to be identified. The state came to be increasingly regarded as the instrument for social progress.

~~The question isn't whether people are "basically good"~~

In one sense it's the only question, and represents a foundational difference between liberalism and conservatism: which is correct, the classical/Christian view of man as fundamentally flawed, or the Rousseauian/Enlightenment view of man as fundamentally good and perfectable?

Rob: If it's an important question, then it should have a clear meaning, and I don't think it does when expressed as "basic goodness." I take it for granted that the Enlightenment view is an excess, and wrong. But then why don't we just refer to the Enlightenment view of man as to his perfectibility like in the good old days? Isn't that more specific and precise? What good does it do for serious people to use such an ambiguous and "could mean anything" expression? What does "basic" mean, and if there isn't any how does that fit with the Reformation principle of Common Grace? Does that involve no goodness that could be called "basic"? I would think so.

Gerry, what authors do you think represent "classical liberalism" as such? I think some people think of classical liberalism as a kind of humanism that is capable of either being secular (or at least not relying on God for anything critical in the human order), or being a kind of religious humanism that accepts the traditional meaning of Christianity and the need for an ordering principle above the state. That is, they would say that the "classical" kind of liberalism is not fully determined in the way you seem to think it is.

If evil comes from a fatal flaw in man's character, resulting from the Fall and Original Sin, then it cannot be eliminated through social and political means.

Gerry: I deny that classical liberalism held that evil can be eliminated from man's character. This just isn't so. Some people have always thought that. The mistake of confusing knowledge for virtue is quite ancient.

You are right that there are huge differences between classical liberalism and what is called liberalism in North America today. There is also, however, continuity between the two which arises out of liberalism's basic understanding of human nature, evil, and history.

"There is . . . continuity between the two"? Deliciously ambiguous. If something bad or less good follows, for whatever reason, something good, we must consider the original good bad? Isn't doing right, or believing rightly, a matter of steering between two extremes? What alternative is there? I sometimes burn my toast, should I then give up toasting bread because one follows the other? In what kind of alternative universe is this a good way to evaluate anything? Is it true or not, that nothing should be judged by its abuse?

And why the passive voice? "There is . . . continuity"? From your statement above, it isn't clear to me you have a handle on what classical liberalism is. You need to argue this directly, not offer FUD that causal connections you aren't prepared to argue for exist.

Look, the world has been on a cycle from tyranny to liberalism and back again since dirt. What is the alternative? What system in this fallen world cannot degrade, and also cannot be reinvigorated if providence allows a state of affairs where virtuous people to determine to reform it to its core principles? Why must it be so that the core principles were crap to begin with? If you think they are, then let's debate that, but let's not fall into thinking insinuating some form of "continuity" is that discussion. It isn't.

I have to say that I do think the "basic goodness" presumption can be a huge problem. . . . I'm not sure that I would connect this with "classical liberalism,"

If it is taken to mean what you defined "basic goodness" to mean, then I agree 100%. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but in a forum where classical liberalism and Liberalism are often conflated, frequently intentionally, I don't think we're dealing with a shared term anymore and communication using that term isn't fruitful. And there's the issue of Common Grace, what we take that to be.

Jeff @ 9:32 p.m. yesterday:

(1) why just these functions and not others? different libertarians would give different answers. I don't think there's any single "set of cultural assumptions" they all share.

Btw - if I fight back against a jihadist who's trying to kill me, in the name of his religion, am I thereby "imposing" my "cultural assumptions" upon him?

(2) oh, nothing special - I'd like to see police protection for all against murder, assault, robbery, burglary...that sort of thing. so what's the problem?

does this involve "imposing" my worldview on murderers, assailants, robbers, burglars &c? I suppose you could try to make that case.

(3) again, nothing special. just the usual sort of contracts. why do you ask?

does libertarianism exclude particular worldviews? sure. For example, it excludes the worldview of those who would burn their theological opponents at the stake. does that make it "just as paternalistic as any other" worldview? again, sure - if you've got a really impoverished & morally trivial notion of paternalism.

OK, I have to start getting ready for class tomorrow, so I'll be out of the building - but, before I go, I'd just like to ask people to stop feeding usc. I don't like consoring comments, but I'm right on the edge of deleting him along with anybody replying to him.

again, nothing special. just the usual sort of contracts. why do you ask?

Well, because there are a lot of contracts that I, for one, would say shouldn't be enforced. So I think myself that enforcement of contracts may be a good place to start exploring disagreements even with mere libertarianism. For example, I'm sure we'd disagree if a prostitute didn't get paid and went to small-claims court to enforce the contract. I say it shouldn't be enforced because bodies aren't the sorts of things one should be selling. Presumably the mere libertarian would think it should be enforced. Or suppose that Joe signs a contract to sell his kidney to Bill and then reneges. Under the contract, let's say, that would trigger some sort of large forfeiture of Joe's assets to Bill. I say a court shouldn't enforce that, because kidneys aren't the sorts of things Joe should be selling to Bill. Presumably the mere libertarian would say it should be enforced.

We can get even more bizarre: Joe contracts that Jack can burn him at the stake for fun in return for large amounts of money given to Joe's not-terribly-rich family after Joe's death. Joe backs out, thus triggering a forfeiture clause in the contract. Should the court enforce a lien on Joe's house because he backed out of being burned at the stake for Jack's pleasure?

And so on and so forth.

Steve, usc is a bona fide libertarian. Go to his link and read a few of his blog entries. If he's pulling a hoax, it's a pretty elaborate one. Moreover he has manned-up and provided what his belief demands: a philosophy, which looks pretty much like the "cult" of property and the individual that you dismissed earlier. Congrats to him.

Jeff Culbreath,

If you think a contemporary innovation is our "cultural heritage" you use the word "heritage" differently than I do and I guess than most people do.

I was born before the Great Society and my father was born before the New Deal so I reckon those things are not a part of my cultural heritage. They are certainly not traditions handed down to us nor something we adults inherited. As an American my cultural heritage is liberalism (especially the old-fashioned liberalism that resembles Steve Burton's mere libertarianism). As a Western Christian my cultural heritage is quite different than liberalism but the princes who governed my cultural ancestors did so in a way that was effectively or practically "libertarian" by our standards. So I don't understand why something like "mere libertarianism" isn't the de facto or default position at least in America (my ancestors weren't from Prussia, either).

I wonder if it would be less confusing to just call "anarcho-libertarians" "anarchists?"

Steve, non-government entities can be busybodies, bullies, and nags too. E.g. the leftist media & the $PLC.

Jeff C., I think that it's pretty easy to come up with reasons to think that FDR's and LBJ's vast expansion of government power was a bad idea. It's also unconstitutional for those of us who take the 10th amendment seriously. And it has led to that expansion of power beyond the dreams of kings that you sometimes seem to deplore and sometimes seem to accept and to want only to use in good ways. Heck, I saw a 3-minute discussion of why Medicare (I think it was) is a bad idea by Ronald Reagan from umpteen years ago that was pretty darned cogent. It seems to me that the bigger and much harder question is, "Now that our society is all messed up by these programs and addicted to them, as to a drug, what can we do next?" There, those conservative think-tanks you seem to deplore can be especially helpful.

In any event, Jeff, I have to say that your negative comments about "libertarian think-tanks on every corner" in DC and about their supposedly knowing that they need to "explain themselves" because ostensibly our sclerotic and vast government programs are part of their "heritage" seem to me to be a great deal more critical than the neutral idea you expressed later. If you agreed with, say, me in your negative evaluation of social security (to pick just one example), I don't think you would have spoken in those terms to begin with. You might even welcome the existence of libertarian think-tanks as helping people to think outside of the box in which they have been raised to assume that the government will take care of everything.

Steve P., see my comments above about contracts and grossly negligent mothers as to why "mere libertarianism" is probably too minimal. I view something like "mere libertarianism" as a place to start but not a place to end. That is to say, I think movements to have government powers beyond that do need to be justified, but actually the "mere" is _so_ "mere" that it's pretty easy to justify those greater powers in quite a number of directions.

"Quite true, but allow me to propose a place where these two tendencies might be reconciled without having to oppose them"

I agree, Jeff. I don't think the two tendencies (individualism and communitarianism) exist in what might be called "fatal" opposition, i.e., in the sense that they cannot be harmonized. But I do think that it takes a conscious effort to reconcile them, given their inherent nature to pull in opposite directions, and that left unchecked one side will devour the other.

Would you say that the "classical liberalism" vs. "liberalism" distinction has something to do with the fact that the former is rooted more in Scottish/English Enlightenment thought, while modern liberalism tends to be more French/Rousseauian in character? It seems to me that American conservativism (using the term loosely) has expressed much more favorable sentiment towards Scottish Enlightenment thought than they have towards the French.

Steve P. - There is a difference between a heritage and an inheritance. I've used both terms, but not interchangeably.

Lydia - My (obviously hyperbolic) remark about libertarian think-tanks was not entirely critical. I wish there more traditionalist think-tanks. The point, for Steve, was that libertarianism comes with a set of cultural assumptions, that it requires a philosophical defense, and that most libertarians obviously understand that. I guess Steve has every right to hold libertarian views without a serious underlying philosophy, but that means that the conversation is over and we have nothing more to discuss.

Unlike a good many American conservatives, I don't have a complete organized schema figured out delineating what government should and shouldn't do. I find that kind of thing beyond my competence and, frankly, I think it is beyond the competence of most who pronounce upon it. That makes my political science look kind of wishy-washy in the eyes of some, but there you go. I think FDR and LBJ went far beyond the Constitution, creating a crisis of constitutional order from which we have yet to recover, but as you know I really can't work up any ideological government=bad/business=good outrage over things like Social Security and Medicare.

If I were President with dictatorial powers my first few acts would thrill libertarians. Departments would be abolished, regulations axed, spending slashed. But the honeymoon wouldn't last long. :-)

Would you say that the "classical liberalism" vs. "liberalism" distinction has something to do with the fact that the former is rooted more in Scottish/English Enlightenment thought, while modern liberalism tends to be more French/Rousseauian in character? It seems to me that American conservativism (using the term loosely) has expressed much more favorable sentiment towards Scottish Enlightenment thought than they have towards the French.

That sounds right to me, Rob. American conservatism is very Scotch-Irish ethnically and English-enlightenment culturally.

Would you say that the "classical liberalism" vs. "liberalism" distinction has something to do with the fact that the former is rooted more in Scottish/English Enlightenment thought, while modern liberalism tends to be more French/Rousseauian in character?

That strikes a chord, but I would hesitate to say that this classical liberalism is to be essentially drafted with Scottish / English Enlightenment thinkers. For example, St. Robert Bellarmine - at the rise of the absolute monarchy theories - wrote some really critical essays advancing the notion of limited government and the role of the governed. His works were, interestingly, found in the libraries of Jefferson and Madison. Certainly I agree that there is notable difference between Rousseauian ideas and those of Madison. Insofar as we have a specific political heritage, I thank God that ours rests with Madison rather than Rousseau.

Gerry, what authors do you think represent "classical liberalism" as such? I think some people think of classical liberalism as a kind of humanism that is capable of either being secular (or at least not relying on God for anything critical in the human order), or being a kind of religious humanism that accepts the traditional meaning of Christianity and the need for an ordering principle above the state. That is, they would say that the "classical" kind of liberalism is not fully determined in the way you seem to think it is.

Tony, it was in the 19th century that the term "liberal" began to be widely applied to a particular set of political beliefs. The term "classical liberal" is a 20th/21st century expression, coined by people who regard themselves as the true heirs of 19th century liberalism, to distinguish it from 20th/21st century liberalism. "Classical liberalism" then, is liberalism as it was when the term first took on a modern political connotation. That liberalism, was the movement arising out of the "Enlightenment", particularly the Scottish Enlightenment, that sought to establish a contractual society, of free and equal individuals, freed through education from the chains of "superstition", i.e., traditional Christianity, to walk in the light of reason, under a minimal state whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. The obvious representatives of this tradition are John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and the Mills.

The concept of "classical liberalism" is a construct of 20th century libertarianism. The movement described above is only a small part of a much larger "modern" tradition that goes back as far as Renaissance humanism. The purpose of the construction was and is to delegitimize contemporary liberalism, to write it out of the liberal tradition. Men like Mises, Hayek and Friedman, who regarded minarchism and free-market capitalism as essential to true liberalism, began speaking of "classical liberalism" in order to brand 20th century liberals who believed that action on the part of a democratic state could be means to liberal ends as heretics.

The concept of "classical liberalism" is a construct of 20th century libertarianism. The movement described above is only a small part of a much larger "modern" tradition that goes back as far as Renaissance humanism. The purpose of the construction was and is to delegitimize contemporary liberalism, to write it out of the liberal tradition. Men like Mises, Hayek and Friedman, who regarded minarchism and free-market capitalism as essential to true liberalism, began speaking of "classical liberalism" in order to brand 20th century liberals who believed that action on the part of a democratic state could be means to liberal ends as heretics.

I am not sure that I agree with your characterization. First, it seems that there are earlier men who thought, like Mises and Hayek, that essential to a free society was a very strongly free-market system: Frederick Bastiat, for example. Who also opposed the trending descent of so-called liberal societies to a nanny-temperment overriding the free market, even as early as 1840. Secondly, it seems to me that the recent uses of the expression "classical liberalism" look not only to the early modern tradition of the renaissance humanism (and its progeny), but also to precursors to that, such as the fostering of the "liberal arts" in a "liberal education" in the schools as far back as the universities existed, because the liberal education is the education of the free man, who is the exemplar citizen of a free society. "True" liberalism would, therefore, refer as much to "the truth to the extent that it ever subsisted in 'liberalism' because it adapted the truths of liberating principles wherever they are found." Classical liberalism - to the extent that it is a 20th century construct - is perhaps intended to refer to the true principles of liberty as they could have been derived from valid origins in classical teaching and are partly, but ONLY partly, to be found in early liberals such as Locke. I don't think it is meant to refer to a 20th century "restored" model of Locke's teaching, as if the 20th century "classical liberals" thought Locke got it just right and the later guys corrupted his theory. At least that's my sense.

Sounds quite right, Tony.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.